Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

So called "moldovan language"

I propose you this subject. All participants may debate also here Talk:Moldovan language. I expect other subjects as well. Bonaparte talk & contribs 22:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Has someone time to translate something? [[1]]. Mikka asked to see in English and I don't have right now time to do it. Thankx. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 17:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't Talk:Moldovan language the place to discuss Talk:Moldovan language? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
We can talk about anything we want in here. What's your favourite position? Apart from that, everything that relates to Moldova lies in the interest of Romania, therefore... --Anittas 06:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Good beginning

In less than 12-hours, 15 people have gathered here and signed their name to show that they are active members, contributing, or are willing to contribute, to Romanian-related articles. This is great! The Romanian community is stronger than I estimated. We also have non-Romanians, here, who have been invited for their knowledge and contribution to Ro articles. Everyone is welcomed here!

If any you know of other Ro members who aren't aware of this page, let them know, so that our community can grow stronger! --Anittas 05:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

A good chance for romanians to be united

I think is a good opportunity to start this. I hope in this way romanians will join together to the new challanges. Bonaparte talk & contribs 07:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong community

Yes, Anittas, we are a strong community, and the sheer number of Romania-related articles is a good indication of that. Plus the Romanian Wikipedia, getting better day by day. But somehow I don't like the kind of strength we're showing. Some members of our community (see also below) understand Wikipedia as either a playground, or a battlefield, or a computer game. I wish I could see some more maturity and composure among Romanians. Not every time Node_ue says something we must retort and pour gas on the fire.

Bonaparte

Bonaparte, much of what I said above is also about you. But I have more. The value of each Wikipedian is judged not from how big a fight he/she can start, but rather on how much valuable information he/she brings here. I see your signature in lots and lots of places (it's so visible!), but your edits are almost exclusively on talk pages, keeping disputes alight, and not doing much to calm things down. On the other hand, your contributions to articles are most of the time minor. Did you see how people were reluctant to vote for Ronline as admin just because Bonaparte is the nominator? How eventually they voted to support him because he is a reliable person and despite the nominator? Does this ring a bell? My advice, for your own good and the good of our community is that you keep a much lower profile and try to actually be useful. Your medal on people's user pages doesn't seem to have much value, so you'd better refrain. I somehow know you will ignore this, but I just had to say it, because, as they say, we should do the laundry at home. --AdiJapan 08:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to answer to the post above, and this one. When I said that we should be a strong community, I meant strong in exchanging information and building-up on articles - not ganging up on Node. The latter is for when we want to relax. I agree that Bonaparte needs to chill a bit (or a lot), but he's new. He has done some good contributions, tho, such as comparing Moldovan to Romanian in a nicely-made layout; but I agree that he should spend more of his energy on articles than on Node. --Anittas 08:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Thankx Adi. I appreciate your concern and please don't worry. However I do belive that here we have now the opportunity to talk about more interesting issues and topics. As for the medals the users that received it may do what they want...Well, I'm not trying to explain myself everybody should do the way they think is best and honourable. Don't be jealous you'll get one also in future :).
Now enough about me, we gather here to debate more important issues. I am not important. You are. Bonaparte talk & contribs 15:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Objectivity

If we want to be believed, if we want our words to have any weight, we need to be objective in everything we do here (and anywhere else for that matter). Tilting the balance on our side, hiding the ugly parts of the truth, making things look more beautiful than they actually are, and any other behavior like this is not going to help. As far as I know Wikipedia is not the place where [insert ethnic group here] show how great [insert their country here] is. If in the course of history Romanians did something wrong, we should be the first to acknowledge it. Otherwise we run the risk of losing all our credibility. --AdiJapan 08:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

credibility

I am the first to enroll to this approach. Having the power to recognize the truth is a miracle. Remeber! You can learn only from mistakes or good models. But most times you learn from mistakes and don't repeat them. But as most of the times we have some bad models than ussually learn from mistakes.
Credibility, trustworthiness, integrity, sincerity, reliability, authority, standing
These are the most important keywords.
We had a good model for Wiki. He was Bogdangiusca.

Let us try to be, to act and to conduct in this way. That's my personal view. Bonaparte talk & contribs 15:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

atac vandal fascist

Second Vienna Award First Vienna Award Treaty of Trianon Ce se poate face? -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 19:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Just some hints:

Have fun ;). --Orioane 19:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I-am scris acelui vandal. Dar văd că nu face nimic. Ronline ✉ 06:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
S-a salvat o versiune de propaganda sovina la Treaty of Trianon. Numai un sarb si un slovac au luat pana acum pozitie! -- Bonaparte talk 13:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions for Orioane

Orioane has accepted nomination for adminship. Questions can be asked here. If anyone has so-called inappropriate questions to ask, you better ask them here, or else the Americans and the Brits will start crying. I'll start first. --Anittas 13:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Do you live a conservative lifestyle?

2. Would you censor something as soon as it violated Wiki policy?

3. If two dudes had it at each other, would you step in and try to solve their problem, or let them work it out by themselves? --Anittas 13:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

1. First, it depends on what you consider a "conservative" lifestyle and second, what importance does my lifestyle has?
2. Wikipedia is not about censorship in the way that I see censorship. If you consider ceosorship as reverting ones contribution than this is my stance: two things are important in editing articles here, from my point of vue: to keep a decent level of neutrality, and to be able to back up your contributions. There are means by which consensus could be reached, if wanted, and sometimes talk pages are not used to their full capacity and that is the place where delicate subjects MUST be discussed.
3. If I decide that my contribution will make a difference I'll be glad to intervene. Otherwise as long as it is on a talk page and it is in the limits of decency and civilisation, I would let them handle by themselves their problems.
--Orioane 14:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Romania as regional power?

I'm just chalange you guys 'cause Miss Rice went today to Bucharest. Is becoming Romania regional power? She and President Basescu supports such approach. What do you think, feel free to express yourself.

By the way she came for signing the agreement that USA can have military basis in Romania.

Opinions, facts, debates. -- Bonaparte talk 16:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Romania was a regional power in the early 20th century, when it was also the 6th most productive country in Europe. It will take a while until we get there, again. --Anittas 19:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Romania and EU

On 1st January 2007 Romania will join EU . By that time EU will have 27 member states with a population of 480 millions. Romania will be the 7th nation as size. -- Bonaparte talk 19:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if Romania becomes much more entangled with the war criminals among the current (mis-)leadership my benighted country, the EU may not take them. Talk about selling your birthright for a bowl of pottage! (& if someone very bilingual wants to translate that into Romanian, please do.) -- Jmabel | Talk 08:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you against the EU? --Anittas 08:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
What war criminals? Do you refer maybe to Croatia? -- Bonaparte talk 09:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No Bonaparte, it is clearly a reference to the allegations about the CIA war prisonners whoe might have been jailed and tortured in Ro. It is a tricky situation, and Ro's actions are highly criticised mainly to express EU's discontent towards the current American Administration. Anyways, not many people around the world are happy with it. Here's some lecture on the subject: http://www.hotnews.ro/articol_38379-O.K.-de-Traian-Ungureanu.htm --Mihai -talk 10:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Seems like I've generted a small revert fight. Sorry Bonaparte, my fault :D --Mihai -talk 14:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry :). -- Bonaparte talk 14:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

More lecture on the subject http://www.hotnews.ro/articol_38537-Efectul-Ivanov-de-Traian-Ungureanu.htm

E faina ultima fraza a lui. Concluzia! -- Bonaparte talk 12:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Transylvania - First Union - Michael the Brave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transylvania#First_union_of_Romanian_principalities_by_Michael_the_Brave

Please take a look on Transylvania. -- Bonaparte talk 15:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

IRC

What do I need to do to be able to chat on the Wiki server? Who knows? --Anittas 22:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Bogdan seems to be on IRC.-- Bonaparte talk 06:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
In order to connect to an IRC server (any IRC server), you need an IRC client. Personally, for Windows I recommend mIRC, XChat or irssi for Linux, or Conversation if you use a Mac. Connect to freenode and you can join any channel you like. Popular Wiki related channels are #wikipedia, #wikimedia, #wikinews, #wiki, #wikimedia-tech, #wiktionary, and localized versions of these channels. I've been idling for a while in #ro.wikipedia , but there's not much activity there. --Arcadie 08:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give it a try later, but which are the most popular channels? --Anittas 09:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

#wikipedia and #wikimedia are the most popular ones among the Wiki related channels. You can get a complete channels list by typing /list (depending on your client, channels can be sorted by users, name, topic). --Arcadie 09:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Bonaparte again

The strength of a chain is equal to the strength of its weakest link. If everyone agrees that we, as a community, need a clean and decent image in Wikipedia, we need to maintain that cleanness and decency from within.

