Jump to content

Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dahn (talk | contribs) at 16:47, 23 July 2006 (→1919 Ro-Hu war). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Romanian Wikipedians' notice board

Welcome to the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board! This page is a portal for all Romanian-related topics and a place for Romanian editors - and editors interested in Romania-related articles - to gather and socialize and debate. Discussions are encouraged, in both English and Romanian. Post any inquiry under its relevant category.

Regional notice boards
Africa
Americas
Asia
Europe
Oceania
Languages
See also: WikiProject directory

Archive 1, Archive 2 Archive 3

News and announcements

1919 Ro-Hu war

Please see [1], [2], [3], [4] Greier 16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I have to say is that Romania had not "won the war". About the rest: I didn't really look into it, because I couldn't handle the old edits with a straight face after I read "neuter zone". Dahn 16:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Transylvania

I find the behaviour of User:Criztu on Talk:Transylvania and Transylvania unacceptable. I would like you all to check with the debate and explain to me how Critzu, who, as the only one opposing me so far, supports some narrow, irrelevant, and fallacious additions to the text (additions - he does not really object to the anything already in the article), can possibly use a tag that accuses me of "not being neutral". This, especially since he cannot point out how I would be partisan and of what, and since in reality his objections in the article do not seem to reflect anything neutral (he wants "a Romanian view" to feature more prominently, and hides behind the fact that "no Romanian editor would object to his version" - as if all Romanians ought to have the same opinion, and pretending not to notice that I too am Romanian!). Dahn 11:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No true Scotsman... - Jmabel | Talk 04:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Anittas

Anittas has asked me to post this link: It is now official (fact) that Moldavia is superior. I'm posting it, but I think this sort of thing is silly: it's reminds me of my late great-uncle Dave who used to send the family emails listing Jewish Nobel prize winners and the like. - Jmabel | Talk 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a comprehensive convention on articles about things in Romania should be deviced. currently I have a lot of issues with articles about Transylvania. with formulations that i consider revisionist propaganda. eg. "84.6% (276,106) of its population is ethnic Hungarian" followed by "Romanians concentrated in a few specific towns" instead of letting the NPOV demographic infobox inform the reader "Hungarians : 84.6, Romanians: 14.1%. or maybe I am wrong, and things have to be put the way they are put now. so, i would like to device a Template of how an article about an administrative division (then rulers) of Romania should look like, in an NPOV way. I cant edit articles about Romania infinately just because there is no convention on how an article of this sort should look like. While every one of us may have biases and POVs or insuficient experience, having a Template article for articles about Romania would make things more easy to settle. Criztu 13:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but how exactly is the statement that "84.6% (276,106) of its population is ethnic Hungarian" wrong? It's just a way of stating "Hungarians: 84.6%" in prose! There is absolutely no POV element in that sentence at all, particularly since the percentage of Romanians is also listed. Also, why is "Romanians concentrated in a few specific towns" wrong or misleading? It offers more information than just saying "Romanians: 15.4%" because it shows their distribution, and the fact that although Romanians are a minority in the county, they form a majority in a number of localities. The fact is that most localities in the county have a percentage of Hungarians above 84.6%. Since Wikipedia is not a statistical database, there is no mathematical convention on this issue. Each articles doesn't have to look exactly the same. But the precedent and convention so far seems to be in favour of maintaining alternative names, and I really don't see what problem you have with the above sentences. Ronline ✉ 14:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i told u on Bucharest talk page. Propaganda is when u arrange information or present parts of the information in such a way that u manipulate the reader. Why doesnt the Demographics paragraph starts with "only 14.1 of its population is ethnic Romanian" followed by "Romanians live in localities of.." why do they have to be "concentrated in a few localities", what, are they in quarantine or are they colonized there or what ? why should a statistic be presented in a journalistic way ? isnt "Hungarians: 84.3%, Romanians: 14.1%, etc" clear enough ??? what does the starting paragraph in the Demographics trying to underline here ??? if Romania wants, the county could be reorganised in such a way that Hungarians will not be majoritary . What is the goal of having a proposition in the Demographics of Harghita stating how majoritary are the Hungarians, when there is an infobox, and these are statistics ? :| Criztu 14:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Concentrated in a few localities" just means that instead of being spread evenly around the county, they are "concentrated" (this is used statistically, here) in certain administrative units where they either form a majority or a sizeable minority. It actually analyses the statistics instead of just presenting them as raw. Saying that "Romanians are a majority in Locality XYZ" is raw statistics, while saying that they're "concentrated in a few towns, mainly Topliţa" uses that information to produce a meaningful sentence about demographics in Harghita. That's why that construction is better than just "Hungarians: 84.3%, Romanians: 14.1%, etc". We could fill all of Wikipedia with numbers like that, but this is not a statistical almanac or a census report. And once again you're saying that the current construction is propagandistic, but the alternative you offer is just as biased, if not more. Starting with "only 14.1% of its population is ethnic Romanian" implies that "there should be more of them", it implies, if you want, some sort of historical injustice and crisis situation. Considering that Harghita and Covasna are unique in Romania for being the only majority non-Romanian counties in the state, I think that's what the demographics section should focus on. Reading that they're an ethnic majority doesn't manipulate the reader in any way - it just presents to them the nature of the situation. It then even says "and one of only two counties where Hungarians form a majority", so that people won't believe that "Transylvania is majoritarily Hungarian", as you alleged they would believe. Your version manipulates them a lot more. And, once again, I really think you're being overly concerned about this. There are better things to do, IMO, to improve Romania's image on Wikipedia if you really want. Ronline ✉ 00:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, the article Hungarian_minority_in_Romania doesnt say "Hungarians are mainly concentrated in a small area in a few counties of Romania" but "most ethnic Hungarians of Romania live in what is today known as Transylvania, where they make up about 20% of the population" so it is emphasised that they make 20% of Transylvania, instead of informing that if u look outside the Szeklers of HarCov, the Hungarians barely make 5% in Transylvania, and there is no concentrated nowhere. the article continues: "Hungarians form a large majority of the population in the counties of Harghita and Covasna" it doesnt say Hungarians are concentrated in the counties of Harghita and Covasna" i could ask for a similar formulation for romanians in Harghita, like "Romanians form a large majority of the population in the cities of Toplitza and others in Harghita" Criztu 10:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, articles about Romania are in such an error, that the infobox places Harghita in Region Transylvania, when it is in fact placed in Central Region of Romania. It is the Central Region, not Transylvania Region. I think we should all know that Romania is in fact split into Administrative Regions, just like England is split into Administrative Regions, they are not the same as Historical Regions. These are Subdivisions of Romania, not Transylvania Wallachia and Moldavia. victims of propaganda editing articles of Romania, pff ... Criztu 14:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, I suppose that the development regions could be helpful also. But, the development regions are not administrative. They are simply there for regional development and statistical purposes and for distributing EU funds, and are in this way basically an EU-created institution. The English administrative regions actually have a council and have some legal powers. Ronline ✉ 00:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would include a Historical region in the infoboxes, i dont know if this would be the convention regarding the infoboxes. Criztu 10:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok, i edited the Counties of Romania as follows:

