Misplaced Pages

:Romanian Misplaced Pagesns' notice board: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:24, 3 June 2006 editAnittas (talk | contribs)4,700 edits rv - banned vandal who removed a recent discussion!← Previous edit Revision as of 16:25, 3 June 2006 edit undoGDP (talk | contribs)226 edits was not removed, was just made a new archive, this won't bring me block if that's what you expectNext edit →
Line 17: Line 17:


], ] ], ]
] ], ]


==Links== ==Links==
Line 25: Line 25:


==News and announcements== ==News and announcements==
===] photos===

Hi, would anyone in Bucharest be able to take some photos of the ] parade, to be inserted into the relevant article? I know this is a bit of late notice, but the photos would be very useful, considering the importance of the festival in the context of Romanian civil rights. ] ''']''' | ''], ] and ]'' 09:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:We don't need any fag photo. They are enough of them in wikipedia. ] 11:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::And we don't need any intolerance here. And while we're here, I can just as well say "we don't need any more Orthodox icons and crosses here, so take them off you user page. There are enough of them in Misplaced Pages". Equal? Ah, but, no, you don't want to live in a Romania of equality. ] ''']''' | ''], ] and ]'' 12:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::It's not intolerance. But i don't think that people with psyhic disorders should get their photos all over a neutral encyclopedia. ] 12:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::::1) It ''is'' intolerance. By stating that "we don't need any fag photo", you're being intolerant towards LGBT people, and are trying to minimise coverage of LGBT issues on Misplaced Pages. Isn't opposing LGBT content intolerance? 2) Homosexuality is not a psychic disorder. Read more widely. 3) The status of homosexuality has nothing to do with its coverage on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia that covers a broad range of information. Writing articles about LGBT issues doesn't go against neutrality principles, even though it may lead to ]. The fact that Misplaced Pages has many LGBT-related articles just means that the LGBT community is overrepresented here, in the same way that Europeans are overrepresented here in comparison to Africans. By documenting the ], we are just furthering the goal of Misplaced Pages, to inform people. Any form of informative addition to Misplaced Pages should be encouraged, as long as it's written in a neutral way, without mattering what subject type it is. 4) It doesn't cost anything to tolerate. Think about this. This applies not only to LGBT people, but to people who are different that you in general. ] ''']''' ''], ] and ]'' 12:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::::: Cu ce ajuta o poza cu oameni destrabalandu-se wikipedia? Cat despre conditia medicala numita homosexualitate: timp de sute de ani a fost considerata o boala, pana cand un homosexual a pus mana pe o diploma universitara si a inceput sa scrie pseudo-stiinta. In studiile contemporane nu poti avea incredere. In vest, aluzia la faptul ca homosexualitatea nu e tocmai naturala echivaleaza cu sinuciderea stiintifica. Nu am nimic impotriva homosexualilor in sine. Ii respect si cred ca ar trebui sa primeasca tratament de specialitate ca toti ceilalti bolnavi psihici. Sa le refuzi acest lucru e adevarata discriminare. ] 12:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::What are you? Stuck in the ]s? - ] 13:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Cât timp avem articol despre GayFest, poza ar face articolul mult mai puternic. La fel cum un articol despre Metroul din Bucureşti ar fi mai puternic cu nişte poze ale metroului. Pozele ar arăta comunitatea gay din România, la fel cum sunt poze cu festivalul pride din Brazilia sau Germania. Cât cu homosexualitatea ca boală psihică: nu poate să fie boală cât timp nu influenţează pacientul într-un mod negativ. În lumea vestică sunt foarte mulţi homosexuali care au o viaţă normală, vor să îşi trăiască viaţa, nu afectează pe nimeni şi nu suferă. Deci, ce rost ar avea tratamentul, care în orice caz este aproape imposibil? Cât timp homosexualitatea în sine nu afectează persoana într-un mod negativ, este mai degrabă o diferenţă precum scrisul cu mână strângă. ] ''']''' | ''], ] and ]'' 12:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::: PArca am avea poze la toate articolele cu romania si asta ne