Our darling Bonaparte has been a pain all along, but what he did this time is simply unforgivable. In order to prove that Moldovan is the same language as Romanian, he counterfeited a piece of text that was not originally written in Moldovan. In fact, it happens that I wrote that text myself, and it was the translation of a paragraph originally written in Aromanian (see Aromanian language).

While I agree that linguistically Moldovan is a non-sense, his act is unacceptable. Just to let everyone know, it is my opinion that Bonaparte (and whoever else does such things) is not worthy to be a member of the Romanian community on Wikipedia, and if such behavior is tolerated here, I will be glad to leave this community. --AdiJapan 13:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Your example from Aromanian inspired me. It is true. You made it and it's a good job that you've done it. Now I have a single question: is it copyright or am I forbidden to take any text from romanian language to make an example?
I've asked you also on the talk page how do you write them in romanian and also in so-called "moldovan".
Bringing examples is clean and decent.
About the membership of the comunity, you have to understand that I am willing to accept the resolution of our members. Like you said "The strength of a chain is equal to the strength of its weakest link".-- Bonaparte talk 13:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"The Evangelists"

A controversial play The Evangelists (Evanghelistii) by Alina Mungiu-Pippidi opened recently in Iaşi ([2] [3] [4] [5], probably a lot else to be found by searching "Alina Mungiu-Pippidi" + Evanghelistii). There ought to be an article or two in this somewhere, maybe one on her as a person and one on the play? -- Jmabel | Talk 10:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm writing an article on her and her play now (Alina Mungiu-Pippidi) and The Evangelists). It is quite disgusting that this play has sparked such strong reactions from the conservative-religious parts of Romanian society. Long live free speech! Ronline ✉ 05:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • darn, you're fast ! Dunemaire 11:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, one can't be too surprised considering that Romania is still a relatively conservative country, what's good is that the play is being showed, as an example of how democracy and free speech has developed in the country since the revolution.

Anclation 10:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think that while the religious response has been quite unacceptable, it would've been the same in other countries. I think Romania has come such a long way since the murky 1990s. People are now much more tolerant, and value free speech to a much greater extent, at least in the public sphere. The fact that the play was shown and attracted so many people is quite a good sign. Gay rights is another area where things have moved forward a lot - the first gay march in Bucharest, and generally much more tolerant attitudes towards LGBT people. In fact, I'd probably say that Romania is now one of the most tolerant former-Eastern-bloc countries (excluding of course the very-tolerant Czechia, Hungary and Slovenia). Ronline ✉ 11:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
If you'll see or read the play, you would probably realise the reason of such impact. More than ten years ago, reading the play, I had the impression that some Socola institution patients of Dr. Alina Mungiu are the characters in this play. --Vasile 03:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Romanian flag colours

Hi. I've been contacted by User:Zscout over what colours should be used in the Romanian flag, since he wants to make a new SVG version of the flag for Wikipedia/WikimediaCommons. See my response to him at [6] and please feel free to contact him on his talk page regarding what colours should be used for the Romanian flag - that is, what shade of red, blue and yellow. Which version do you think is more commonly used/better for Romanian flag - this one or this one? Thanks, Ronline ✉ 11:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO, these colours are better: bogdan 11:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
-

Not long ago I had some interest in the problem of flag colors (including ours) and I realized that there is no official standard for the colors on the Romanian flag. Somewhere on the internet I found that there are however some recommendations (I'd have to search for the source again). I saved that piece of info in my computer and here it is:

Colours recommended for the Romanian flag by Album des Pavillons (2000) are:
blue Pantone 280c - CMYK 100-0-70-10
yellow Pantone 116c - CMYK 0-10-95-0
red Pantone 186c - CMYK 0-90-80-5

and they look indeed somewhat like those Bogdan thought were better, that is deeper shades of all three colors. Hope it helps. --AdiJapan 12:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Me again. I wrote User talk:Zscout370 and gave him the data. --AdiJapan 12:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Please note that the CMYK code at FOTW is spelt wrong. It's 100-70-0-10, not 100-0-70-10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.157.164.98 (talk • contribs) 23 Jan 2006

According to Law No. 75 of 16 july 1994, published in Monitorul Oficial No. 237 of 26 august 1994:
Chapter I, Art. 1.

Modelul drapelului României şi intensitatea culorilor acestuia sunt prevăzute în anexa nr. 1 (The model of the flag of Romania and the intensity of it colors are presented in annex no. 1)

Annex no. 1 states the colors as: albastru cobalt (cobalt blue) , galben crom (chrome yellow), roşu vermion (vermillion red).

Thanks, it's good to know there's a law on this. What surprises me though is the vermilion red. This color is a bright orange-ish red, which I've never seen used for an actual Romanian flag. --AdiJapan 17:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
These 3 colors are pigments (chemical substances) not necessarily colors. I have yet to find a reliable source which transforms cobalt blue, chrome yellow and vermilion red to Pantone or any other printing standard. Direct transformation to digital (such as RGB) without any proof of laboratory spectography analysis is most likely bogus. (I'd very much like to know where the Wikipedia pages for these colors got their RGB, HSV and CMYK codes from.) So until further proof, the only hard evidence remains "Album des Pavillons", which lists both Pantone and CMYK codes (presumably obtained professionally by the authors.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.157.164.98 (talk • contribs) 23 Jan 2006

Anittas, what precisely do you mean here by "mind your own business"

This is about this edit, and especially its edit summary.

Anittas, since you have accused me in the past of jumping to conclusions about the meaning of your remarks, and since I honestly don't feel like having a strictly private exchange with you, I am bringing this here as a possible place to discuss it.