Lead paragraph

Mehedinţi (IPA: [me.he.'din.ʦi]) is a county (judeţ) of Romania, in the historical province of Oltenia. Its capital city is Turnu Severin.

note: priority 1 is "Mehedinti is a county of Romania". ordering the information as "Mehedinti is a county in the historical region of Oltenia", would give priority to Oltenia, which is journalistic/beletristic style. priority 2 should be given to its capital Turnu Severin, i am not sure yet tho. I would place information about Oltenia in the History section, but since the lead paragraph doesnt contain too much info, the reader wouldnt be overwhelmed by this info in the lead. I put the population of Turnu severin in the Municipalities section, since it is redundant info, it belongs to Turnu Severin article, which is made accessible from the lead, if one needs to know population of capital city of Mehedinti.

Demographics

*Romanians - 00%

*Hungarians - 00%

*Rromas - 00%

*Ukrainians - 00%

*Germans - 00%

*Serbians - 00%

i used official statistics and edrc in ordering minorities. i didnt order them by "a majority of the respective population in a county" but i ordered them as they are ordered in Recensamant 2002. "Romanians, Hungarians, Romas, Ucrainians, Germans." note the order in those oficial links, and note the Development Regions Criztu 16:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note: Romania is a Romanian national state, and has a number of Ethnic Minorities. so a reader looking at the demographic paragraphs can identify quickly which country does Mehedinti county belongs to, if say, he didnt notice the information about Romania in the lead. i am not sure how to group the Ethnic minorities so that no one can feel discriminated, but in the same time informing that they are in fact Ethnic minorities of Romania Criztu 10:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But does it really matter what their legal status is (i.e. that legally they're "ethnic minorities")? The Demographics section provides information primarily on demographics, not on political recognition and rights. Also, the census, for example, lists all national minorities after Romanians, but they are not placed in a separate category. It just comes up as "Romanians: 80%, Hungarians, 12%; Roma: 3%, etc" in the tables. I think it should stay like that at Wikipedia as well. For this reason, I don't see the point of informing the reader that those ethnic groups are "ethnic minorities", since it is obvious that in Romania, ethnic Romanians are in the majority. Also, it is quite obvious that Mehedinţi is a county in Romania, since the article the person is linked from would provide the necessary context for that choice. And the lead and infobox are obvious enough anyway. Ronline ✉ 11:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oh, you are right, i will list the demographics in the same style as the Recensamant 2002 lists them, it is a most perfect solution Criztu 15:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be running through similar arguments (again, with Criztu invoking Britannica rather than our own manual of style) at Talk:Vlad_III_Dracula#Vlad_Dracula. He wants to move the article. I don't think this is all ultimately terribly important, given that we have all the appropriate redirects, but I really don't like the idea that one person, with no significant support from anyone else and some opposition, wants to singlehandedly move articles from their longstanding locations. This seems like a recipe for trouble (what happens when the next person decides to do the same?) and I see no positive value from the point of view of our readers. - Jmabel | Talk 20:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to ask u the link to wikipedia convention/manual of style regarding the title of the articles such as Vlad III Basarab Criztu 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One relevant passage is at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Names: "The article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known". There's also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). -- Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well then, 1,080,000 hits for "Vlad the Impaler" and 726,000 hits for "Vlad Dracula". I think there is somewhere a manual of style settling the precedence of a name with objective connotations over a name with defamatory connotations Criztu 18:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing objective or notable in calling the man "Basarab". That would be POV-pushing, and of no relevance to anyone but you, Critzu. "Defamatory connotations" is a whimsical argument to make - any word that does not comply with a particular POV could be said to be "defamatory", and you have provided no accaptable reason for the "Basarab" thingie to feature instead. Dahn 19:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not pushing for Basarab, I am talking about Vlad the Impaler instead of Dracula Criztu 20:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, other contributors are actually doing productive things. Dahn 20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian names for Covasna, Harghita and Mureş

Hi. I am currently involved in a debate with User:Criztu over whether Hungarian names for Harghita County, Covasna County and Mureş County should be listed in brackets in the lead paragraph of those articles. I support such a move, as I consider that Harghita and Covasna have a Hungarian majority, and Mureş has a significant Hungarian minority, and thus it's a no-brainer that the Hungarian name be there. What are your thoughts on this? Ronline ✉ 14:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Significant Hungarian minorities are located also in Satu Mare County [5], Sălaj County [6]and Bihor County [7]. It could be done for them too.---Andrei 16:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. - Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. - FrancisTyers · 10:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Dahn 11:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica agrees with Criztu Criztu 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then, case closed? Because Britannica agrees with Criztu? Let's all close down then and leave Britannica as the only encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not meant to be a mirror of Britannica and it does not use Britannica as its model. I think you're just blindly following Britannica and trying to justify its content by saying it's doing the intelligent thing politically. I just think not including the Hungarian names in Britannica is an example of its staleness as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is much more pluralist, tolerant and generally much more informative, even if it may be a little bit inconsistent as times. Ronline ✉ 00:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is built from Britannica 1911. so I consider Britannica's style as a guide for Wikipedia Criztu 12:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't built from Brittanica 1911! It was just used as a source for some (read: very restricted number of) articles, just as CIA World Factbook was used as a guide for the country articles. Just because these free-content, public domain texts were used as "fillers" doesn't mean they were used as a style guide or anything. They were just fillers, and something to work from. But most articles don't look anything like 1911 Britannica anymore, and in any case a 1911 text (!) shouldn't be a guide for Wikipedia in the first place (as interesting as it is to read, for its archaic quaintness). Ronline ✉ 12:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying since Britannica 1911 text was used as a guide in Wikipedia, contemporary Britannica can be used as a guide for Wikipedia. i dont use Britannica 1911 as a guide, as u can see from my removal of obsolete formulation such "Wallachia region" and replacing them with "Development Region Central, or South". Britannica 2006 uses a formulation in the sense i use it. Criztu 13:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Iliescu

