User talk:Dahn/Archive 58

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DYK for Kogălniceanu family[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mihail Kogălniceanu[edit]

Felicitări, articolul a primit statutul. Dacă nu te superi as mai propune cateva articole scrise de tine.Ionutzmovie (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Good Article Barnstar
For your efforts in promoting Mihail Kogălniceanu to GA. Your hard work needs to be rewarded! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Good Article Barnstar
Thanks Dahn for helping to promote Mihail Kogălniceanu to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year[edit]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If This Is/is a Man[edit]

Hello Dahn. I noticed that on 21 April 2006 you made this edit, slightly altering the title of If This Is a Man, capitalising the "is". I wondered if you had a particular reason for doing that? Even if you didn't have a particular reason, your account would be a very interesting addition to the current debate about whether to move the article back. Exok (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alegeri generale în România, 1946 la ro:wiki[edit]

Salut, stiu ca discutia de aici a avut loc in 2007, dar vreau sa te intreb daca ai la dispozitie citatele in romana si in cazul acesta daca le poti scrie sau scana si le scriu eu, sau daca se gasesc undeva pe internet. Multumesc.Ionutzmovie (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Le-am trecut aici.Ionutzmovie (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your point?[edit]

I see you're quietly following this in the background. I did not quite understand what you meant?Dapiks (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, wow I thought this is still going on. CodrinB just reposted his request on the 24th so I thought there was a second request in force now that's why I posted that. Dapiks (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe the thing to do, the one that admins would probably like best, is if you were to revert yourself over there. Note: I'm not commenting on the posts, but probably any post coming upon closure would be taken in as bad practice. Like Illythr says below: admins seem to be annoyed that this sterile topic still gets pinged. Dahn (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I deleted my own post - I really thought the second request was still under review.Dapiks (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, check dis out: CodrinB only notified those who were in some sort of conflict with Anonimu or had something negative to say about him in the first ArbComm request. It so happens, that many Wikipedia users find this kind of canvassing disgusting and, after taking note of it, may take steps to prevent it in the future. Then again, you've managed to annoy the ArbComm admins enough, so the next request may entail some sort of action against the filing party, for reasons mentioned in WP:PETARD, without any need for further input. --illythr (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, man, it's always good to be in a powwow with you. I tend to stray away from Moldova subjects (and any given topic then and now), so I'm losing the chance of bumping into you as often as I would like. On one hand, it's good that we still find each other on wikipedia, but I so wish it weren't always about untying the leftover Gordian knots of some in-universe nationalism or another. I tell you, the kids these days...
Thank you for the links, but you're right to say that this topic is more the subject of admin annoyance than anything. I'm not gonna pursue it unless Codrinb really wants me to (and makes me). If that ever happens, I would rather not comment on the subject outside of a potential centralized and entirely public discussion. I don't hold much hope that Codrinb will mend his ways, I would rather have him out of my hair for the time being; but Dapiks/Constantzeanu was improving, which is why I thought I'd let him know that he's on a slippery slope.
Anyways, how have you been? Dahn (talk)
Actually, the post was intended for Constantzeanu, probably a way of demonstrating the conspiracy/hive mind we (you and I, that is) seem to share. And yeah, for exactly that reason. It took me several minutes to realize that you've already answered that on the other talk page. Derp.