Obviously, I disagree with your edit—you are reverting an edit for which I gave a clear rationale, and you are as much as acknowledging ("Moldova should be Romanian") that this is a deliberate case of the Romanian hegemonism to which I was objecting. But what I really want to know is: what precisely do you mean by "mind your own business". Given that you are reverting my edit, I assume it is addressed to me. Are you telling me that somehow this article is your business, but not mine? And if not, what do you mean. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Before Anittas will answer you 'cause you asked him I would like also to ask you Joe if you have read the talk page first and if so, why did you removed the Romanian word before Eminescu? Do you deny or accept that fact that he's Romanian? Bonaparte talk 09:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course he was Romanian. He was also 19th-century, male, a journalist and a lot of other things that aren't relevant to captioning a photo, in an article on Republic of Moldova, about Moldova considering him their national poet. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I meant that Romanian hegemonism is justified and should be the business of Moldova and Romania; and no one else should try to stop it. There is plenty of room to add "Romanian" to the photo. --Anittas 16:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Translation

I've had a request by email (from someone who apparently prefers not to be named) for English translations of everything posted on this board. Frankly, that is a bit beyond me to do; anyone who can be of help is requested to do so. Also, I strongly urge those of you with good English to write your comments in English: I haven't seen anything on the page that I couldn't basically follow (though I'm sure I've occasionally missed a detail), but there are quite a few contributors interested in Romanian topics who don't have much of the language, and writing messages in Romanian in the English Wikipedia tends to exclude them. If people want a corresponding Romanian-language notice board, they might consider setting one up in the Romanian Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We have the right to write in Romanian. This is an English-Romanian language notice board. You should, however, consider whether it's ethical for you to translate our private thoughts to people who might want to harm our interests. Let me ask you one thing: is the person who asked you to translate, in a conflict with some of our editors? --Anittas 03:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Every user must write here in English. If for Wikipedia is useless to keep this notice board, it could be terminated any time. --Vasile 03:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Show me the policy where it says we have to write only in English. --Anittas 03:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The common sense (sapte ani de acasa). --Vasile 04:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I see no problem occasionally writing in Romanian on the board or on this talk page, but I'm one of those who recommends English in the English Wiki 95% of the time (yeah, the fact that I'm a Romanian American whose written Romanian needs work may also be a factor, but even if my written Romanian was much better, I'd still recommend English in the English Wiki 95% of the time). Alexander 007 04:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't want to cut anyone off, but I want to address this also: Anittas, once you write something in Wikipedia, you are releasing it to the general public. If you don't want the opposing side to eventually understand your communications, communicate through email. Romanian is not a secret code language. Alexander 007 03:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I'm not stopping anyone from translating anything. I was more curious about their intention. --Anittas 03:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, I have not translated anyone's "private thoughts". I have certainly never without explicit permission posted or quoted an email that was sent to me privately by anyone connected with Wikipedia. I honestly don't know whether the person who asked me to translate is in conflict with someone here; I do know that they do not speak or read Romanian, so their request seemed appropriate to me. After translating the portions I did, I asked if that was sufficient, or if they needed me to translate the lengthy Apel section, which I summarized briefly in email; I'll admit I was very relieved when the answer was that it wasn't necessary.

If you intended secrecy, this was a poor place to post. I presumed it was primarily for convenience, given that it was a discussion on a page used mainly by people who at least read Romanian, but that someone got a bit snippy when asked to translate. My translation (at my own inconvenience) was for the sake of an interested person who doesn't read Romanian.

FWIW, whenever I post in English in a non-English Wikipedia (which I do sometimes, especially in languages like Catalan, which I read well, but write poorly), I request that someone translate if possible.

I did not say, nor am I saying now, "don't write Romanian." Heck, I sometimes leave notes to the Romanians in Romanian (especially on user talk pages), even though my ability to express myself in Romanian is definitely not first-rate. And I certainly don't hesitate to quote in Romanian where it is relevant in discussing a citation. But it is entirely reasonable for someone to ask for translation of non-English remarks on talk pages and project pages in the English Wikipedia.

Again, I'm aware my Romanian is not the best. If I made any errors in translation, and thereby misrepresented someone, I sincerely apologize, and would welcome having my translation corrected. -- Jmabel | Talk 11:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

translation 2

was: Node asked Jmabel for translation

This is so funny, but it's nice to see them stick up for each other. I urge all Romanians to observe and learn. This is what fraternity is all about. --Anittas 03:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of open communication and freedom of information, I will translate everything on the noticeboard. Where should this translation be placed? Ronline ✉ 04:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Let Jmabel translate. I'm still interested in his intentions and the intentions of the person that asked, but I see that Jmabel is now pretending that it's raining. --Anittas 04:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact it was me, who asked Jmabel for translations. And this is the first time I actually agree with Vasile on Wikipedia. The very idea of Wikipedia is its openness, including the message boards. My Romanian is almost non-existent and I would like to know the content of "Conflict cu Rusii", "RfC contra Rusului", "Node si propaganda lui", "Apel", "Pagini problemă", etc. And even more than being curious myself of what's there, I would like the Wikicommunity to know some of the frequent posters here better as well as those established editors who fail to react to trolling by their compatriots.

It's a wonderful but unsolicitated lecture. I hope you won't interfere anymore with this board notice while you are not member of this board. --Vasile 15:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to the poster of "Pagini problemă" section, my announcement at Ukrainian portal was posted in English and I am glad Bonaparte reposted it here. If you go to all Ukrainian and Russian wikimessage board, you won't find a single non-English word there, as editors there simply respect the community that might stop by to check on what's going on. Anittas, you may start a yahoo forum with little effort and talk there with Bonaparte about Russkies and Moldavane and enjoy being unseen. This, however, is an international project.

I hope this message would relieve the pressure from Jmabel and Node, at least on this issue. And I am ready to hear any comments on my request. Just one thing. Criticism is welcome at my talk, but trolling will be removed. --Irpen 04:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You have accused so many of us of trolling, that your credibility to many of us, lies on zero. I don't care who translates what, but there is nothing in the Wiki policy that says that we have to write in English. If there is, I would like to see it, and then I will adapt to this rule. I don't go to your board and write in Ro. I write Ro on the Ro board. I wouldn't think for one second that your intentions are honourable. However, one question: if you didn't know what was said here, why did you say that we wrote hateful messages? --Anittas 04:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Anittas, to be exact I accused just two of you of trolling. You say it's many? Well, I say two is exactly two too many. There is no policy that requires you to write in English. It is just good manners that you lack and Ukrainian, Russian and Polish editors have, at least in this respect. There are, however, such rules like WP:Civil and WP:NPA. Knowing that everything you say here will be known to the entire community would encourage you to follow those rules. If you think that my desire to see Wikipedia more civil is not honorable, I will live with it. --Irpen 04:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important that the content is translated fairly. People have a right to know what's said here. People write in Romanian here because it's easier for most of us, considering that this board is for Romanian issues. However, I agree that there are users like Jmabel who have extensive contributions to Romania-related topics but who may not know Romanian well enough to contribute in Romanian, yet have a right to involve themselves in the notice board. Additionally, in situations of conflict such as this, all applications for translations should be followed. Ronline ✉ 05:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I've only rarely had difficulty following exchanges here in Romanian, the main exception being one anonymous user in late October/early November 2005 leaving hostile messages on my talk page that I couldn't always follow. If you check the archives [7], for example, you will see that until he really wore out my patience I did my best to accurately translate his attacks on me into English, for the benefit of anyone who might be trying to follow, and asked for help when I couldn't do so. As remarked by IulianU, whom I turned to for help at one point, the remarks were "quite convoluted and negligently written", which can be hell to try to read as a non-native speaker.
If one of you says something that I can't follow, I certainly will ask, and will ardently hope I get a better reception than what went by above.
By the way, it would probably still be much appreciated by Irpen, who has now identified himself, if someone would translate the Apel section, and it would be much appreciated by me if I'm not the one who has to do it. -- Jmabel | Talk 11:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Translation pending. Ronline ✉ 12:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


Apel and translation

Apel

2006 este un an provocator. Depinde de noi daca vom avea succes sau nu. Daca vom fi uniti, vom fi o forta. Trebuie sa fim uniti pentru ca numai asa vom putea sa ne aparam interesele. Toti isi apara. Uitati-va la sarbi, unguri, evrei, rusi, etc. Trebuie crescut nivelul de organizare. Trebuie sa avem mai multi utilizatori romani. Trebuie sa aparam interesele Romaniei. Daca ne lasam la altii ne pierdem credibilitatea. E destul la un articol sa aratam ca nu suntem uniti si e gata. Nu vedeti cum se baga Mikka peste tot si sustine un punct de vedere nefavorabil noua? La cate pagini unde noi ar trebui sa fim acolo ei deja ne blocheaza? Uite cele mai recente pagini Cernauti, Herta, Moldova, Moldovans, Anti-Romanian,...etc. Trebuie sa aratam ca suntem uniti. Succes mai departe. Bonaparte talk 09:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

A translation: "2006 will be something beautiful, but annihilating. It depends on all of us if the stars will waltz in red and blue, and arbitrary blackness gallops in. I should have loved a thunderbird instead. I dreamed that Mikka bewitched me into bed and sung me moon-struck, kissed me quite insane. I am walking about in Romania maybe, but thinking of Serbians, Hungarians, Jews, Russians, etc." --Vasile 15:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a personal attack if I ever saw one. --Node 09:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
"I should have loved a thunderbird instead. I dreamed that Mikka bewitched me into bed and sung me moon-struck, kissed me quite insane."