The part of the Ion Iliescu article about the Mineriad is a bit of a mess. I'm not too knowledgable on the topic, since I had no particular connection to Romania at the time and haven't ever really researched the period. I could start doing some research and sort this out, but I'd rather that someone more knowledgable would step in. In particular, it is unclear what is alleged and what is factual; also the prose is awful. I can probably help with the latter, but I'm usually hesitant to clean up the prose on an otherwise poor passage (it gives it an undeserved veneer of believability). - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance

Hello everybody. Following this message I need assistance from a person that could explain me how he forged the message. I have never, ever, sent him something like this. Dpotop 09:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial to forge it. It's just an image. You can put anything in an image. - Jmabel | Talk 19:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no no! vrei sa stii cum a facut? e foarte simplu.... I-ti voi descrie in pasi cum sa procedezi (si cum probabil a procedat Node):

1. Deschizi TELNET-u (Start→Run→Telnet) sau orice alt shell
2. Gasesti un server web care are shi mail server (SMTP). In cazul nostru serverul de mail in cauza este mail.yahoo.com (alte exemple: mail.home.ro, gmail.google.com, etc...
3. Te conectezi la mail server cu ajutorul Telnetului, prin comanda nume server nume port. In cazul nostru, va fi mail.yahoo.com 25 (portul 25 este portul standard pentru trimis emailuri POP3, asha cum de exemplu, portul 80 este pentru HTML)
 4. cand te conectezi, scrii "helo" (nu hello). aceasta e comanda standard cand te "prezinti" pe un server SMTP
5. scrii mail from: - aici pui ce nume vrei: dpotop1@yahoo.com, pula@yahoo.com, traianbasescu@yahoo.com, etc...
5. scrii rcpt to: - aici pui adresantul: node.ue@gmail.com, jmabel@yahoo.com, etc...
6. scrii data - scrii doar atat si dai enter; asta e o comanda de "umplutura" (dar trebui scrisa)
7. scrii mesajul
8. dai "enter" cand termii mesajul. apoi scrii "." (adica caracterul punct). apoi iar dai "enter", si mesajul a fost trimis...

Daca vrei sa-l torni pe Node, zii sa-ti arate headerul de la email, unde apare IP-ul expeditorului, si roaga un admin sa compare IP-ul din asa zisul mesaj trimis de tine, si IP-il cu care editezi tu wikipedia. Sau verifica IP-ul la ripe.net. Daca nu e un IP al unui internet provider din Romania, e clar ca Node e un parshiv... greier 11:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Se pare ca acelasi lucru e scris si la articolul SMTP greier 12:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True enough: you can forge a header easily enough. - Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan business is over

Hello, this last discussion about Node_ue and the Moldovan wikipedia was a huge error. In fact, the freeze of the Moldovan wikipedia has been decided more than 3 months ago here: [8]. This message and its source should be posted at various places, for not everybody knows of it. Dpotop 17:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Revolution

Interesting suggestion at Talk:Romanian Revolution of 1989#Proposed revamp of the article, about sorting out what is generally agreed from the various controversial theories. It would be very useful to have others weigh in. - Jmabel | Talk 20:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romania in Carpathian Ruthenia 1918-1919

Can someone help out with my question at Talk:Carpathian Ruthenia#1918-1919? The article makes a claim about a Romanian occupation of Carpathian Ruthenia (or possibly a larger area, the passage is very vague) coincident with the short-lived West Ukrainian National Republic. Offhand, I don't know where to begin on sorting this out. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Marea Unire a Moldovei!

Anyone who has visited articles about Moldavia must have seen how scattered all the information is. No other Romanian region has as many overlapping articles describing them. I propose merging Principality of Moldavia, Moldova (historical region), and Moldova (Romanian region). I am thinking that Moldavia should remain mainly a disambiguation page, whereas the articles should all be concentrated into Moldavia (historical region). Another important task is dividing the article History of Moldova into two section, the main part that discusses the principality before the union with Wallachia and the other describing the fate of Bessarabia. Thus one section would go into the Moldavia history section, whereas the other would stay in the Moldova history section with a link to the former. TSO1D 21:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the merger lead to the creation of an article entitled Moldavia, and not Moldavia (historical region). Dahn 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that would make the format exactly to what is used for other regions, ex. Transylvania. In any case, I think it's better if we move everything to Moldavia (historical region) first, put it together, and then simply move it to Moldavia in a few days. TSO1D 21:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good tactic. Dahn 23:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think at this point I have moved most of the information from Principality of Moldavia and Moldova (Romanian region) to Moldavia (historical region). If someone finds something that I missed, please add it there. In any case, if no opposition will appear, I want to delete the former two articles. TSO1D 03:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also thoink we should consider merging History of Moldavia into the article, following what has been done for Wallachia. After all, the info is not that long, the main sense of the article is historical, and we could reference articles which already exist as the main articles (Origin of the Romanians, Romania in the *something* Age etc, - which focus on a history per total). Plus, there are also excellent articles around that deal with successions of events, which could be referenced instead of repeating information (see Moldavian Magnate Wars) What do you think? Dahn 03:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are right, the current History of Moldavia article is not that long and integrating it into Moldavia (historical region) should not present great obstacles. I only fear that if other users will want to elaborate on the history of the Principality the article might become too long. For example Transylvania has a History of Transylvania article, although the latter is substantially greter than the current History of Moldavia. I guess we can merge them for now, and if it becomes too great in the future we can always re-create the history article or as you said simply have links to sections about certain periods. TSO1D 03:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they do elaborate there, we'll move it to relevant articles by period - that is, if added info is indeed relevant (if they start adding details about Stephen's childhood...). The article on Transylvania would need a cleanup, getting rid of all absurdities (such as the fact that the part on the 1848 Revolution is largely a copy-paste work from Avram Iancu) and irrelevant and unverified stuff about the "civilization of the Dacians" (which, if we need at all, do actually belong on Dacia or Dacians - after all, they are in there only to push Romanian paranoia that if you don't repeat the claim of antecedence or whatever on every single line of a text, people will forget; equivalent to a similar parade put on show but some Hungarians). And I don't even want to deal yet with what some boys in green have been doing recently (not just New Rightisms, but plagiarism - I will say no more for now). Dahn 04:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also: detail should be pushed towards topical articles if it gets all big and healthy. For example, the article we have now on the Republic of Ploieşti is quite comprehensive for me to have to start explaining what it was all about on the Ploieşti or Kingdom of Romania pages, when I could just provide the link (perhaps with the stressed see also, which tends to indicate that the article referenced has substantial information). Dahn 04:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I move Moldavia (historical region) to Moldavia now? I want to fix redirects broken by all the moving and I do not want to create double redirects. TSO1D 14:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Ok this is now completed. TSO1D 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burzenland, Mezőség, and Nösnerland