mai lipsea. Si homosexualitatea afecteaza viata. Ams cris unele din modurile in care o afecteaza undeva mai jos. ] 13:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: Am încercat să cer poze şi pentru metroul bucureştean, şi a oraşului în general, şi vezi că în articolele unde am fost involvat eu, sunt multe poze. Şi încerc să fie cât de multe poze la articolele cu teme româneşti, inclusiv GayFest. Ţi-am răspuns la argumentul de mai jos despre influenţa homosexualităţii pentru "agenţi externi" (hai să zicem, externalităţiile activităţii homosexuale). ] ''']''' | ''], ] and ]'' 13:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: Cat timp ai trait in Romania? ] 13:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:Nu avem nevoie de perversiune mai multă decât e aici. Parada asta este un semn că România se duce de râpă. Şi nu văd ce are de-a face parada asta cu drepturile civile. Ei au aceeaşi drepturi ca toată lumea--pot să se căsătorească cu cine vor, cât timp ce persoanele sunt de sexuri diferite. Exact aceeaşi condiţii Se aplică la toţi cetăţenii români. Situaţia cu Art. 201 era la fel: puteau să aiba relaţii sexuale cu oricine, cât timp ce persoanele era de sexuri opuse. Că ei vor drepturi speciale nu ne pasă; ar trebui să-şi dea seama că ce fac ei este imoral şi să se pocăiască înainte să fie prea târziu. ]
::: He-he! That's the solution to every problem: POCĂIŢIVĂ! :-) ] 12:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::: Greu mai e cu limba asta română. ] 12:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::::: Era sarcasm. Am întâlnit pe internet destui care chiar spuneau aşa... :-) ] 12:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::Că este o perversiune este opinia ta. Pentru mine, parade este un semn că România merge în faţă. Cât cu drepturile civile - nu vezi cât de nonsens pare argumentul tău? "Pot să se căsătorească cu cine vor, cât timp ce persoanele sunt de sexuri diferite"? Ce înseamnă asta? Este la fel cum ai spune: "maghiarii au dreptul să vorbească limba lor, pentru că se pot adresa în limba română când vor". Situaţie unde căsătoria este doar între un bărbat şi o femeie este tocmai discriminatorie, pentru că doar se ştie că gay-ii nu se pot căsători cu persoane de alt sex. Legea română la ora actuală este discriminatorie fiind că este extrem de ]. Ei nu cer drepturi speciale sau mai multe decât orice alt român. Tot ce vor este să îşi exprime sexualitatea şi cultura într-un mod egal, nu să se fie forţaţi să se supună la normele hetero. La fel cum minorităţile etnice nu ar trebui să fie supuse la asimilare forţată în cultura română. Că tu crezi că ei sunt imorali nu are voie să fie punctul de vedere al statului, care este neutrul şi secular. Eu unul vreau să trăiesc într-o ţară tolerantă, egală şi deschisă, nu într-o societate intolerantă şi discriminatorie. ] ''']''' | ''], ] and ]'' 12:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Romania o merge in fata... poate ca racu. Asa e ma casatoria in romania e discriminatorie. Sunt revoltat ca nu pot sa ma casatoresc cu un bebelus de un an sau cu scroafa lu bunica'mea. Ce cultura au ma homosexualii? De cand se defineste cultura in functie de ce futi? Maine-poimaine o sa aud de cultura felationista. Comparatia cu minoritatile etnice nu isi are locul aici ] 12:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: 1) Primul argument care persoanele anti-gay dau împotriva drepturilor LGBT sunt "şi pedofilii şi zoofilii vor cere drepturile lor". Nu este argumentul despre aceste grupuri, este despre persoane LGBT. Punct. Deci comparaţia cu bebeluşul nu ţine, sau cu scroafa. Căsătoria între doi bărbaţi sau două femei este un contract voluntar care nu afectează pe nimeni altcineva, pe când căsătoria cu minorii sau animalele este diferită fiind ca aceastea ''nu pot'' să intre în acest contract, ne fiind responsabile legal. Deci pică comparaţia. 2) Ei păi tocmai asta este: că tu vezi homosexualitatea doar prin sex. Nu este aşa - este şi o relaţie iubitoare, şi există experimare culturală LGBT, în acelaşi fel cum există cultură feministă, etc. Persoanele LGBT doar vor dreptul să-şi trăiască viaţa cum vor ei, şi nu afectează pe nimeni. Ce te costă pe tine să îi tolerezi? 3) Comparaţie cu minorităţile etnice este foarte relevantă. Minorităţile etnice şi sexuale amândouă vor să aibă libertatea să îşi exprime felul de viaţă. Bineînţeles, există unele diferenţe. Dar dece spui că comparaţia nu îşi are loc? ] ''']''' | ''], ] and ]'' 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