Ouch, Node! That sentence does not exist in the original text. Vasile made it up as a joke and there actually is no personal attack at all. I thought you knew Moldovan/Romanian. You just got caught in your own lie, again, Node. --Anittas 13:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Anittas, not a personal attack from Bonaparte, but rather one from Vasile. --Node 01:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Da di undi shtii Node pi rumâneşte? El numa gavareshti pi rusa shi maldavineshti, shi asha di ciota!
No, Node, this is just a joke, and it has nothing to do with making fun of anyone. It looks like Vasile was fed up by the wave of translations of the Romanian paragraphs on this board and tried another style of translation, by using part of the words from the original and giving them a different twist. Sure there is nothing personal in it.
What I would like to point out is the elementary rule of civility that requires everyone to write in English on the English Wikipedia, including this board. Fellow Romanians, I'm sorry to put up again words like credibility and trust, but if we want everyone else to respect us (I believe we do!) then we should respect them by speaking their language. Trying to hide our discussions by writing in Romanian will certainly not help. Everyone here proved that they have a sufficiently good command of English, so Ronline's argument (that some of us write in Romanian because it's a lot easier) doesn't really hold. I saw each and everyone of the people here debating on the talk pages with no visible trace of difficulty. Let's be as good as we want others to believe we are. --134.160.214.90 10:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC) --AdiJapan 10:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC) (I wasn't logged in, apparently.)
Those interested "nonparticipant" readers should act with civility too, refraing from unsolicited boring lectures, not to mention punishable criminal acts like threatening. --Vasile 15:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. But we should not respond to their behavior with lowering our civility standards. --AdiJapan 15:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Communicating in Romanian was not intended to be an act of uncivilty toward foreigners since it was not known the great interest around this notice board. --Vasile 16:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Vasile, care to elaborate where I acted incivilly and, especially committed "punishable criminal acts like threatening". If you are all for civility, I suggest you revise the style of your edit summaries. Your eloquent summaries like [8], [9], [10] speak more of yourself than summarize your edit. --Irpen 21:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You acted incivil when you accused me of using suckpuppets on other people's talkpages. --Anittas 04:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
<joke>I hesitate to think what portion of one's anatomy one would use to operate a "suckpuppet".</joke> "Sockpuppet", from "sock", ("şosetă"). -- Jmabel | Talk 05:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
sockpuppet*** --Anittas 05:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Note from Jmabel

Hey, guys, I'm about to start another project for Active Voice, the same folks for whom I worked in Bucharest in 2001-2002. I should be working for them at least six months. This means two at least vaguely relevant things: (1) I'm probably going to have less time for Wikipedia than lately. I still hope to have 15-20 hours a week, but certainly not the 40+ I've been putting in lately. (2) There is a fair chance I will be in Bucharest on business some time in March or April; I'm going to try to get at least a few days off while I'm there. I'd love to hook up with some of you while I'm there. If I remember correctly, there's never been any face-to-face meetup of Wikipedians in Romania, but I imagine that there are enough Wikipedians in Bucharest to get at least half a dozen of us in one place at one time. Assuming I can work this out on my end, would anyone else be up for this? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel, you may also want to announce this on Romanian wikipedia, too! Thanks! --Vlad 12:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to copy & translate. - Jmabel | Talk 06:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Bucharest snobbery

I just wrote a stub on Bucharest snobbery, but I believe the article can be expanded even further. As time goes, I will try to add references. However, Bogdangiusca seems to be bothered about the article and he wants it deleted. I'm not sure why. I think the article looks interesting. If we can have an article on Romanian anti-discrimination, then we can also have this one. Can anyone please translate the article into Romanian, since my writing in Romanian is not decent? Maybe one of the two Bogdans? Thanks :) --Candide, or Optimism 18:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Anittas, why do you insist in washing the laundry in public? It is clear that the only motivation of writing this article is against Bogdan (as being from Bucharest) & Ronline (who expanded the article). And now, at least the second one is a... traitor?!? What is his treason? Making a Rfc against you?!? Not sharing your POV?!? I thought that this board that, BTW, carries your name in the first position was supposed to be a community, that we should have sticked together. But no. And what has happened recently around here is a perfect example for why Romanians abroad (for instance) with some very little exceptions, do not make communities in their adoption countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain etc. etc.) And how could we, when in Romania we're Transylvanians against Moldavians against Valachians against people from Oltenia against people from Bucarest against Hungarians against Gypsies against Moldavians from the other side of the Prut agains Russians etc. etc. --Vlad 22:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I was also hoping that we would stick together, but I guess that two RfCs and a threat for Arb, plus being ignored by some, while having others going against me - including you, my Vladislav buddy - sort of changed my mind. Still, the article has a purpose and it's not so much to do with The Bogdans or being threatened with Arb. I mean, sure, there are some POVs in the article, but in time, I will add references and decrease the POV. --Candide, or Optimism 22:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, from my point of view, both Rfc are well deserved. But they are also useless. Because you do not seem to want to change either your attitude against wikipedia or against the fellow wikipedians. For the record, I'm not not your buddy nor your enemy and Vlad is not a short for Vladislav. Is it ok with you, Ani? :) (I'm sorry, I could not help myself). --Vlad 22:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Nothing is okay, Vladimir. It seems that you were not pleased with my answer. Too bad, because I don't have a better answer to give you. --Candide, or Optimism 22:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
No, no, it's ok. I know you don't have other answers. So these ones will do just fine. --Vlad 22:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Anittas, you think Iaşi is a great city, why don't you write articles about it, instead of writing articles about how evil and traitorous are the Bucharesters. Look: in all, Category:Bucharest and subcategories have 176 articles about Bucharest buildings, history, geography, etc. (plus about 50 about Ilfov County). In the meantime, Category:Iaşi has 6 articles, not in very good shape. I bet you can find lots of interesting things about Iaşi to write about. bogdan 23:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Or even better, he eventually could move in Buch. in order to become a snob too. --Vasile 01:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
A chapter about "Bucale" would be very well related with this snobbery issue in Bucharest. There are decades since the slang is in use. --Vasile 01:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not from Bucharest but I do believe that Bucharest is the national capital and that what is good for Bucharest is ultimately good for Romania's image. It's ironic how Anittas preaches unity between Romanians at Wikipedia but then goes on and seeks to split people into Wallachians, Moldovans and Transylvanians and write articles about conflicts between Bucharesters and Ieşeni that don't actually exist. Ronline ✉ 06:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I am against this too. What about Tg. Mures snobbery or Timisoara snobbery? -Paul- 11:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Că tăt Banatu-i fruncea! :-) bogdan 14:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not about agreeing with having the article or not. It's all about Wikipedia policy. If verifiable NPOV encyclopedic information can be put in that article then it's fine to have it. As it is, the title is way POV and relevant contents doesn't exist. Call it Attitude of Bucharest inhabitants towards the rest of Romania, have all statements rely on credible sources, correctly reflect all points of view and maybe you'll even get a prize for that article.