According to some users, these are historical regions of Romania. But isn't there a policy of naming them first by the current name (Tara Barsei, Nasaud, and I could't find mention of the third). You can find these also on the Transylvania page. Dpotop 09:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GayFest photos

Moved to talk page

Ceauşescu's salary

There appears to be an inconsistency in our discussion of Ceauşescu's official salary. I don't know much about this one, so I'm not the one to clear it up. Please see question at Talk:Nicolae Ceauşescu#Numbers don't add up. - Jmabel | Talk 04:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ploieşti

Hi. Is anyone here from Ploieşti? I've found two beautiful photos of the city at Flickr (see Image:Central Ploiesti.jpg - especially the wonderful yellow buses - and Image:Ploiesti view.jpg) and I'd like to expand the article, making it similar to that of Bucharest. However, I really know barely anything in detail about the city (I've been there once, but that's about all), and it would be great to get some help from a local. We can get the article up to FA status, even. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 02:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bucharest Metro station infoboxes

Hi. I've created an infobox to be applied to every Bucharest Metro station: Template:Bucharest metro stations. For testing purposes, I have included it in Pipera metro station and Piaţa Unirii metro station. There are still a few issues with it, and I would like some feedback as to its presentation and what it should contain. More specifically, it envisages moving the next/previous station box from the bottom of each article to the top of the infobox, just below the title. Is this a good idea? Or should the indicator box remain where it is, and the infobox should only contain information about what lines it is serviced by. For comparison, see Moorgate tube station for the London tube infobox, which doesn't include the next/previous station indicator.

Also, the box is, at the moment, quite short on information. What other information could be included? AFAIK, we don't have access to the statistics such as passenger use, etc (whereas the London tube stations do have this information). But is there any other statistic or information that would be useful and that could be applied to most, if not all, stations? Thanks, Ronline ✉ 11:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read one of these Sector Bucharest articles. My opinion: boring and useless info. No offence to anyone. The articles are very short, so no-one should take offence to what I said. There are so many other things about Ro that should be covered, yet you choose to write about some gay Sector in Bucharest. --Candide, or Optimism 09:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the sectors are just administrative units which are not very cohesive. For example, Sector 5 includes both Cotroceni and Ferentari. :-) bogdan 09:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the thing I found odd about Sector 5, even though Cotroceni is in both Sector 5 and 6 (see Cotroceni). But, still, there are some trends that can be observed among the sectors, particularly due to the growing north-south divide in Bucharest. Sector 5 is the most disadvantaged sector (is it not?) and it votes PSD more than, say, Sectors 1 or 6, in line with the rest of the country's voting patterns based on income. In any case, as long as the sectors do hold some political-administrative power, we can't pass them off as being unimportant. Most counties are, IMO, just as arbitrarily defined. Ronline ✉ 10:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the articles have barely even been created yet, so obviously they're short. However, I think the information is very useful. Sector 3 (Bucharest), for example, is longer and provides good info. The sectors' websites are quite clunky and confusing, and overall there is quite little organised information about Bucharest's sectors. Particularly, knowing things like the party composition of sectorial councils is quite valuable info that reflects political demographics in Bucharest and is also interesting from a statistical point of view. It was quite odd that Bucharest's sectors had no articles yet, when most other major cities have articles on their political divisions. I'm assuming that if I wrote about the districts of Iaşi, you wouldn't say the same thing? Ronline ✉ 09:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just another note - I think political geography information is lacking quite significantly. The Sector 3-like table should be included for most major cities so that people can see the political composition of the Local Council and hence the voting patterns of the people. I will implement this at some other cities, it is already implemented at Copşa Mică (surprisingly Justice and Truth dominated), Oradea, Salonta, Cluj-Napoca and Craiova. Ronline ✉ 09:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

I started a Request for Mediation for the following users:

They revert and destroy the article of Vlachs of Serbia where they don't allow romanians to say that they speak romanian language, that is in a country where not even a Church they are not allowed to have it. They revert any relationship between Romanians/Moldovans/Vlachs.

