| Revision as of 00:07, 8 March 2008 editIllythr (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,901 edits →Hi← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:31, 29 January 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Replaced obsolete font tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (296 intermediate revisions by 55 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Topic ban violation== | |||
| <div style="background:white; border:2px DarkOrchid solid; padding:12px;"> | |||
| <big>'''Welcome!'''</big> | |||
| A report of your violation has been filed ]. - ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] Thank you for ]{{#if:|, especially those to the ] article|{{#if:|, especially those to the ] article|}}}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which will automatically produce your name and the date. | |||
| == April 2009 == | |||
| If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:|]|my talk page}}, or place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:1 week|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week'''|You have been temporarily ''']''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{#if:violating your Eastern Europe topic ban imposed under ] by making ; per |'''violating your Eastern Europe topic ban imposed under ] by making ; per '''|repeated ]}}. Please stop. You are welcome to ] after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:true|<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block2 --> | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=Really, I've made 3 mainspace edits in the last 6 months. Does the fact that the 3rd edit was an undeniable, easily verificable and sourceable detail about my country warrant a 1-week long block? Is the diruption caused by my 3 mainspace edits in the last 6 months so severe that I need to be blocked on sight for an insignificant edit about the country I know best? Do my editing habits indicate that I was going to make Misplaced Pages a living hell (cause we are all well aware of the ] of blocking somebody)? I really can't uderstand how this 1-week block is more than an entry in my blocklog (the mainspace edits I make 4 months aparts likely won't be affected)|decline=Accepting (for the sake of argument) that your edit wasn't controversial, there is no consensus that non-controversial edits should be granted an exemption from topic bans. If you're not planning on editing for months, you don't need to be unblocked before this block expires. If you are, that's unfortunate, because we really don't have a good way of enforcing a ban - once you've violated it - other than by blocking. ]<sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 21:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{#if:||] (]) 10:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)}}</div>{{#if:| | |||
| {{{ps}}}|}} | |||
| Don't write on my page. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| what the... http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AXasha <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Could you, please, first talk, and then edit. It is ridiculous: you add again and again 13 december. It is 13 January 1918 old style, 3 p.m. that the Romanian troups enterd Chisinau. Gregorian style would be January 26. :]\<sup>]</sup> 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *In 1994, there was the referendum for the constitution. If you interpret it as a referendum for independence, it is POV. However, is it not POV if you find someone claiming so, and you say "X, president of Y, believes..." Do you understand? | |||
| *Please don't remove red links. And please don't tell me about absence of NKVD presecutions upon intellighentsia. You discredit yourself with that. :]\<sup>]</sup> 20:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==What if.. Moldova unites with Romania?== | |||
| **There are a lot of things in the constitution. The population voted for the constitution as a whole, not for each thing separately. lLs, say "the referendum was for constitution, whose first article says..." Otherwise it is your interpretation. Correct or wrong doen't matter. Avoid interpretation altogether. | |||
| What if ..Moldova unites with Romania? Are you happy? New elected opposition forces said by the end of this year unification could be ready. --] (]) 17:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **well, about 90%, and that is very relevant, as the elite of the nation was killed. The opinions of some individuals can not weigh as much as killing tens and hundreds of thousand of people. think about this. I am not saying you did anything, it's the Soviets! :]\<sup>]</sup> 20:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] GAR == | |||
| ==Bender-Tighina redirect== | |||
| Xasha, i'm not taking any position in what concerns the name of that article. I would however like to point out that you're wasting your time changing the name in every single article leading to it: click ], and you'll see that it leads there because of . See also: ]. ] (]) 21:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Hello. ] has received a Good Article Review. It is proposed the article be failed due to the poor readability of its prose throughout the article. It also has significant (fixable) problems with the copyright status of its images. Please visit the ] to join the discussion. - ] (]) 03:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Bender-Tighina== | |||
| I reverted it because it was a controversial move and I'm not sure whether is the consensus for the move, especially since the three most important English-language encyclopedias, , and use the name Tighina. If you still want to change it, try proposing the move on the talk page. See ]. ] (]) 12:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Bender == | |||
| Hi,<br> | |||
| I used the form Bender (city), because I thought that was the normal disambiguation for cities. However, after your comment, I brushed up on Wiki policy in this area and saw that you are also right. The guidelines are a mess, because every region has a specific convention, sometimes using "name (city)", "name, country", "name, province, country," etc; However the intro says that in general where no previous pattern exists, the form "city, country" should be used, so if we'll move the city, then it would probably be best to move it to ] as you did. However, since there are editors who contest this move, you should follow Bogdan's advice and list the proposal for change first so that the issue can be discussed. Please contact me if you need any help with that. ] (]) 14:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692203726 --> | |||