However, I doubt this is possible, and it's certainly one of Anitta's bad jokes. — AdiJapan ☎ 14:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable… A Romanian who writes things on Wikipedia just to upset another Romanian… Şi vă mai miraţi că avem o imagine proastă… And the funny thing is that the “article” was made by Annita (fellow of Bonaparte, the fierce nationalist).--RS.ro 21:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

In Dilema veche, subiectul nu exista (atat cat poate descoperi cautarea site-ului), deci nu exista!? O abordare de jumate de paragraf intr-un text "Provincie si provincialism", Marina DUMITRESCU, Dilema veche nr. 28/2004 (cred). --Vasile 03:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Ma gandesc, oare cum ar fi ca pe wikipedia romaneasca (nu cea englezeasca) sa facem o pagina de talk pe care povestim de ce "mandrii regionale" sau "critici regionale" am auzit. Cred ca ar fi amuzant, si poate ne-ar ajuta sa exorcizam un pic demonii. :) Dpotop 16:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

We are welcome, if you really want that... But please do keep in mind that wikipedia wants to be an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. This Bucharest snobbery thing & all these other disputes inter-romanians should not have even existed in the first place. There is nothing we should be proud about, or brag about elsewhere. We already have to deal with enough nationalism & regionalism at Romanian wikipedia, too, depending on the articles. --Vlad 17:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Declaratie

Eu declar pe Node ca dusmanul Romaniei si tot neamul romanesc, nord si sud de Dunare, iar toti care il sprijina, eu ii declar ca tradatori de tara si de neamul romanesc, sud si nord de Dunare. Acesti tradatori, deocamdata, sunt Ronline si Orioane. Uita-ti ce a spus Node nu de mult:

I claim to be a Moldovan. My parents are from that country of Moldova, and I have that blood of my ancestors running in my veins, so I am Moldovan ,and you are not. I admit I have a poor control of our language, but please, find me a Jewish guy who will say the holocaust never happened. I am Moldovan, I speak the Moldovan language as my mother tongue (although unfortunately I have lost quite a bit of it), the nation of Moldova was founded by the blood of my ancestors, who were repressed by Turks, Wallachians, Russians, but in the end have finally prevailed. Do not presume to speak for the Moldovan people. Do not say we are not spoken for when we are. Unpatriotic apologists like Pavel have as their greatest wish of all, that they were born in Romania, and they like to pretend they are Transylvanians, because they think that by emulating Transylvanians, they will suddenly become wealthy. Your politicians and youir historicqal ties have forced us to abandon the beautiful Moldovan literary language in favour of your ugly Wallachian writing.

Link

Eu cu acesti tradatori de tara, ca Ron is Orioane, nu vreau sa am treaba. Numai Vasile si Alex au luptat pentru dreptate. Restul de voi ati stat si va-ti uitat ca mata in calendar. --Anittas 15:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

'Uita-ti', inainte sa faci pe aparatorul 'tot neamul romanesc' poate ar trebui sa inveti sa scrii corect romaneste. In alta ordine de idei, daca treci la categorisire, ma pun voluntar pe lista tradatorilor AdamSmithee 16:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Poti sa treci unde vrei. Nu stiu cine esti si nu stiu daca ai habar despre ce este vorba, dar vad ca esti din Bucuresti. Nu este de ajuns ca-ti dai aere mari acolo? Iar nu stiu ce are scrisul de a face cu ce am spus eu. --Anittas 17:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
şi "va-ţi" în loc de "v-aţi" :-) bogdan 16:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Sunt perfect de acord cu tine Anittas. Sunt un trădător. Mulţumesc că mi-ai luminat existenţa şi mi-ai deschis ochii. Sincer nu ştiu ce s-ar fi întâmplat cu mine altfel. Aş fi murit în neştiinţă, aş fi căzut în întuneric, aş fi ars în flăcările iadului. Încâ odată îţi mulţumesc, ŢIE, oh MESSIA neamului românesc şi al existenţei mele. Mulţumesc că m-ai făcut să revăd tot ce e mai bun în neamul meu. Mihai -talk 17:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
De unde ai invatat sa fii asa de sarcastic? De la Vacanta Mare? Alea sunt glume de Bucuresti. Numai voi radeti. Restul tarii plange. Hai, dute si asculta manele impreuna cu domnul Adam. :D --Anittas 17:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Sunt glume de suparare c-au luat bataie Rennes (deh, provincie) ieri la fotbal. --Vasile 17:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Patrie, Neam, Trădători, MEDICAMENTEEEE. Mihai -talk 17:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Ce medicamente ma? Te-ai dus acolo si ti-ai pus signatura contra mea, fara macar sa zici de ce. Sunteti toti mana in mana cu rusii si habar nu aveti ce faceti. Sunteti nisti nihilisti: chinuiti animalele, va bateti joc de copiii orfani, vindete jumate de moldova si refuzati ca romania sa se reuneasca co Basarabia si inca mai aveti pretentii? V-ati batut joc de tot. --Anittas 17:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Foarte buna ideea cu notice board asta, cine a avut-o!? --Vasile 17:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Anittas can be melodramatic, but that's better than being indifferent or apathetic. I hardly ever write in Romanian precisely because it is a difficult language to write if you never learned it in school, so I spare you my barbaric language. But then again, fuck your correct speech. I approve of Anittas' phrases. Alexander 007 18:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
You write better than I do, but I didn't notice anyone having any difficulties in understanding my point. They were just being Bucharest, that's all. And well said! --Anittas 18:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Anittas, asta e prea mult, cred ca amendoi (Ronline si Orioane) a zis demult ca nu e de accord cu ce Node scrie despre Moldova si Romania, dar ei e oameni civilizate si vrea sa fi politicos. Si amendoi "tradatori" a facut mai mult pentru Romania la Wikipedia dacut tine.
Cer scuza pentru ca inca scriu româneste asa da prost (nu sunt nascut in Romania) dar sper ca toţi a inteles ce am scris Anclation 18:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Cu ce au facut mai mult? Ron a lucrat putin cu articolul despre CFR si bravo lui ca l-a facut FA; plus articolul de Bucuresti, dar nu cred ca aia este de laudat. Eu nu am venit sa ma iau la intrecere cu astia. --Anittas 19:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
"plus articolul de Bucuresti, dar nu cred ca aia este de laudat." De ce? Numai pentru ca tu urasti Bucuresti? Si sigur ca el a facut mai mult dacit asta, stii ca el este un Sysop si la Wikipedia in limba romana. Anclation 19:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Vorbim de En Wiki. Nu stiu ce a facut la Ro Wiki. Tu stii? --Anittas 19:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Da, stiu, eu am fost mult pa Wikipedia in limba romana. Si este usor sa gasesc, are un link pentru nickul sau la Wikipedia Romania, pa pagina de utilizator aici. Dar stiu ca trebuie sa fie greu aici pentru tine, daca tu crezi sincer ca doi dintre administratori romani aici sunt tradatori, si agenti pentru rusi.. Anclation 19:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
You don't have a license. --Vasile 01:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to state my position:

1. I know that it is somewhat unfair to point to your spelling/grammar mistakes and normally I wouldn't care about that. But I find it contradictory that you pose as The Lone Defender of everything that is Romanian and yet you ignore the basic grammar rules (using a language correctly is generally considered a basic form of respect for the country). And don't say that you use some regional versions of the words (i.e. different from the Bucharest - incidentally, standard - version), 'uita-ti' i.o. 'uitati' and 'va-ti' i.o. 'v-ati' are pure mistakes and show that you don't give a damn (I wonder why not 'a-ti stat' i.o. 'ati stat', at least you would be consistent :-D)
2. I just don't like your behavior. The way you treat people who do not agree with you is unacceptable.
3. My two cents: I think that people are more important than countries, and there is no exception from this rule. People can think for themselves, are entitled to express their opinions, and their nationality does not determine who they are. Some implications:
3.1 Do not label people as traitors just because they don't mindlessly defend any nationalistic POV or because they simply choose not to intervene.
3.2 Do not label people's opinions as worthless based on their nationality or ethnicity
3.3 The fact that someone is Romanian doesn't mean that it is mandatory to consider Romania/Romanians above other countries/people. They are not; in fact, for most purposes, the distinction should be irrelevant
4. I just don't like your behavior

PS. As you can see on my user page, my name is Bogdan, not Adam. AdamSmithee is just a nick AdamSmithee 09:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well said. --Ghirla | talk 09:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
You are clueless. That dude just insulted your "grai" (the Wallachian grai). To defend that is not to be nationalistic. To defend the culture of your country is not being nationalistic. --Anittas 14:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC) either. --Anittas 14:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Your axioms are enounces you are not able to prove. A2 and A4 are identical. The A3.3 attitude is not fashionable anymore and it is improbable to provide you a good life ( e.g. Soros grants), as it happened in the 90ies with other Romanian intelectual personalities you tend to mimic. What great authors could you refer in support of the A3 attitude? --Vasile 12:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's very worrying that through actions designed to "promote Romania", a lot of users here are actually affecting Romania's image adversely. Through strongly Romania-centric ways of thinking we come across of xenophobic, irrendentist, warmongering, nationalistic and ultimately as backward in thinking. By calling in the loudest and rudest way for us to "defend our national interest", we're not actually doing ahy of that. If we really want to promote Romania's image on Wikipedia, we first need to act in a way that is admirable. We've got to be tolerant, flexible, kind and all that, and then people will respect us and like us. We've got to create an image of Romania as inherently forward-thinking and progressive, since these are the values of the postmodern world that we live in. This is why I think that on a national level, the absolute best investment Romania can make in its image is to become as progressive as possible - to legalise same-sex marriage, to fully separate church and state - to remove that inappropriate Orthodox cross from the parliament -, to solidify anti-discrimination structures, to invest in infrastructure for people with disabilities, to give territorial autonomy to the Szekler Land, to invest in renewable energy, to openly debate the legalisation of prostitution and euthanasia. These things would make Romania a world leader, and they don't cost too much in terms of economics. We've got to adopt that same attitude here on Wikipedia. If we want to be admired, if we want to be thought of as one of the most forward-thinking nations in the world, we've got to stop with these 20th-century attitudes of nationalism and fear for neighbours and historical absolutism. A lot of you guys are too wrapped up in history and "Greater Romania" and this notion of "noble Romanian historical heroes" - that is, the historic Romanticist Romania. Some people say that's fashionable again, but for the intellectuals, for policy makers and for the people out there who are judging Romania and are worth listening to, it's certainly not. Rather, we've got to be forward-thinking and progressive, and with these values, we'll serve a much better interest for Romania. Through these actions, we establish a brand for Romania, just like we've got Hi-tech Prosperous Northern Europe, and Culturally-Eternal Italy, we can and should have Inherently-Progressive Romania. That's surely better the Spiritual Rustic Romania that so many people believe in. If we wish to be Western - which we are and should be - we've got to let that Romantic idea go. For good. And we can start with Wikipedia. Ronline ✉ 07:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
you romanians who lived outside for a longer period come back and try to impose some superfluous concepts. that's what maiorescu called "forme fără fond". but heck, that's a general trait of romanian liberals. Anittas is partially right of you being a traitor. yes, traitor of romania and romanian people is too much, but traitor of romanian values will be just right. Anonimu 12:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Anonimu, who are you to define what Romanian values are, and label people you hardly know in this kind of way? What if someone called you a traitor of romanian values because of your socialist sympathies, would that seem fair to you? Ronline just wants to see Romania move foreward, develop and be respected, and is presenting some of his thoughts on how this can be achieved. Anclation 13:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I am a guy who sees romanian society from inside, rather than applying stereotypes. I labeled nobody, just i commented on Ronline's extensive statement. It was not based on his political affiliation, just that i noticed many common points between romanian liberal doctrine and his statement. Everyone wants to see romania move forward, but most of the people (including Ronline) want this to be done artificially only by copying western-european values. But this movement should be fueled by an internal force. In the last 2 centuries, most of our intelligentsia unilaterally accepted the western way (probably beacuse of an inferiority complex) or had to adopt a way imposed by external forces, while the ones who thought by themselves and tried to find natural solutions were exiled from romanian society. It didn't work as it should have for 200 years, why this should miraculosly work now? I'll stop here, since this discussion could last for years, and I don't think that this notice board is the right place for something like this. And this will of seeing Romanian "developed and respected" is the same result of this inferiority complex, and coming from a romanian who lives in other countries, this sounds like an endeavor to get rid of stereotypes applyed by other to him because of it's origin, rather than a wish to make romanian society better. This is supported by the fact that he stressed that he want a better image for romania, and not a real evolution of its society. We prostituted us in the last 2 centuries. Doesn't anyone think that we should stop? Anonimu 15:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Seriously speaking, I also agree with 90% of Ronline's philosophy for Romanian Wikipedians, though I personally choose to not always follow it. However, I think he misrepresented some of the evidence (at least two linked edits; I later fixed those misrepresentations) in Anittas' Rfc2, intentionally or not, and I can understand (though not necessarily agree with) Anittas' accusations that Ronline was being overzealous because he wanted to further his position in Wikipedia, in addition to his