Their edits are exclusive, missleading and false. --Andrei George 15:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For simplicity, here is the link to the RFMs WP:RFM#User:Khoikhoi . I believe you should give more details, Andrei. Right now, the RfM's look a bit too general. Dpotop 15:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andrei, I think it's important to get your facts right before starting an RfM in the Vlachs of Serbia issue. I won't talk about the Moldovan-related pages, since that's much more controversial. In any case - I think Panonian's version of the Vlachs of Serbia article makes it quite clear that this group is cognate to Romanians, and speaks a language that is commonly considered to be Romanian, of the same variety as standard Romanian. The reason why the link can't be made clearer is simply because some Eastern Romance peoples in Serbia declare Vlach ethnicity and "Vlach language" (whatever that may be...) Remember though that the Serbs do allow people to say they speak the Romanian language, which is in fact an official language of Vojvodina. As to the church issue, that may be a problem in terms of religious freedom, but one that's not directly to ethnicity (Romania doesn't have a national church, neither does Serbia). And, yes, minority rights in Serbia are generally less than those in Romania. The minority rights situation of the Vlachs of Serbia could be mentioned in the article (I think it already is). Ronline ✉ 01:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The latest reincarnation of your friend Bonny was permabanned, so you may relax, Ronline. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bilingual names for Romanian towns

I'm thinking of adding bilingual names for all Romanian towns where the minority population exceeds 20%. According to Law 215/2001, minorities which exceed 20% of the total population can use their own language in the public administration, education and have the right to bilingual signage. In this way, that language can be seen as "co-official" to Romanian. For this reason, I think it would be good for us to add the respective name under the Romanian name on the infobox, and perhaps mention somewhere in the Infobox that the municipality/town/commune is bilingual in Romanian and Hungarian/Romani/Serbian/etc (see articles on Koper, Slovenia and Turku, Finland, both of which are officially bilingual). I have implemented this at the article on Budeşti, where Romani is co-official, and at Oradea, where Hungarian is co-official. What do you think? Ronline ✉ 08:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing, the Romani writing you used for Budesti. Looks just like Romanian with diacritics expressed using combinations of letters. Many use this on IRC. The two writings are in fact homophonic, a bit like Müller versus Mueller in German. Is it always so, or are there names that are not homophonic? Dpotop 08:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm researching more on this, but as far as I'm aware, very few Romanian localities actually have localised Romani names (most of them just use the Romanian). I used the "Budeshti" version since Romani does not contain the letter "ş". However, if there is no established Romani variant, convention stipulates that the Romanian name should be used (in the same way that "München" is user as the Romanian-language version). There are some names that are not homophonic - Bucharest is known as rmy:Bukureshta in Romani. Ronline ✉ 09:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer. And I have yet another question: Regardless of assumed or perceived Romani ethnicity, or mother tongue, are there estimates of how many people are using Romani in everiday life? Dpotop 01:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not write the old dacian names? That's a strong support for our belonging over ages and ages in this country. ;) D39 17:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)D39[reply]

Romania in the Middle Ages

Could I ask people to take a look at the issue I raise at Talk:Romania in the Middle Ages#Possible copyright issues? I think there is copyvio material in the article (anonymously added last month). Greier claims to have written it, and claims that Ion Calafeteanu (from whom I believe it is plagiarized) actually plagiarized him, rather than vice versa. Along the way to claiming that, he calls me several things that clearly violate WP:CIVIL. Given his attacks on me, I'd really appreciate it if someone else will help sort this out. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This situation is becoming very ugly

As I've expressed, I believe User:Greier added (and now deliberately re-added) material to Romania in the Middle Ages at least some of which has copyright problems. No one else seems to be stepping in on the matter, and he is now saying that I should not be involved in the article because of my nationality:please see his comments to me at Talk:Romania in the Middle Ages#Possible copyright issues and then following with this edit summary—"(changed my mind... hahaha haha ha!!! if anyone sees anything plagiarised, is free to mention it in talk page... americans not included.)"
I ask the rest of you to consider how you would feel about an edit summary on an article that specifically said that Romanians were not qualified to object to copyright violations. But I will duck out of it, because, frankly, I don't believe that I can continue to interact with Greier and stay within appropriate limits of civility myself.
Will someone else who works on Romanian topics please go through the article, look through the portions that are not cited to the (public domain) LOC country study for material that raises copyright problems, and deal with it? I'm taking the article off of my watchlist. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanians

Moved to talk page.

Romania in the Middle Ages

I've been doing some pretty serious editorial work on Romania in the Middle Ages, and tracking down citations. It could still use a lot more. In particular, I'm guessing that if one large section was nearly verbatim from a U.S. Library of Congress country study (perfectly legal, public domain, but should be acknowledged), then some of the rest came from similar (as yet unacknowledged) sources. Also, I have quite a few questions on the talk page if anyone knowledgable would like to take a look. - Jmabel | Talk 03:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian population

Moved to the talk page.

Military Museum in Bucharest

I was told by someone that at the Military Museum in Bucharest there is a "splendid diorama of Vaslui." Okay, who has a digital camera above 6.1 megapixels? I need someone to go there and take some good shots of whatever is there. Anyone? --Candide, or Optimism 23:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DIORAMAS? Need we go into Kitschland again? Dahn 04:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on this one I have to support Anittas. We are not creating art here, but providing information. If the diorama is indeed that good at conveying historical info, why not? However, we also need to take care about copyrights held by the museum itself (so that publishing the diorama here may not be acceptable). Dpotop 09:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I remember, they charge about 1 leu per picture, if you want to take photos inside the museum. I'm not sure whether this tax includes copyrights, but I have seen a photo from the Village Museum on wiki released under GPL by User:Gutza, who says that if you pay the supplementary fee, the pictures are yours. I may go take some photos there when I get the time, maybe this week. But my camera is only 4 Mpixels. Andrei Stroe 11:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you really go there and take photos? If you do, take many of them so that we can choose the best. Thx. --Candide, or Optimism 14:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I can go this week, most probably next week. I'll take as many as I can afford.Andrei Stroe 06:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What!?! I don't think they have the right to charge you on a per-picture basis (unless it's some sort of bribe). They can either ban photography outright in the museum, or they can allow it, and in the case that they allow it, they shouldn't be allowed to control the number of pictures you take. What, so they stand around there watching and charging 1 leu? That seems odd. But a photo would be a nice, since the Battle of Vaslui article is shaping up nicely. Ronline ✉ 04:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they can charge people for the amount of photos they take, but they can charge them for getting permission to take photos. Has anyone been to that museum and witnessed this diorama? --Candide, or Optimism 05:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree it is stupid. But I went there about two years ago, with a friend who wanted to take pictures, and the charge per picture taken was official (it was written on an information panel, so it was no bribe). I hope their policy changed, although I don't know how they can check how many pictures I take, except for having someone stand by me at all times. My friend gave up taking pictures at the time and we just went to look arround. I think there was a diorama, I don't remember exactly, but I do remember that Ştefan cel Mare's battles were all well ilustrated, it was one of the best parts of the museum. What I also liked there was that they had many interesting pieces of weaponry, as well as military outfits (from the middle ages fighting outfits to NATO uniforms). And in their back yard, there are heavy weapons, such as tanks, radars, cannons, a military helicopter. There is plenty of photo material there. I only have to see when I get the time to go there. Andrei 11:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a preview of the Military Museum contents. Andrei 08:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vaslui is not in that list. I'm going to try and contact them and ask them about it. Thx. --Candide, or Optimism 10:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, they don't seem to have their contact info posted. Ugh... --Candide, or Optimism 11:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some very nationalist edits