::::: De la Moise incoace au fost considerate toate categorii de boli psiho-sexuale. Ca s-a trezit unii cu bani si influenta sa zica ca nu e nu e un motiv ptr ca acest lucru sa se schimbe. De cand bolnavii psihici au responsabilitate legala? Cultura feminista ?!?;)) Se duce lumea de rapa. Persoanele poponare afecteaza societatea foarte mult. Prin faptul ca sunt acceptati ca sanatosi ii influenteaza pe unii pusti mai slabi ca, in timpul crizei puberale, sa capete convingerea eronata ca sunt homosexuali. Si in plus, duc si la imbatranirea populatiei si eventual la disparitia speciei. Minoritatile etnice/lingvistice/religioase/rasiale nu sunt bolnave psihice si de cele mai multe ori au o cultura profund impamantenita prin traditie si iluminare spirituala. ] 12:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Dar homosexualii nu sunt bolnavi psihici. Nu se comportă aşa şi condiţia lor nu le influenţează viaţa într-un mod negativ în sine (că contextul social al homosexualităţii, şi reacţia altora, îi face să sufere este altceva). Da, cultura feministă. Vezi arta lui ]. Folosind argumentul tău, "persoanele poponare" (termen haios, din cauza combinaţiei tonului formal cu "slang") nu sunt mai rele decât persoanele hetero care n-au copii. Şi aceştia duc la îmbătrânirea populaţiei. Nu poţi să condamni fiecare persoană care nu face copii. Cu homosexualii care am vorbit, majoritatea au ştiut că sunt homosexuali înainte de a fi confruntaţi cu influenţă profundă externă. Plus că influenţele heterosexuale sunt de un milion de ori mai puternice decât cele homosexuale. Pe când homosexualii au paradă o dată pe an, poze cu femei şi bărbaţi în cuplu vezi întotdeauna. Deci nu prea poţi să spui că homosexualii sunt vicioşi în a recruta tinerii să fie homosexuali, dacă acest lucru este posibil în orice caz. Şi, ţine minte de un lucru: nimeni nu alege să fie homosexual, fiind că dece ar alege să trăiască într-o lume unde este tratat ca cetăţean de clasa a doua? ] ''']''' | ''], ] and ]'' 13:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Sunt la fel de sanatosi ca necrofilii. Contextul social e una dintre cele mai importante aspecte ale vietii (''Omul e o fiinta sociabila''), asa ca atitudinea celorlati e hotaratoare. Arta nu presupune neaparat cultura. Arta doamnei aleia e parte integranta a culturii americane. Persoanele sanatoase ce au posibilitati materiale de a sutine un copil si care nu fac copii si nu se dedica unei vieti de cunoastere a menirii umane pot fi puse in accesi categoria cu homosexualii si pot fi condamnati. Porunca biblica e ''Cresteti si va înmultiti si umpleti pamantul si-l supuneti''. Opozitia voluntara la aceasta e o crima impotriva umanitatii. Desigur persoanele care fac copii (multi) in ciuda incapacitatii de a le oferi conditii satisfacatoare de viata apartin unei categorii apropiate. Daca majoritatea au stiut inainte sa fie influentati, cum se face ca nr de homosexuali la mia de locuitori a crescut exponential in lumea occidentala in ultimii 50 de ani? Nu exista influente heterosexule. Asta este lumea... nu poti sa spui ca existenta soarelui are o influenta puternica asupra psihicului, deoarece este ceva natural si irefutabil. Homosexualii nu recruta tinerii direct, dar prezenta lor in toata mass-media influenteaza o categorie de adolescenti. Oameni se nasc homosexuali intr-o foarte mica masura (datorita unei mutatii a unei regiuni din creier), majoritatea homosexualilor sunt facuti. ] 13:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Actually, the problem is how marriage is defined. Whay gay communities around the world try to do is change the definition to cover homosexual relationships. While I am against gay discrimination, I am also against gay parenthood and gay marriage (I would vote this way). I precise more: I would be for a same-sex union that is not called marriage, but which grants the same tax/inheritance/etc rights as marriage, but not the right to adopt children. ] 12:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Well, a lot of people think like that. I think that's just one perspective of marriage, and I think most LGBT people in Romania would be happy with just civil unions. On the other hand, I just don't see the point of giving gay and straight couples practical equality, but calling their partnership a different name just because... well, just because they somehow have to have different names. But, as I said, for most LGBT rights organisations, it's the rights that count, not the semantics. As to gay adoption, I agree that this is more controversial than marriage and to be perfectly honest, I've only supported gay adoption and parenthood recently. However, I have personally talked to same-sex couples in other parts of Europe, and combined with scientific studies, I can say that the family environment in these contexts is not much different from a heterosexual couple. ] ''']''' | ''], ] and ]'' 12:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