As for me, I've become rather inactive on enwiki, what with the nationalist wars dying down (in the articles I still watch, at least), and my presence in the afflicted articles being reactive from day one. Ruwiki, on the other hand, has an excellent way of randomizing my presence there by means of the "error reporting" page, where non-editors can complain about errors in articles, which doubles as a source of onwiki amusement (people regularly complain about the things we have articles about, such as software, politics, modern science and the world sucking in general, despite at least three huge warnings asking them not to do that). --illythr (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can always restart the nationalist wars if you want? Just kidding :) Dapiks (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Ah, okay, it was the edit summary that got me confused. It may have been a glitch in the force field that our brains share.
If a nationalist war is what it takes for us to exchange thoughts, I'm so starting one. What will it be: moving Siege of Kamenets to Siege of Kamianets-Podilskyi? a lively essay on what Romanian bloggers have to say about the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn? an article about how Russians in Moldova (WHY is this a stub?) have developed unique ethnic characteristics and are now mostly like the Romanians?
Ruwiki sound a lot like Rowiki, except there they seem to really want to publish the rants on why things suck (ro:Dezmembrarea României după 1989 etc.)... Dahn (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ro:Dezmembrarea României după 1989 made it into an article?
For our new nationalist war I propose we take it up a notch and move even beyond Romanian-Moldovan-Russian issues. A see great potential for a truly brutal nationalist war on the topic of the Banaban independence movement from the Imperial oppressive government of Kiribati. I call the Kiribati side. Dapiks (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There we go again. It's all nice and civil, then somebody mentions the Banaban freedom struggle, and there goes the neighborhood. If there's anything I've learned about Illythr, it's that he's anti-Kiribati to the core. One of the most serious Banabophiles there are. You watch now. Dahn (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ Dapiks: Nah, turns out it gets kinda stale after the first year or so.
Ok Illythr, I just thought we might move our wars somewhere at least nice and warm but I can do the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn - it's closer to home anyway. So wait, you are the advisor of the fascist Estonian government? Keeping with our previous roles as opponents, however, I can't take that side then. I will be the KGB-paid agent, sympathiser of the 5th column and member of the occupation. Dahn, I will see you in the Russians in Estonia article where I will try to push the number as high as I can, citing census results from 1989. In any case, cheers to you both. See you around here hopefully!Dapiks (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, my main ideological modus operandi on enwiki and ruwiki is mirror opposite - i.e., here I'm the paid Stalinist KGB agent, there I'm the rabid Romanian/Polish/Baltic Russophobe. The only place I crossed the line on enwiki was the Katyn massacre article (had to step in due to the topic ban of many Polish editors there), so I suppose it'd be okay if you read up on Yuri Mukhin (Russia's leading expert on the US faking of the Moon landing, Stalin's (and Lysenko's) clear name being smeared by various dirty Jews, and Einstein being an illiterate moron (an American AND a Jew, how can't he be?)) and propose the demotion of that article because it promotes Nazi propaganda and doesn't say how those evil Poles totally deserved it, not that the glorious NKVD did it of course. --illythr (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ Dahn: Huh, at least in Ruwiki, this is mainly localized to the error reporting page and the Incubator: namespace, where most of that crap is reverted or rots away by itself. Ruwiki is actually a lot better than enwiki in this one aspect, because it's got two great "lightning rods": Non-Russian nationalists can't or won't write in Russian and prefer enwiki to spread the plague, whereas Russian nationalists were summarily banned by the bloody admin gebnya several years ago and founded a kind of Russian Conservapedia, which serves the dual purpose of attracting nationalists and being a great source of lulz, just like its Eagle-Land counterpart. Too bad the pseudoscience crazies didn't follow suit, as various fringe theories seem to be the ruwiki plague, currently.