I'd appreciate it if someone besides me would look into the recent edits of 129.241.81.103 (talk • contribs). My quick impression is that these edits (often deletions) are often very POV and nationalist. I've run across two pretty blatant examples: something of an attempted de-Magyarization of Béla Bártok, and the removal of (cited) remarks in Magda Lupescu on the status of Jews in late 19th century Romania and the unusualness of her father having been a Jewish pharmacist. - Jmabel | Talk 19:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matila Ghyka

Does anyone know anything about this author? She was Romanian and I assume she moved to France. Her books are still popular. Just google her name and see that her books are sold worldwide. In practice, she's more popular on the international scene than Eminescu and Cosbuc put together. We should have an article about her. --Candide, or Optimism 22:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"She" was a man. :-) bogdan 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, my mistake (Google had his part of blame: [9]) --Vlad|-> 23:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we can include that too in the article. --Candide, or Optimism 22:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His memoires were translated and published in Romanian recently: [10] bogdan 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that, but I have no intentions in aquiring that book. I have too much on my mind right now; but an article would be in order. Well, I might create the article this week, if no-one else does it. --Candide, or Optimism 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poza lui Stefan cel Mare

Nu este posibil sa adaugam poza originala a lui Stefan in loc de poza cu iconul refacut? Aici este poza originala, la manastirea Putna. Stiu ca majoritatea din voi sunteti boieri de Bucuresti, dar niciunul din voi nu a trecut prin Moldova ca sa ia o poza? Nici macar nu avem un articol despre acele manastiri; in schimb avem articole despre orice strada si stalp din Bucuresti, de parca cuiva iar pasa. LOL! --Candide, or Optimism 06:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with people writing about what they know. Why blame Bucharesters for writing about Bucharest? As for the picture, it's clearly PD, so use it! - Jmabel | Talk 05:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bucharest Metro pictures

Hi. I've noticed that User:Xanthar has contributed a lot of good information about stations on the Bucharest Metro network - see for example Basarab metro station. However, what we are lacking at the moment are some pictures of metro trains, stations, etc. It would be great if any users in Bucharest have any photos of metro stations that they can share or upload to Commons so that they can be used in these articles. Additionally, photos of the outside of the new trains, and of the new M4 stations would be much appreciated. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 06:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only found one pic in my collection, it isn't particularly good and I'm not sure which metro station it is of, but take a look here: Image:Metro station in bucharest june 2003 c.jpg original: [11]. I see you already uploaded it, well I uploaded a cropped version too then :) - FrancisTyers 13:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! I actually quite like that picture, it conveys the mood of the metro very well. Ronline ✉ 06:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's Timpuri Noi metro station. bogdan 12:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added some photos of metro stations on my daily track (M2 stations). Others will, hopefully, follow soon.Andrei Stroe 16:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritics

Moved to talk page.

DACIA Logan Combi Concept

Anybody that knows a thing or two about automobiles care to update the Dacia Logan article with some information abut this new model? As a non-driving woman I don't speak that lingo so I cannot do it. Dunemaire 18:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Corvinus library?

Hello. Any of you knows whether something resembling a Romanian Corvinus library exists? My problem is that some guys are now pushing the revisionist Hungarian POV, and they are very well served by this collection of documents and by Wikipedia practice that about any source is acceptable (even if it's obvious propaganda, and doesn't even talk about actual facts). Dpotop 08:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the Batthyaneum really concentrates on anti-Hungarian stuff like the Corvinus library (www.hungarian-history.hu) concentrates on anti-Romanian stuff?
Of course, you must take here my "anti-Romanian/anti-Hungarian" expressions in a mild sense. What I want to say is that, for instance, the Corvinus library is for me the reference in terms of documents supporting the immigrationist theories on the origins of the Romanians. Or for stuff related to Lord Rothermere, a.s.o. Dpotop 16:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i was thinking about the Matei Corvin library, one of the most valuable in the world.The Batthyaneum concentrate some part of the Corvinian heritage.

The most attacked stuff regarding the hungarian history is the Anonimus chronicle (Gesta). Also there are some materials from Vatican library and also a russian chronicle. But be aware the dispute can be endless, a part of hungarian historians support the ideea that the Anonimus chronicle was a fantastic story. Still the best source for us, regarding our history, are still the old hungarian books (in Johannes de Thurocz chronicle you can find the moldavian flag in battle, in Kepes Kronika you can find depicted Posada battle), and some documents from the catholic church. (according to some historians first rulers of Valahia were catholics.) There are also a lot of books where the origins of the romanians are treated fairly. ( one was translated in romanian by Humanitas) But as some hungarians say: being a Hungarian is, above all, a state of mind :)

We can only show the materials proof of our continuity. http://dmoz.org/World/Rom%c3%a2n%c4%83/%c5%9etiin%c5%a3%c4%83/%c5%9etiin%c5%a3e_sociale/Arheologie/Situri_%c5%9fi_monumente/ http://www.archweb.cimec.ro/scripts/ARH/RAR-Index/selen.asp And the best will be to use the Genographic project in order to find our roots and to settle the dispute.CristianChirita 17:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negoescu, 1980B

Who is this Ro? I found this: Species Haliophasma adinae (Negoescu, 1980B) --Candide, or Optimism 21:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moldova