belief that Anittas' edit behavior was/is inappropriate and potentially damaging for the image of Romanian Wikipedians. Though one inappropriate editor on his own can't damage the general image; two or three can do more damage (though I've noticed how people often tend to have their attention captured by the bad Wikipedians, and I've noticed how some non-Romanian Users who I need not name like to draw peoples' attention to these bad editors, as if they want to eclipse the other Romanian editors from peoples' minds). Alexander 007 13:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I feel that the image of Romanian Wikipedians is fine, despite User:Ghirlandajo and his occasional slander. But what can we expect from a User who calls people "Polish zombies" because he disagrees with their edits (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo). The ones who need to do damage-control regarding their image are the Greek Wikipedians, Albanian Wikipedians and Macedonian Wikipedians, among a few others, because of the constant nationalist edits of several editors whom I need not name. Romanians are doing just fine in Wiki. Relax :) . Alexander 007 13:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Nice agenda. I hope it's not against the wiki rules and regulations. --Vasile 00:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Commenting on Anittas' remarks places me am in danger of violating the rules on civility myself. The only thing that prevents his remarks from seriously tarnishing the image of Romania is that those of us who can Romanian pretty much all know that the country contains relatively few people who would say such things. -- 14:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I think that we, Romanians, should worry less of what others say about us. Our image is not damaged by our will to defend our culture, but by neglecting poor people's need of help. To worry about what some foreigner will think of our opinion is a bit childish and shows how insecure we are to the outside world. It's like acting like a teenager who just got a pimple and ia afraid to go out. Secondly, you make it to sound like I put a reward on people's head. All I did was to call certain people for traitors. I once saw you saying that someone denied the Holocaust and that you almost lost it. Well, imagine if that someone would deny the Holocaust and then make a Wiki for it and become the sysop of it. He would make his propaganda month after month. Would you then be able to control yourself? I haven't been to the Holocaust pages, but perhaps I should go there and add references that say the Holocaust never occured. Perhaps I should go to the Anne Frank page and add references that say she never wrote the book, but her father did. What would then happen? You already started a RfC because I wrote "Jew" with capital letters; let's see how you would handle something like that. Don't worry, I would remain Extra civil, just to annoy you even more. --Anittas 14:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia "image of Romania" is fixed? --Vasile 14:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
There are Holocaust deniers and outright Nazis out there with wikis of their own and, you know what? I ignore them. But when they come into Wikipedia that is another matter. Similarly, if you want to start a Wiki about how Romania would be the best country in the world if only it could annex Moldova and trade Bucharest to the Bulgarians for the Cadrilater, and if you want to address people there the way you have been addressing people here, I don't really care. But when you do it here, it becomes my business.
Maybe C.V. Tudor needs a webmaster. Oh, but the party headquarters is in Bucharest. How inconvenient for you. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
It becomes your business, you say? No offence, old man, but I think you've been watching too many John Wayne movies. You're saying that you would have a problem with Nazis who would promote propaganda on Wiki. How come I can't reserve the same right against other propagandists? Tudor and I have little in common. Bucharest can stay, but they need to know their place and seize to be arrogant. They also need to be philanthropic and take responsibility for those children of theirs. --Candide, or Optimism 07:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Anittas, we must worry about what others say about us. Why do you think others invest so much in branding and national advertising? For one, it boosts the country's image and perception, but it also has sizeable political and economic benefits. A good image of Romania rewards the people of our country. As to me being a "diaspora Romanian", that's not true. You're right, I am a bit of a global traveller, and I've lived in everywhere from Ireland to Australia to Estonia to the UK. I also have a very Western lifestyle, and for me that's natural, because I'm Romanian, therefore I'm European, part of the Western world. And on the point of country image - I was at a wonderful Czech promotion day when I was in Australia, of all places, and it was an excellent for what Romania could do. They did have cultural promotion and all of their culinary specialities, and showcases of historical Prague, but it was also a modern business thing that combined the modern Czechia (which is damn modern and progressive) with all the quiant and rich cultural elements.
The point I'm most going to stress, however, is in response to Anonimu. He said Romania should stop trying to falsely boost its image, and that it should stop trying to copy Western Europe. You see, I don't think copying Western values is an inferiority complex, I think it's quite a big boost because it means that we have the confidence to see ourselves as Western. As long as Romania will not see itself as Western - even though it's a natural part of the Western world - it won't be progressive. It's natural for us to adopt Western values, and hence we must not see this as an erosion of our culture, but as something natural. Finland has a very unique culture, very different from France or Germany, but it's managed to adopt Western values without cutting back on its base culture. A lot of other countries with unique cultures in Europe have done that, to the point where we now have one European Union which shares the same basic values and yet is made up of quite diverse base cultures. There's nothing wrong with promoting the Romanian arts and Romanian cuisine and that sort of stuff. Rather, the social values should change. We must realise that it is not normal for Romania to continue being an Orthodox-centric conservative society, simply because as a Western country, it must change like other Western countries have. Change to "Western values" is normal for Romania, not artificial. You accused me partially of being a traitor of Romanian values? What are those Romanian values? To vilify gays and brand them as "not normal"? To call Roma people "ţigani" and see them as second-class citizens? To enforce a misunderstood form of paternalism where these exists a "capul familiei"? To call anyone who's not Orthdox un-Romanian? I'm not saying that's Romanian culture at all, because it isn't. Therefore, "Western values" are natural for Romania. And the past 200 years, except Communism, have been good for Romania's advancement. Romania's cultural closeness to France was a great thing. The fact that we incorporated French vocabulary into our language was a great thing. These things must continue, and we can do all these things without losing our base culture. Romania needs a brand, an image. Rustic spiritualism will never do that. Liberal progressivism at least has a damn good chance. Ronline ✉ 07:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
We should cherish and show concern for the image of our country, but not because the want to feel a part of the "West", but for our own good. That is, don't force a good image for Ro to make business more applicable and for need of recognition from the West, but for ourselves. Bucharest ruined our image with their theft and cruelty against animals and children.