Actually, the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn looks like a great place to pick a fight, as my edits in the Ruwiki version have already garnered me a lofty title of an advisor of the [fascist, duh] Estonian government. Another great topic would be the ongoing European occupation of the Americas: Not only did those filthy European barbarians never learn a native language or ten of the region, they actually called the whole place in honor of one of their own, and built McDonalds' all over the place. Gah!
Oh, Rowiki is often its own Metapedia (I think that one spells it out more clearly than Conservapedia). I think I once bumped into the Ruwiki for disgruntled "patriots" - it looked like a mix of shamanism and antisemitism to me. For comparison, the spinoff from Rowiki is mainly stupid, rather than aggressive - it doesn't as much advertise conspiracy theories, it rather does the whitewashing and the Whiggishness of historic primers. It's yucky, but Rowiki can get yuckier.
Russia seems to me like one of those postmodern countries where fascists accuse others of being fascist. Btw, does it seem to you like no one cares about Orwell anymore? (I know, I hate Vespucci as much as the next guy, but it so works when you add "Russian" in front of it. Try it.) Dahn (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hush, there's the election of Putin underway, don't distract people from expressing their love with your unpatriotic nonsense! BTW, it's called "Washington[sky] Obkom."
On a slightly more serious note, this "fascist" thing comes from the fact that the term "Nazism" was virtually absent in Soviet literature (what with it being national socialism) and "fascist" was used in its place, so "Nazi Germany" is "Fascist Germany" in Russian. Thus, no problem for extreme nationalists/etatists etc to call people they don't like "fascists", especially since the word gained the same "bogeyman" quality "nazi" has in English. Not to mention that ideologies tend to degenerate when struck by harsh reality (lines 3 and 4, specifically). --illythr (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
<checks gas bill>Erm,</checks gas bill> forget anything I said. Vote Putin!
I bet "fascist" was also convenient because you could/can stretch it to cover Horthy, Franco, Gen. Chiang and, oh, them. (The cartoon shows that the more things change, the more they stay the same - I'm amazed that either skins or antifas are still relevant anywhere on this planet...) Dahn (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Those edit summaries kinda/sorta compensated for the fact that I was using your talk page to talk to another user. :-) --illythr (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying I had sound reason to be confused, just that I was confused. :) Dahn (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is, what does Banaba think about Her Britannic Majesty? Upon independence in 1979, Kiribati took the dreadful step of becoming a republic. Fiji has been a republic since that memorable series of coups in 1987, but the Queen is still supreme tribal chief, having been presented by tribal chieftains with the tooth of a sperm whale (a traditional sign of profound respect), Her effigy is still displayed on Fiji's currency, the St Edward's Crown still forms part of the badges of the military and the police, the Queen's Birthday remains a public holiday, the national motto remains "Fear God and honour the Queen", the flag still includes the Union Jack, and the country's coat of arms still features St George's Cross. As well, the excellent Commodore Frank Bainimarama, off-and-on dictator of Fiji for some years, displays portraits of the Queen and Prince Philip above his office desk. And She is popular with the Fijian people.
I see a nice opportunity for the Queen here. Recently, Jamaicans elected a treasonous government that has vowed to establish a republic this year. Of course, the thing to do would be for Her Governor-General to withhold Royal Assent on any republic Bill: he did, after all, swear that he "will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, in the office of Governor-General", so his oath demands that of him. Barring that, a Royal Navy gunboat or two in Kingston harbor should do the trick. But, thinking in terms of realpolitik, She might also do a deal with the perfidious Jamaicans: "i'll let you have your republic, if you convince Banaba to become a Commonwealth Realm upon independence". That would rid Her of Her ungrateful Jamaican subjects, and maintain the number of countries where She reigns at sixteen. - Biruitorul Talk 19:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Ioan C. Filitti, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Triple Alliance, National Liberal Party and Negru Vodă (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friend[edit]