I noticed that "Administrative divisions" section of Moldova article the raioane links actually point to cities rather than to subdivisions, eg Floreşti istead of Raionul Floreşti, and so on. I cannot fix it myself today: something wrong with computer. Can anyone? mikka (t) 00:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanians in Northern Transylvania

I archived the previous discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board#Romanians in Northern Transylvania - Archive. Dpotop 08:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vlach-Bulgarian Rebellion

Vlach-Bulgarian Rebellion---A dispute popped off here between Bogdan & Alexander 007 on one side and an anonymous Bulgarian on the other. See Talk:Vlach-Bulgarian Rebellion. No compromise of the accepted facts is to be allowed. Alexander 007 10:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Conservative Party

In Conservative Party (Romania) there is:

If it is unaffiliated, what is it doing there? I found its web site unilluminating on even its stance toward the party (at least in the three minutes I gave it), or whether its politics were similar to those of the party, other than falling under the broad heading of "conservative". I'm guessing that someone on the ground in Romania will be familiar with the group and have an informed opinion on whether the link belongs. - Jmabel | Talk 06:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Problem articles

This is an incomplete list of articles where conflicts involving Romanian interests have occured, or which have involved Romanian Wikipedians (add any others):

Projects

Advertise or ask for assistance for your Romanian-related Wiki projects

40.000 new articles

Dictionarul Enciclopedic Român aparut la editura politica Bucuresti 1962-1967 are in conformitate cu legea drepturilor de autor valabila pana in 1994 (cred), drepturile de autor expirate din 1987. In consecinta se poate face ceva similar cu enciclopedia britanica 1911.CristianChirita

Good ideea. Not bad. But who has time and patience to translate so much amount? Some articles related to Romania are very welcomed indeed. Bonaparte talk 21:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bonaparte has a valid point. Maybe we should use them in the rowiki then first?Dunemaire 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that somone with an scanner and an OCR software shall start the project.

But please consider that the images are not mandatory to be translated:)CristianChirita

From the Romanian copyright law:
Durata drepturilor patrimoniale asupra operelor colective este de 70 de ani de la data aducerii operelor la cunostinta publica.
So, since the copyright for collective works is valid 70 years after the publishing, it is still protected for another 27 years. bogdan 22:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the Romanian copyright law 1956, (legea 8 din 1996 nu cred ca poate modifica retroactiv drepturile de autor.)

No law can be applied retroactive. Art. 7. - In cazurile aratate mai jos, autorul nu are folosinta drepturilor patrimoniale decit:

a) pe termen de 20 ani de la aparitia operei cu privire la cei care alcatuiesc enciclopedii, dictionare si culegeri;
b) pe termen de 10 ani de la aparitie cu privire la autorul unei serii de fotografii artistice;
c) pe termen de 5 ani de la aparitie cu privire la autorul de fotografii artistice separate.

http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act_text?idt=8999

Deci conform legii vechi, drepturile de autor au cam expirat inainte de intrarea in vigoare a legii noi adica in 1982-1987. Dar daca este cineva care a facut dreptul poate ne poate lamuri. CristianChirita Dar situatia din punct de vedere al legii internationale eu o vad oarecum similara cu cea a rusilor care nu au drepturi de autor pe perioada in care legea nu prevedea acest lucru. mai ales ca articolul 8 spune: Art. 8. - La expirarea termenelor prevazute la art. 6 si 7 sau, in lipsa de mostenitori, din momentul mortii autorului, dreptul patrimonial de autor se stinge.

I don't know. In some countries, the copyright laws applied retroactively. See for example, the Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection in the European Union.
Unlike some other copyright term extension acts, this act retroactively restored copyright to works that had fallen into the public domain in their source countries (see grandfathering).
bogdan 12:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Legea 8/1996:
se abroga Decretul nr. 321 din 21 iunie 1956 privind dreptul de autor, cu modificarile - ulterioare, precum si orice alte dispozitii contrare.
bogdan 12:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corect. Se abroga incepand din 1996. Ceea ce inseamna ca pana in 1996 a fost valabila, ceea ce inseamna ca drepturile de autor au expirat in 1982.CristianChirita 12:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Daca ar fi asa pentru orice articol copiat si distribuit in perioada 1982-1995 am putea comite o infractiune conform legii din 1996. Ceea ce nu este in regula.[reply]

Puten folosi aceste imagini scanate de mine dintr-o carte din 1987? Link --Anittas 13:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anittas, uite ce zice decretul 321/1956 in articolele 14 si 15: (sub incidenta caruia se afla imaginea din 1987)

Art. 14. - Sint permise fara consimtamintul autorului si fara plata vreunei remuneratii respectindu-se insa celelalte drepturi ale acestuia:

c) publicarea, chiar integrala a operelor literare, muzicale sau stiintifice ori reproducerea operelor de arta plastica in manuale didactice, cursuri universitare, culegeri sau alte asemenea lucrari destinate invatamintului, cu exceptia operelor care au fost comandate special in acest scop si pentru care autorul pastreaza dreptul de remuneratie;

e) extrase de mica intindere din opere literare, muzicale, cinematografice ori stiintifice, sau reproduceri, precum si prezentari cu ajutorul aparatelor optice a unor opere de arta plastica, servind exclusiv ca document explicativ pentru continutul scris sau vorbit in conferinte sau publicatii cu caracter stiintific, in lucrari de critica ori in darile de seama asupra expozitiilor publice, sau pentru popularizarea acestor opere prin radio si televiziune;

h) reproducerea operelor de arta plastica in filme, diafilme sau prin televiziune cu titlu de informare sau de prezentare accesorie.

j) fotografierea, copierea si reproducerea in orice mod a unei opere de arta plastica, daca aceasta nu se valorifica.

Art. 15. - In cazul folosirii operelor conform art. 13 si 14, trebuie sa se indice opera originala, numele autorului acesteia, al traducatorului sau al autorului operei derivate prevazute la art. 10, iar la operele de arta plastica trebuie sa se indice si locul unde se gaseste originalul precum si numele celui care a efectuat copia.