No, I don't agree that we should adopt additional French, or, other foreign words. Our Academia Romana should create Romanian words from our own vocabulary of Latin origin. The problem is, they suck. They spend their time being snobs. And what are these Western values to you, because I hardly see a single country agreeing to hold the same values. You have women in Ireland who risk of going to jail for making abortions. You have the Vatican making treaties with Slovakia about doctors not having to make abortions. You have Western Europe discriminating their immigrants, while at the same time being soft on terrorists and extremists. Let gays be gays, but don't force the church to have them married and don't force the population watch a bunch of wennies going on a parade and blocking trafick. Be Liberal if you like; or even better: be Liberatarian - but don't be a fool. Don't let anyone take anything for granted, put certain limits, don't be too idealistic (Utopian and political correct) and don't be a wuss. Ro is wrong to give a simple thief 10 years in jail when all he wanted was to survive, but Western Euro is also wrong when giving a raper a few months in jail. Or, as in Belgium: respect the rights of privacy for a pedophile who tortured small girls to death. No, thanks. You can keep that shitty idealism for your heaven - or hell. --Candide, or Optimism 07:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

CV Tudor needs TV showbizz persons probably more than a webmaster. Having financed "Romania Mare", he won 1/4 of the votes. He thinks he will do better with a television. --Vasile 12:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible that we are taking Wikipedia too seriously? From casually conversating with people, I know that many don't even know what Wikipedia is. What are we exactly worried about here? Romanians in Wikipedia are a very varied bunch with different ideas, as this noticeboard shows. What 2 or 5 Romanian Wikipedians may choose to do is not likely to have much of an impact in real life. Or am I wrong? Do you guys believe that these Wiki-dramas are really that influential? Like I said, as things are now, I don't see what all the fuss is about, and this may be obsessing with a problem that---as far as the perception in Wikipedia is concerned---doesn't exist. Alexander 007 07:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
If you guys are actually (subconsciously, semi-consciously; if consciously, I think that you guys on both sides should get back to editing articles, if I may be so rude...) intending to speak of how Romanians "should behave" outside of Wiki, I'm kindly reminding you all here that this is an internet project with the intention to create a free encyclopedia, and that is our business here. Alexander 007 07:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, well this discussion did derail here, but it's OK to have conservations about other stuff too (in fact, this is one point I agree with Anittas on). Western values are a series of liberal-progressive values designed to maximise human equality, dignity, standard of living and happiness. They include things respecting minority rights, giving people a broad range of civil rights, ending discrimination, adopting a more postmodern, less absolute view of the world, and most of all - and this encompasses the former - letting people live their lives freely, in the way they want to, without being coerced for their beliefs, lifestyles or any other factors. Of course, many Western countries - including Romania - are backward on some civil rights. Ireland, for example, which bans abortion, is backward, and that's terrible. As to gay people, I won't give you a long discussion on gay rights (I'm writing a paper on this at the moment, it's one of my big areas of interest), but I'll tell you this: if same-sex marriage is ever legalised, it will have nothing to do with the church. Marriage is not a Christian institution, but a secular civic one. Just like atheist couples can marry in the city hall, same-sex couples will marry at the city hall without the church being involved at all. If the church wants to allow religious marriage for same-sex couples, that's OK, but that can't, and so far hasn't, been forced. But in every single same-sex marriage discussion I've had with people, no-one has been able to give me one argument why these unions should not be legalised. As to gay marches - they're a fundamental part of expression for gay culture and for the drive for rights. Gay people will continue engaging in these parades - which are, in some progressive societies, fun events for everyone not just for them - because it's a way of showing their identity. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Under your proposal, why don't we ban the Sibiu march of people not supporting the schism between the Transylvanian Orthodox Church? They're disrupting traffic, and they're showing they're own point of view and identity, just like LGBT people. Ronline ✉ 08:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't betray your reason (I like using that word when referring to you). Western society is not that liberal as you make it to be. Italy and Ireland are not that liberal. Countries that don't legalize prostitution are not that liberal. Scandinavian countries (excluding Denmark) have strict alcohol and drug restrictions. They're not so liberal. I'm all for Liberalism and Libertarianism, but I don't think that people who go against these values should be allowed free in our society. If, for example, you make your daughter or wife cover her head, you should be shot. Or, imprisoned, if it suits your political-correctness better. I don't think that Gay parades are fun, but what I think is irrelevant. They may have the right to parade and I'll have the right to laugh at them. I think you can be Gay and not make a fool of yourself, as those idiots do when they parade on the streets wearing very strange clothes. I don't even know what the word is for those clothes. Fool clothes? This discussion has turned into a rant, so whatever. All I'm saying is that Western society is not that liberal as you make it to be and it's not as fruitfull as you think. Just take a look at how they messed up their intigration policy. They can't even protect girls from getting murdered by honour killing, because of these so-called rights that you speak of. --Candide, or Optimism 10:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Well the point is that I never said Romania should copy Western countries "word by word". They're not as liberal as I would like them to be, but they're the best example we have. However, what Romania should do is go for progressive liberal values. I never actually called them Western values, only "Western values" in response to Anonimu using that term. I'm not even trying to contrast Western society with Romanian society, since I think they're one and the same thing. My whole point with branding Romania as inherently progressive was so that it becomes a role model for the Western European nations, which is actually really easy to do given the political will. The way it can do that is through respect for progressive civil rights and values. A lot of the time they're called Western values, because they originated and are most solidly applied in the West, which includes Romania, according to me. As to Scandinavia - drug and alcohol control laws are OK to me. I think smoking bans are good, for example, since smoking infringes on other peoples' rights through passive inhalation. This is where liberals and libertarians tend to disagree. Libertarians favour full economic freedom and an almost-uncontrolled state (since the state is generally libertarian enemy #1). In libertarian societies, for example, there wouldn't be anti-discrimination laws, and libertarians hence support, in my view, the allocation of rights even if they infringe on other people's rights. As a liberal/progressive, I go mostly for human happiness, and freedom as a primary means to achieve that. I support free speech, but also anti-discrimination laws and things like workplace security (though to a much lesser extent than social democrats). I'm also becoming more involved in green politics, which libertarians tend to disagree with due to differing views on the environment. So, I'm not really libertarian. Liberals like political correctness, libertarians hate it :) Ronline ✉ 11:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This will be my last message not regarding directly wikipedia, and is intended to be a comment on Ronline's opinions. First of all Romania is not Western. We have some common values based on Christian values, values coming from a common IE background and values coming from greek-roman influence of antiquity, although the latter have some differences because of social and historic conditions. All other western values found in romania were artificially introduced in a culture that was not ready to accept them. I don't say that they aren't any western values that romanians should adopt, but this should be done by natural and social evolution, nut just forced because other societes adopted them. Western Europe needed more than 500 years of political stability to adopt this values. May romanian be more precocious, but we are still people, and people can't change mind when their leaders decide to. That's why communism didn't succeed.Liberty of religion is guaranted in Romania, so i don't see why do you view Orthodoxy is something bad. Since the majority of romanian population still consider itself Orthodox i don't understand what's bad in being orthodox centric. To view people with physical or mental diseases (like gays) as strange is a natural thing for humans, and for the whole antural world, since they don't help evolution. What's wrong in calling gypsies "ţigani". This is the romanian exonym for them. Is the same reason we call chinese "chinezi" instead of "zhonghuani", and koreans "coreeni" instead of "hangughezi" or "ciosoneni". There is another problem with gypsies. Since some of their life concept are against common European Christian values, it normal by human nature for europeans to view them as something that could damage their values. And about un-orthodox being considered non-romanian, religion was the most important category during whole middle ages, romanian identity came later, in the 17-18th century, and wasn't fully formed till 20th century. But, anyway, the mentality has changed since a part of romanians preffered to became graeco-catholics. The last 200 years were good for romania's international image and for some of its elites, but not for the romanian society as a whole. Communist, through uniformization, sthrengthened romanian identity. But this gave rise to the masses, that could accept values imported from the west by revious elites. That created a paradox and that's one of the main reasons of the situation in post-communist romania. French words have entered romanian thorugh what could be called "linguistic snoberry". they were words used by boyars and wealthy people to distinguish themselves from the masses and to feel superior. nayway, i'm not against borrowings, but i think we should also encourage internal formation of words, because romanian still has this capacity. In the last 200 years, at least untill communist uniformization, the main creator of new words (thorugh internal formation) was the rural world, but again, because of a "linguistic snobbery" , people from cities, considered them "under their level" and preffered to borow terms taht already have a romanian equivalent for other languages. -- Anonimu 13:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This discussion began with Anittas making "A Declaration", so let me bring it back full-circle: I thought his Declaration was an enjoyable work of art, a glorious harangue, and I could almost picture him with a Three Musketeer (Alex, Anittas, and Vasile; All for One and One for All) sword in hand, wearing a cape with the Romanian Coat of Arms emblazoned on the back. I liked his declaration. At the same time, he obviously got carried away and became a bit presumptuous and over-reacted by calling Ronline and Oroiane traitors, by defining what Romanians should do, and by encouraging a certain type of editing behavior which may be problematic simply because of this:Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers. In this Wiki thing, we should strive to solve edit conflicts in the proper fashion. Alexander 007 08:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know Vasile, but he seems like a cool guy. Okay, you and I are Moldavians. We can say that you're Moldavian, since your mother was Moldavian. Vasile, where are you from? It's okay if you're Wallachian. They can be nice, too. Liviu Vasilica was Wallachian and he was way-cool. Unfortunatelly, he died, so Becali took his place as the coolest Wallachian. :D --Candide, or Optimism 10:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Guys, we should agree to have these kind of extended discussions on Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board rather than here (what's that talk page for, if not for this?). I have at least one more thing to add however: I see nothing wrong with French loans; after all, many long-time words in Romanian are loans: from Old Slavonic, even though now they seem 100% Romanian. Alexander 007 07:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Two tangential remarks:

  1. Western Europe by no means had 500 years of stability. Prior to the last 60 years, Western Europe was for centuries one of the most war-torn regions of the world, and undergoing rapid and unprecedented social transformations. The far West of Europe - Ireland, Spain Portugal - has a very short, very recent history of being part of what we usually think of as Western Europe. 30-odd years ago, Portugal and Spain were both less democratic than Romania in the early 1930s, and poverty-stricken, priest-ridden Ireland was only a bit more a part of modernity.
  2. On churches and gay marriage: in the U.S. at this point the positions of Church (or at least some denominations) and State (the Federal government and most states) on this are the opposite of what one might think: while Massachusetts is the only state of the union that currently recognizes same-sex marriage, many Protestant and Jewish denominations (not to mention the neo-pagan denominations, which are much less of a joke here than in Europe) perform same-sex unions that are religiously tantamount to marriage, but which the state won't recognize. The trailblazer in this respect was the Metropolitan Community Church, but even the Episcopalians, the U.S. equivalent of Anglicans, are now on that side of the issue.

Also, I suggest that this section be archived & linked from the talk page, certainly eventually, maybe sooner rather than later. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Romanian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_1&oldid=1137452450"