===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 ]. - ] | ] 04:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

===]===

Hi. Is anyone here from ]? I've found two beautiful photos of the city at Flickr (see ] - especially the wonderful yellow buses - and ]) 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, ]] ''']''' ] 02:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

===Bucharest Metro station infoboxes===

Hi. I've created an infobox to be applied to every ] station: ]. For testing purposes, I have included it in ] and ]. 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 ] 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, ]] ''']''' ] 11:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
: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. --] 09:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:: Actually, the sectors are just administrative units which are not very cohesive. For example, Sector 5 includes both ] and ]. :-) ] 09:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:::Yes, that was the thing I found odd about Sector 5, even though Cotroceni is in both Sector 5 and 6 (see ]). 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. ]] ''']''' ] 10:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

::Well, the articles have barely even been created yet, so obviously they're short. However, I think the information is very useful. ], 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? ]] ''']''' ] 09:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

::Just another note - I think political geography information is lacking quite significantly. The ]-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 ] (surprisingly Justice and Truth dominated), ], ], ] and ]. ]] ''']''' ] 09:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

===Request for Mediation===

I started a Request for Mediation for the following users:
*{{User|Irpen}}
*{{User|Khoikhoi}}
*{{User|PANONIAN}}

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

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

:: For simplicity, here is the link to the RFMs ] . I believe you should give more details, Andrei. Right now, the RfM's look a bit too general. ] 15:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

::: 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 ] 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 ]. 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 ], neither does Serbia). And, yes, minority rights in Serbia are generally less than those in Romania. The minority rights situation of the ] could be mentioned in the article (I think it already is). ]] ''']''' ] 01:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

::::The latest reincarnation of your friend Bonny was permabanned, so you may relax, Ronline. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

===Bilingual names for Romanian towns===

I'm thinking of adding bilingual names for all Romanian towns where the minority population exceeds 20%. According to , 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 ] and ], both of which are officially bilingual). I have implemented this at the article on ], where Romani is co-official, and at ], where Hungarian is co-official. What do you think? ]] ''']''' ] 08:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:: 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? ] 08:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:::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 ] in Romani. ]] ''']''' ] 09:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:::: 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? ] 01:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

===Romania in the Middle Ages===
Could I ask people to take a look at the issue I raise at ]? I think there is copyvio material in the article (anonymously added last month). ] 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 ]. Given his attacks on me, I'd really appreciate it if someone else will help sort this out. -- ] | ] 06:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
====This situation is becoming very ugly====
:As I've expressed, I believe ] added (and now deliberately re-added) material to ] 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 ] and then following with this edit summary—

: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. -- ] | ] 08:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

===Romanians===

''Moved to talk page.''

===Romania in the Middle Ages===
I've been doing some pretty serious editorial work on ], 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 ] if anyone knowledgable would like to take a look. - ] | ] 03:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

===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? --] 23:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
:DIORAMAS? Need we go into Kitschland again? ] 04:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
:: 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). ] 09:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
: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 ] on wiki released under GPL by ], 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. ] 11:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
::Can you really go there and take photos? If you do, take many of them so that we can choose the best. Thx. --] 14:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure I can go this week, most probably next week. I'll take as many as I can afford.] 06:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
::::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 ] article is shaping up nicely. ]] ''']''' ] 04:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::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? --] 05:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::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 ]'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. ] 11:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::Here is a of the contents. ] 08:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::Vaslui is not in that list. I'm going to try and contact them and ask them about it. Thx. --] 10:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Umm, they don't seem to have their contact info posted. Ugh... --] 11:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

===Some very nationalist edits===
I'd appreciate it if someone besides me would look into the recent edits of ] (] • ]). 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 of ], and the in ] on the status of Jews in late 19th century Romania and the unusualness of her father having been a Jewish pharmacist. - ] | ] 19:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

===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. --] 22:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