Altfel zis, poti s-o lasi pe Wiki linistit daca precizezi sursa si autorul. Dunemaire 14:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nu-i adevărat. Imaginea din 1987 se află sub incidenţa legii valabile în momentul actual, care nu are o asemenea prevedere. bogdan 14:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Legile nu se aplica retroactiv in Ro, deci e imposibil sa fie sub incidenta celei din 1996. Dunemaire 14:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mersi, Dune! --Anittas 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daca conform legii vechi dreptul de autor expira in 1997, atunci din 1996 a intrat sub incidenta legii noi, pentru ca dreptul de autor nu expirase, daca dreptul a expirat in 1992 atunci este PD din 1992. Parerea mea..CristianChirita

Dear all, even such things like copyright laws are of interest to the community. Besides, speaking non-English is simply impollite. Please, stick to English, when possible as Polish, Rushian and Ukrainian editors do on the other boards. Thanks, --Irpen 03:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The short of it is that the massive Communist-era Dictionarul Enciclopedic Romîn fell out of copyright under the old, rather minimal Communist-era copyright law, and they are trying to work out if new, extended copyright laws apply. If I follow the above correctly (I haven't read it closely) anything that was still under copyright when the new, stricter laws came into effect is covered, but once something passed into the public domain, there is no turning back; I gather that the particular materials in question are now public domain, but not (for example) a photo from 1987, which gets the benefit of the new law.
I should add that as far as I know, no one involved is a lawyer, and some comments are qualified with remarks like "Parerea mea" ("my opinion").
If I misstated anything in that summary, or missed anything significant, could someone please fill in? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 11:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again everybody! Can someone please summarize this long discussion (because I'm not sure if it is ok to use the said dictionary as source). Why I'm bringing this again? I've just realized that a newly created user (today), called ContinutLiber (FreeContent) seemed to have started the task of putting each and every article ((s)he started with the beginning: added some word starting with: "ab" (poor spelling, no diacritics, not really knowing how wiki works etc.) But I would like what to do: wikify entries or remove them as copyvio? Thank you in advance for enlightening me. --Vlad|-> 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article (Romanian), dictionaries and encyclopedias published before 1984 are in the public domain. The author of the article claims that this is certified even by ORDA, the Romanian Copyright Office. Iulian U. 10:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resources

http://www.biblioteca.ase.ro/ResurseElectronice/carte/download.aspx?id=38

Magyarization and Romanianization

I don't know how many of you noticed these two articles (Magyarization and Romanianization). I suppose most of you will think the same I did: both articles are biased currently twards the hungarian POV. I think these articles need our / your help. The articles are preseting almost the same POV as virulent irredentist websites such as hungarian-history(dot)hu ---Paul- 10:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are needed on this topic. There are some new Greater Hungary guys that edit everything according to stuff like this: Raffay Ernő: A vajdaságoktól a birodalomig-Az újkori Románia története = From voivodates to the empire-History of modern Romania, JATE Kiadó, Szeged, 1989
I know many of you don't like to be called "nationalists", but just imagine you're dealing with the Hungarian counterpart of Vadim Tudor. I'm not exaggerating. These guys don't even accept Hungarian government references. If they get me angry, I'll copy-paste here the volumes of Ion Lancranjan.
BTW, they also started editing Hungarian minority in Romania along the same lines. Dpotop 16:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, they have already made me angry, and on the Transylvania article I've tried to calm them down as much as I could. It is clear that the main agitator is User:Erdelyek (a name well chosen for his purpose) and as you can see here he has only edited on articles related to Transylvania, Bucovina and bout hungarians in these regions. As Bogdan said it well most of his edits are nationalistic hungarian bullshit, and I hope more users can keep an eye on him. Mihai -talk 17:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are the issues solved now? --Steaua 15:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voronet, Sucevita

Images of the painted monasteries would be very useful. --Vasile 04:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a picture of Suceviţa at commons:Image:Sucevita Monastery.jpg. There is, however, no article that I found about this monastery. It is not linked from Painted monasteries of Moldavia. I've also placed a picture of Putna Monastery in that respective article. Ronline ✉ 21:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria, Moldova

These two pages have come under an intense barrage from various users who want to push their own ideologies. Of course this problem has always existed for these two pages, however I have never seen it escalate to such a level or become so unilateral. Any help will be appreciated. TSO1D 17:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about reading the proposed plan for peace of President Basescu? --Steaua 14:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cult of personality

There have been ongoing attempts to tighten up the criteria for examples at the cult of personality article, with a couple editors saying that there should be no examples at all. I think there are other options, and have worked gradually for a few months to improve the article's verifiability. My current position is that any entries need to be cited with academic-quality sources that describe the systematic veneration of the leader and characterize it as a cult of personality.

Does anyone have sources at hand that they could use in a one-paragraph entry for Ceausescu? I'm aware that Ceausescu is still respected in some parts of Romania, and that could be mentioned as well (with sources). Gazpacho 23:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debate

Debate anything related directly, or indirectly, to Romania - but take it to the discussion Page

Off-topic discussion

Anything goes (on the discussion page)

List of participants

  1. Anittas 17:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Bonaparte talk & contribs 17:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Alexrap 18:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dunemaire 18:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jmabel | Talk 19:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dahn 19:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Orioane 19:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Tfine80 20:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Voievod 15:29 (Eastern), 4 December 2005
  10. Dpotop 21:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Vlad 22:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ronline ✉ 00:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. AdiJapan 03:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. PET 05:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Alexander 007 05:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. HotelRoom 06:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Dalf | Talk 09:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Mihai Andrei 13:27, 5 December 2005 (CET)
  19. Vasile
  20. Algos 23:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Uncke Herb 06:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. AdamSmithee 22:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. EvilAlex 22:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Tavilis 11:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. vkxmai 01:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Anclation 18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. bogdan 00:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. NorbertArthur 8:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  29. mmtux 23:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Anonimu 21:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Arcadie 08:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. TSO1D 15:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Just a tag 15:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Romihaitza 18:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Hurricane Angel 02:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. R.S.ro 21:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. MIsterMan 12:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Radufan 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Mentatus 18:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&oldid=65395703"