| ==Feedback== | |||
| Well, Xasha, my comment was mainly about the persistent failure to apply ] standards in that article and others. One of the things that jump out is the chaotic use of citations: never mind how they look or were cited (I haven't got around to verifying that), but you'll notice that notes come both after and in front of punctuation marks, that they either follow a space or are glued to the word preceding them. In places with several notes, there is a space between one note and the other. All of this is obviously wrong. What I would normally say to editors is "stick to one style". But, in this case, the guidelines say exactly which style should be used: notes should always follow punctuation, and there should be no space between them and the preceding word; also, there should be no space between notes. You are new here, and I will not hold unfamiliarity with the standards against you. My comment was not aimed at anyone in particular, but I have to say that I am perplexed by the fact that there are users here who have contributed to this project for months and years, and still don't know/don't care about the basic quality standards. | |||
| Now, concerning the article. I tried to mend some obvious mistakes over and over again in the past, and it mostly proved a sysiphic effort - every once in a while, the same old unsubstantiated POV seeped back in, the same sort of tendentious editing from both sides had a field day with the article, and was always accompanied by lack of respect for various guidelines. Users like TSO1D and Illythr have tried to apply a standard of neutrality and quality, and what they implemented was commendable. But they too have pushed the rock up the slope only to have it roll back on the ground. I would like to do more for the article, but I would like to convince myself that all the main editors involved have quality and neutrality on their minds, and are not there just to push a POV or another. | |||
| While I have to say that I find some of your recent edits controversial and, in some cases, tendentious, I also will gladly acknowledge that most of what I've seen was constructive. I can only hope this is a sign that the minority of users from both sides who want to approach such subjects rationally and calmly, and who want to add relevant content, is growing. So I will perhaps help some more in the future. | |||
| Thank you for your kind words. Best, ] (]) 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Moldovan language== | |||
| Hi. Reverting back is not nice and certainly is not the solution to any dispute. Talking is. | |||
| The infobox in ] has been the subject of repeated and sometimes heated debates, see ] and the other archives. Also, see this ]. There are quite strong arguments against having an infobox in that article. First off, it is not an article about a distinct language, but about a controversy, that's why the sections typical to language articles (phonology, syntax, morphology, vocabulary etc.) are not included. Linguistically, Moldovan is just another name for Romanian, and, as a consequence, most fields in that infobox contain inaccurate (or even wrong) data. For example, what source says that Moldovan is a Romance language? Sources say that Romanian is a Romance language. Also, how do you count the speakers? Census data are almost useless, because people's choice between Romanian and Moldovan was determined by political views, not linguistic facts. | |||
| I won't revert the article for now. I expect we can have a rational discussion. — ] ] 10:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The Croatian, Bosnian, etc. languages are irrelevant here. We are talking about Moldovan. As far as I know there is NO linguist who claims that standard Moldovan is different from standard Romanian. | |||
| :You mentioned James Minahan, but his book gives more detailed information than you shared with me. Here's what he says in his ''Miniature Empires: A Historical Dictionary of the Newly Independent States'' (at page 182) about the major languages in Moldova: "Romanian (Moldovan dialect), Russian, Ukrainian, Gagauz". He doesn't say "Moldovan". Actually he never mentions a separate Moldovan language. Where he talks about "the most easterly of the Romance language" he doesn't specify if it's Romanian or Moldovan, and actually in the same paragraph he's giving the Soviet position in the matter. In conclusion, Moldovan and Romanian are one language, despite many attempts to make it seem they're not. | |||
| :I don't have access to Alexandru Graur's book, but I know some of his other works and I am prety sure he couldn't have stated that Moldovan is a separate language, unless he was forced to, politically. Current works, written in politically free conditions, no longer make such statements. Even Vasile Stati admits that literary Moldovan and literary Romanian are identical. It would be silly to say otherwise. | |||
| :I didn't say that the census data were manipulated. The problem is with the census forms, which required people to choose between Romanian and Moldovan as their native language. Since the two languages are one, obviously the respondents chose a '''name''' for the language they spoke, not a language. As I said, it was not a lingustic choice, but a political or maybe random one. | |||
| :I am Romanian, and I can tell you that Romanians are not "educated to contest the Moldovan language" (your accusation only shows that your approach in this discussion is political, not linguistic). I have nothing to contest. I have Moldovan friends (on both sides of the Prut), we perfectly understand each other when we speak, I watch Moldovan TV stations (NIT) and I can see we all use the same language. It's a fact. What you do is contesting this fact. | |||
| :Now, do you have any other arguments to keep the infobox? — ] ] 15:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == I reported you for ] == | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Xasha_reported_by_User:Dpotop_.28Result:_.29 | |||
| ] (]) 13:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Because you had not been warned of the policy beforehand, I have not blocked you. Please read and be familiar with Misplaced Pages's policy on ] and on the ]. The short version is that repeatedly undoing edits rather than discussing it on the talk page is bad and if you revert an excessive number of times, you can be blocked. --] (]) 23:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mutually intelligible?!== | |||