Hello dear friend, how's it going? What new books have you read lately? I'd like to recommend you Lord Jim, in case you're not familiar with it. Yes, the book, not the despicable individual that you're thinking about; although now that you mentioned him, I do see the recognizable traits between the fictional character and the demon. I take it you've been following the Oscars. Or have you, in the style of Woody Allen, 'ignored' them? I'm certain The Artist will fall to your taste. Until next time, your friend, Defetistul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.52.15.110 (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We agree for once: nobody can hold a candle to Conrad, and The Artist is a grand experiment. Dahn (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ioan C. Filitti[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 17:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't mention it. I think Filitti is GA material... – Lionel (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Urgent[edit]

I'm afraid I'm not an admin and can't edit anything in the actual queue, the only parts I can edit is the prep area. If you post this on the talk page at DYK though an admin will sort it. Alternatively you might want to try some of the DYK admins such as Casliber. Miyagawa (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Sure, once its finished on the front page then it will revert in a couple of days. I just squared it up so that it will appear larger on the front page. You could rename the DYK image and leave the original in the article Victuallers (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles (stock character) and your response to the DYK nomination[edit]

Thanks for your helpful responses to this article. (I wish I had seen them before the hook was so far advanced in the queue!) I see clearly now how my own judgments are shadowing the "Gilles and Pierrot" section, and so I have revised the last paragraph of that section (with which you find particular fault) to read as follows:

As Francis Haskell has pointed out (and the remarks above imply), not only did Gilles "wear the same costume" as Pierrot, but both generally "had the same character" throughout the 18th century: Pierrot, like Gilles, "was a farcical creature, not a tragic or sensitive one".[35] (Pierrot will become tearful and tragic only in the middle of the 19th century, in the hands of Paul Legrand.)[36] "It is", writes Haskell, "hard to resist the conclusion that the consumptive Watteau has invested the figure of Gilles with some degree of self-identification, and Mrs. Panofsky has also pointed out that on many other occasions when painting Pierrot figures Watteau not only gave them a predominance which was absolutely not justified by the nature of the parts they were called upon to act, but may even have hinted at something Christ-like in their role."[35] As Haskell seems to be implying, there may be at least as much Watteau as either Gilles or Pierrot in the portrait.

The hook was unfortunate. My original wording of it made it clear that "Gilles" was attached to the figure of the painting for "almost three centuries" of its history (only at the end of the 20th century has that name been called into question). When I was asked to shorten the wording, I fell back on the assumption that anybody who knows anything about the painting at all would know that "traditionally" it has been regarded to be a portrait of Gilles. I don't know what you mean by saying that the article "does cite authors who will say that it [the painting] is probably more of Gilles than Pierrot ...": the only author cited, Haskell, states clearly that both Gilles and Pierrot wore the same costume and had the same character, thereby implying that the argument that Watteau's figure is one or the other is moot.

That the portrait is "poignant" is widely repeated in the art-history literature, but I will footnote it to ensure it's not confused with an opinion of my own.

I have scoured the rest of the article carefully and can find no other unreferenced remarks. I hope these changes (which will be made if you approve) are sufficient to remove the scare-tags. If they are not, please elaborate and I will revise accordingly. Thanks for your help and attention. (I have also left this note on the DYK talk page.) Beebuk 08:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you from Gilles[edit]

Yes, I have removed the "quibbling" remark—you're right, it doesn't belong—and have also removed (or changed) your other highlighted passages. When I make the changes in the article, I'll remove the tags. And not to worry about your exasperated tone: I was once a teacher and fully understand what a day in the trenches can be like. Best--Beebuk 13:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Petre P. Carp[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stress (only phonetic, hopefully)[edit]

I'm ashamed to admit that for some of those names I'm having trouble with the stress position. Finding sources on that seems close to impossible: Google Books doesn't give me access to any of the very few Romanian name dictionaries, YouTube rarely has videos of cultural relevance, and there is nobody around me that I can ask.

So, do you know how to stress them? I'm talking about choosing between these variants:

  • Batzária / Batzaría
  • Filítti / Filittí
  • Saniélevici / Sanielévici

I do pronounce them in a certain way, but I need confirmation. — AdiJapan 07:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Henric Sanielevici, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nativism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precious[edit]

Romanian topics
Thank you for the broad and profound coverage of Romanian themes and people, sharpening our perspective, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeky monkey. I gave you a barnstar previously, am I not a good a contributor?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe I was kidding LOL, but I saw your note to Gerda which implied you'd never been given a barnstar from anybody decent before!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW have you ever considered putting several of your article s about for GA. You've got lots of gems.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm I think it was Yellow Monkey who did the DYK list for me and he's no longer here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got 114 DYKS its on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs now. Please remember to update the tally whenenever you have a DYK published.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ssd Peterslower49 (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Bacalbaşa[edit]

Despite our differences, I wanted to congratulate you for the Anton Bacalbaşa article. It is very well written and I enjoyed reading it. Maybe the lead is a little too long or could be broken down, but the rest is just great. An image like this would look better, but don't know who made the painting or how old it is. Sincerely --Codrin.B (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my page. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The legion of the condemned[edit]