: "She" was a man. :-) ] 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
::: I'm sorry, my mistake (Google had his part of blame: ) --]|] 23:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
::Okay, we can include that too in the article. --] 22:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
::: His memoires were translated and published in Romanian recently: ] 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
::::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. --] 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

===Poza lui Stefan cel Mare===

Nu este posibil sa adaugam poza originala a lui Stefan in loc de poza cu iconul refacut? 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! --] 06:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
: 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! - ] | ] 05:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

===] pictures ===

Hi. I've noticed that ] has contributed a lot of good information about stations on the Bucharest Metro network - see for example ]. 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, ]] ''']''' ] 06:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

:<s>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: ] original: </s>. I see you already uploaded it, well I uploaded a cropped version too then :) - ] 13:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

::Cool! I actually quite like that picture, it conveys the mood of the metro very well. ]] ''']''' ] 06:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

:: I think it's ]. ] 12:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

:I added some photos of metro stations on my daily track (M2 stations). Others will, hopefully, follow soon.] 16:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

===]s===

''Moved to talk page.''

===DACIA Logan Combi Concept===

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

===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 Misplaced Pages practice that about any source is acceptable (even if it's obvious propaganda, and doesn't even talk about actual facts). ] 08:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
*Maybe you can look at Batthyaneum library in Alba Iulia :)] 09:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:: 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. ] 16:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:: 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.] 17:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

===Negoescu, 1980B===

Who is this Ro? I found this:
--] 21:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
*Dr.Ileana Negoescu - lookie here: ] 22:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

===Romanians in Northern Transylvania===
I archived the previous discussion here: ]. ] 08:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


===Vlach-Bulgarian Rebellion=== ===Vlach-Bulgarian Rebellion===
Line 385: Line 196:
#] 12:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC) #] 12:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC) #] 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
#] 15:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


] ]

Revision as of 16:25, 3 June 2006

Romanian Wikipedians' notice board
Romania portal

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.

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2013-02-15

This page attempts to organize and keep track of the articles on Romania and Romania-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Each article is assigned a level of completeness according to the following scale:
- stub, a paragraph or two, completely inadequate.
- maybe a few paragraphs, but coverage is inadequate, still missing some basic information.
- Many paragraphs, covers all, or almost all, basic information, provides a bit of depth.
- Featured article status, or has gone as far as it can go, as in the case of a simple list.
When rating articles keep in mind the subject at hand. A very broad topic could be considered inadequate even if it is much longer than another article on a very narrow topic. Please update the page as you see fit.

Recently added:
Please put articles here after adding and leave them for one week

For more see Portal:Romania/New article announcements

Create & Translate
This section is dedicated to translations from Romanian wiki. See also Translation into English.
To create
This section lits articles that don't exist on any wiki. If known article exists at Romanian Misplaced Pages, please list in the next section
Blaj Assemblies, Moldavian Revolution of 1848, Ioan Buteanu, Timotei Cipariu, Ioan Dragoş, Ioan Maiorescu, Alexandru Vlahuţă, Sorcova, Pluguşorul, Ion Neculce, Siguranţa Statului

To create and translate from Romanian Wiki
This section lists articles that exist on Romanian wiki, but not on English wiki. If a stub or larger article exists on English wiki, but the Romanian one is larger, please list in the next section.

To translate and destub/expand from Romanian Misplaced Pages
This section lists articles that exists on both Romanian and English wiki, but the Romanian one is better and needs to be translated into English.

To translate and or destub/expand from English into Romanian

  • None at this time.

Expand
This section is dedicated to expansion or existing articles. See also Romania stubs and subcategories

In Peer review

To improve to
Featured Articles standard

In Featured article candidates

To fix
To fix various problems in articles

To find images Remove when several imgages added

To clean up/wikify/copyedit/etc. Remove if no tag. Add if a tag present.

  • None at this time.

Projects needing help

  • None at this time.
Regional notice boards
Africa
Americas
Asia
Europe
Oceania
Languages
See also: WikiProject directory

Archive 1, Archive 2 Archive 3, Archive 4

Links

News and announcements

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)


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)


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)
Bonaparte has a valid point. Maybe we should use them in the rowiki then first?Dunemaire 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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.

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

  • 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)

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)
Legile nu se aplica retroactiv in Ro, deci e imposibil sa fie sub incidenta celei din 1996. Dunemaire 14:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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 - 17:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Are the issues solved now? --Steaua 15:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Voronet, Sucevita

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

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)

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)

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

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