I've put in 7 AfDs; see my recent edits and fire away at will. I decided against "Dorin N Poenaru" because there's at least a chance he passes WP:PROF, but one does wonder why his article is under that title if his name is "Dorin Mircea Stelian Poenaru". N for Nuclear, perhaps? I've left the Lady of Liège to your discretion. Ah, and heh. - Biruitorul Talk 01:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's {{subst:afdx|2nd}}, I do believe. Also, since you're far more of a music guy than I am (at least for music not of the variety of Catana, who now humbly agrees we should delete not only his article but also his facebook fan page (!)): your thoughts on Octave Octavian Teodorescu? - Biruitorul Talk 16:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're a good and loyal squire, Bier. don't let anyone tell you otherwise! :) Defetistul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.52.15.110 (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a good week: about to have done with Boros, at least, after almost 3 years; echoes of the astounding DYK record still reverberating; discovery of a great quote: "trebuie să demascăm fără cruţare pe duşmanii ştiinţei şi pe slugile fostului regim burghezo-moşieresc" (sounds like a fun guy); and a vote beginning "rubbish", which is a sure sign of a weak case. - Biruitorul Talk 04:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you're ready, I eagerly look forward to it. There still are some glaring Red links (get it?): Alexandru Bârlădeanu, Emil Bobu, Alexandru Drăghici, Alexandru Moghioroş, Paul Niculescu-Mizil (at least his descendant is now in), Leonte Răutu, Leontin Sălăjan.
Meanwhile, Armanca, Plugaru and Prvacki (that "Serbian-Romanian-Singaporean", perhaps the only one of her kind) have been drafted into the Legion, and hopefully it's lights out for Lights Out!
I'm thinking about Pucă and Hârtopeanu as well; where would you guess they fall on the notability scale? - Biruitorul Talk 17:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy! Have you formally returned from your break? Before I start to throw anything at you, allow me to send my warm Paschal greetings in this luminous season. - Biruitorul Talk 16:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enticing, to say the least. Let me start with something lighthearted, the funny things about "Sirnea":
a) The whimsical omission of the diacritic.
b) The inclusion of the "communes" template and of Category:Communes in Braşov County despite its not being, well, a commune.
c) "During the Second World War it was transferred back to Hungary, but returned to Romania in 1945." I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Bran area never left Romania.
Now, the less funny part is that I gave the standard explanations, but the response was less than encouraging. What's plan B? Maybe the same arguments sound more convincing coming from you. Or perhaps a tedious merge proposal. Or we just resign ourselves to having it lie around indefinitely. - Biruitorul Talk 18:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say I have a partial claim to Petrovicescu, but be that as it may, I too noticed the contrast. I suppose it's true for any of the great ministries: the pre-war statesmen with their doctorates from France and Germany (a generalization, to be sure) versus the apparatchiks whose main quality was the ability to follow orders, and who rarely went beyond primary school. (And those who did - Patrascanu, Miron Constantinescu, even our friend Rolea, ended up marginalized or worse.) Oh, and let's not forget this guy who, although not a mass murderer as far as we know, does bear a passing resemblance to one currently on trial. Speaking of which, this feels a lot like the spring of 2000, the calm before the storm, the PDL about to suffer a PNŢCD-style meltdown. As an ardent PNL supporter and antonescian (Crin, I hope), if nothing else for the unintentional (?) hilarity of his statements, I must say I am pleased.
Frateanu, Arsene and Popescu are now up for AfD - the latter with the added benefit that it would open up the title for use by the man who was Interior Minister from 1941 to 1944, who probably has a greater claim to it anyway. - Biruitorul Talk 15:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and note Mihai Frățilă, Ioan Dragomir, Vasile Aftenie and especially Ioan Bălan - this is what happens when one puts ro.wiki articles through automatic translation. "the White County Down", indeed. Not to be confused with County Down! - Biruitorul Talk 18:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Brilliant intellectual" he may be, but Ungureanu has found out what Iorga did: that scientific aptitude does not usually translate into political skill. No ministry has been as short since that of Nicolae Rădescu (one hopes the parallels with 6 March 1945 end there, although this man also takes office on 7 May), and the last that was definitely shorter was that of Ion Gigurtu. Neither's is a record one might want to be associated with. One might blame any number of factors, but ultimately, it was Ungureanu who accepted the poisoned chalice of power without a popular mandate, and he who fumbled and paid the price.
"He would make a great leader, until it turns out he wouldn't/can't" isn't, of course, a phenomenon limited to Romania. Britain has a slew of them. Then there's François Bayrou, darling of bien pensants, who will never, ever be President of France because he's boring. And the American media just loves to come up with fantasy candidates (Wesley Clark, Mark Warner, Howard Dean, George Allen, Fred Thompson) who'll never set foot in the White House, other than as guests, because once they actually started seeking votes, as opposed to the press dreaming about it, things went very, very wrong. Perhaps it's too early to consign Ungureanu into the same category, but if he hopes to enter Cotroceni in 2014, he'll need more than a telephone call to do it.
And, back on topic, if you need a break from Pogor, those 3 AfDs above are still churning. - Biruitorul Talk 21:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps delator should be linked? Anyway, I find the "copyedit" a mess, at least the new section structure. - Biruitorul Talk 20:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm talking about! At this point, I'd say the major Red links are now filled: sure, there's Remus Koffler and Iosif Rangheţ and Sorin Toma and more, but somehow they worry me less than not having articles on Roller and Drăghici and Răutu — which we didn't, as recently as two months ago.
Don't let the mentally ill make you lose your cool: relish instead the vision of the authorities of the Kingdom of Sweden, having found them legally insane, leading them away in a straightjacket, bound for Beckomberga Hospital (which is closed, but anyway), to be confined there at His Majesty's pleasure. And do take part in a lovely new round of discussions.
On a more serious note, I'm trying to clear out Category:Romanian politicians by putting everyone in a subcategory, on the theory that no one is "just" a politician — one is a member of some party, a holder of some office, or something more specific. If Category:American politicians and Category:British politicians can be kept empty, so should this one. Now to the specifics. I'll ignore the hopefully to-be-deleted Dimitriu, which leaves 8.

Sounds good: the relevant categories have been created; Kogălniceanu, at least, goes into a couple of them. You did leave one behind: Nichita Smochină. Here's a thought for Ioan Străjescu, but also for Zamfir Arbore, Constantin Stere, Ion Pelivan and so on: how about something along the lines of Category:Ethnic Romanian politicians in Austria-Hungary? Perhaps Category:Ethnic Romanian politicians in the Russian Empire? Category:Politicians of the Bessarabia Governorate? Category:Bessarabian politicians in the Russian Empire? - Biruitorul Talk 18:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like it: three categories have now been started, one at least (ethnic Romanian politicians) ripe to be populated. Definitely something we can use.
On Kogălniceanu I did indeed take the easy ro.wiki route, but I also dug out an interesting tidbit. Have a look here, p.106-09, especially 109. It looks like he resigned his Moldavian ministry after being enmeshed in a Church-related scandal. As for how the ministry began, well, I can't do much more now than p.6 of the official Focșani newsletter... And as to what he did while in office: ?
Since my list of possible AfDs is growing, let me throw a few at you for evaluation:
Calin Georgescu: do we send to AfD or drastically trim?
Asociația Cuțu Cuțu, Alerta Rapire Copil
Mihaela Secrieru, Radu Pavel Gheo
Tatiana Niculescu Bran and Eugen Munteanu seem like they may be notable, but the former is in especially bad shape.
I also note that Daniela Filipescu made it to AfD before I could send it there.
Dumitru Popescu-Dumnezeu, really? How very... Marxist! - Biruitorul Talk 14:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings! Now that we're both back on board (it seems), I hope all is well with you. I have a rather exciting article from before my break, but may I direct your attention here and here, so we can hopefully resolve the issue and get it DYK'd? - Biruitorul Talk 23:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How goes it, fellow? Thoroughly aroused by coups and rumors of coups? I must say that with your presence rather sporadic (I hope due to no great personal crisis), the general IQ level seems to have dropped a few points around here. One need look no further than here or here for evidence. And as for this... - Biruitorul Talk 05:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Alexandru Al. Ioan Cuza[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Alexandru Al. Ioan Cuza at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Henric Sanielevici[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

100 DYK Medal[edit]

The 100 DYK Medal  
I hereby award you, Dahn, this 100 DYK Medal and congratulate you for the great accomplishment. Thanks for adding essential articles to Wikipedia on any subject related to Romanian literature and biography. You've shown yourself not only as a prolific writer, but also a gifted writer with the impressive contribution to Wikipedia. Thank you and keep up the good work!--♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A well-deserved accolade for Dahn de la Mancha! Wikipedia is his Dulcinea! :) Defetistul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.52.15.110 (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm the Don, but wikipedia is not my Dulcinea. My Dulcinea is a lovely girl of flesh and bone, and she has the heart of an elephant inside a rather tiny physique. Seriously, it beats like thunders. Dahn (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Anton Bacalbaşa[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYKs[edit]

I created User:Dahn/DYK for you. Please make sure you update it and add new DYKs to it and keep the tally on the DYK list page. I wouldn't normally bother creating such lists for people but you have a bank of quality articles in there most of which which should all be GAs really. Its strange that for such an editor who only creates such detailed articles and purely focuses on quality isn't interested in at least GA articles. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was a lovely message Dahn. Thankyou for that! It was nothing really, but I feel that you deserve for most of your articles to be listed amongst our good articles on here and would be happy to help you promote them or nominate them myself should you be willing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have about the same DYK tally as Todor Bozhinov actually! That's Romanian-Bulgarian competition for you eh! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan Federation indeed! I had already added your two recent DYKs so you have 121 not 123!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange to see that Swedish ip is such a fan of you. Plain weird in fact! I didn't realise me praising you would lead to that... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Alexandru Al. Ioan Cuza[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article[edit]

Hello dear Dahn.I don't want to ruin my health here and for that I deleted myself the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CristinaStroe72 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgehog[edit]

Hey bud, how's it going? I'd like to bring to your attention this book called The Elegance of the Hedgehog. I think you'd find it a worthy read. --Defetistul (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I almost forgot: yes, the author is a girl, but girls can write, too. You just have to be open-minded, it's all. Now check out this song. --Defetistul (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Glory[edit]

As a fellow Stalinist, I think this is a most appropriate recognition for your work on Mihail Roller, our spiritual forefather. Of all his hallowed generation — the Lucas, the Georgescus, the Chişinevschis, the Dejs, the Paukers, even the Răutus — he best understood the full meaning of Stalinist dogma, the highest fulfillment of human wisdom; he worked hardest to introduce his countrymen to that wisdom; and he perhaps paid most dearly for it. When he saw his lustrous vision fading away, it was only to be expected he would die of a broken heart. But his memory lives on in our lives, shining brightly, and with this article, a mass of Anglophones previously hidden away in a Platonic cave is sure to be converted to the Rollerite cause, their eyes opened to its cogency and its scientific allure. May you revel in this glory, may the souls of the revisionists never find rest, and may a new generation grow to cherish the precious teachings of Istoria R.P.R.

Alongside this award, I should also like to bestow upon you a fitting title that needs no further comment: Capataz de Cargadores. - Biruitorul Talk 03:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dahn, nice of you to sport the lentochka on your user page. It's a great way to honour the victors of fascism. Anonimu (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if the victors of fascism were Tukhachevsky and Rakovsky. Dahn (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defetistul[edit]

Hi Dahn, I just blocked Defetistul (talk · contribs), after he started an ANI thread involving you. Could you perhaps just quickly confirm which sockmaster this was a sock of? It seemed very clear there was some backstory here, which must be obvious to you, but I couldn't figure it out that quickly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dahn/Archive_58&oldid=1142953136"