| I won't comment on your other statements, because there is this one which warrants a categorical rejection: "Moldovan and Romanian are mutually inteligible to a large degree". Mutually intelligible?! To a ''large'' degree?! Do you realize the enormity of this? It's like saying that French and French are mutually intelligible to a large degree... You're still talking about two languages, when there's only one. Remember, ]. — ] ] 10:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Please stop talking in terms of "mutually intelligible" about Romanian and... Romanian. There is no place for comparison with Metropolitan vs Canadian varieties of French. (Read those articles. Actually, you chose a particularly ill-suited example; if I may quote a Romanian&Moldovan saying, you're trying to ''sell cucumbers to the gardner'': I speak French fairly well, I lived in France, I traveled to Canada, so I know the situation personally.) — ] ] 11:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::My comment in the brackets above was not an argument, but a simple note. The argument is for you to bring: you still haven't specified any reliable source that classifies Romanian and Moldovan as distinct Romance languages. In contrast, all authoritative sources I know (Ethnologue, Encyclopedia Britannica, Academy of Sciences of Moldova, all contemporary linguists) claim that Romanian and Moldovan are one language. The ] article is about a controversy, not about another language. — ] ] 15:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi == | |||
| Hi Xasha, I was the user who first welcomed you last month, and so had this page watched as default. I've noticed that you've really got into the project and have made many great edits. Obviously you come from or have a strong interest in Moldova. I have also noticed that at times that your edits have been causing some stir and feelings may have run high. Can I just advise you to keep a cool head while editing and to seek consensus before rushing into things. Anyway if I could ever do anything to help, let me know. Best wishes, ] (]) 14:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Indeed, you are on the verge of breaching 3RR again in the same article. Note that it is not a strict rule and editors are often blocked for revert warring even if they don't technically break the rule. Please heed Msgj's advice and bring sources instead of playing this pointless tug-of war. --] (]) 19:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :First and foremost, bring the issue to the talk page - list the sources and arguments there for all to see. Then, should direct discussion fail, you can ask for mediation ]. Eventually you can ] as well. Constantly reverting stuff will surely get you blocked and earn you a reputation of a revert warrior, which will certainly not help your cause. --] (]) 19:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hope your ears aren't burning now... :-) --] (]) 00:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == I left you a note on ] == | |||
| ] (]) 08:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Editing restrictions== | |||
| ] '''Notice:''' Under the terms of ], any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking. | |||
| Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged ]. | |||
| Accordingly, <u>you are hereby restricted to</u> one revert per two days for two weeks on all related articles. ''Any'' incivility on the talk pages, and you will be banned from there, and the article, for a period of two days. If you wish to appeal this, please do so before ] or the Arbitration Committee. Thanks. ] 11:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)|<u>You are hereby restricted to</u> one revert per two days for two weeks on all related articles. ''Any'' incivility on the talk pages, and you will be banned from there, and the article, for a period of two days. If you wish to appeal this, please do so before ] or the Arbitration Committee. Thanks. ] 11:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:31, 29 January 2022
Topic ban violation
A report of your violation has been filed here. - Biruitorul 04:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
April 2009
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 05:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Xasha (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Really, I've made 3 mainspace edits in the last 6 months. Does the fact that the 3rd edit was an undeniable, easily verificable and sourceable detail about my country warrant a 1-week long block? Is the diruption caused by my 3 mainspace edits in the last 6 months so severe that I need to be blocked on sight for an insignificant edit about the country I know best? Do my editing habits indicate that I was going to make Misplaced Pages a living hell (cause we are all well aware of the goals of blocking somebody)? I really can't uderstand how this 1-week block is more than an entry in my blocklog (the mainspace edits I make 4 months aparts likely won't be affected)
Decline reason:
Accepting (for the sake of argument) that your edit wasn't controversial, there is no consensus that non-controversial edits should be granted an exemption from topic bans. If you're not planning on editing for months, you don't need to be unblocked before this block expires. If you are, that's unfortunate, because we really don't have a good way of enforcing a ban - once you've violated it - other than by blocking. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Don't write on my page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Over Bruce (talk • contribs) 17:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
what the... http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AXasha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Over Bruce (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
What if.. Moldova unites with Romania?
What if ..Moldova unites with Romania? Are you happy? New elected opposition forces said by the end of this year unification could be ready. --Over Bruce (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Foundation of Moldavia GAR
Hello. Foundation of Moldavia has received a Good Article Review. It is proposed the article be failed due to the poor readability of its prose throughout the article. It also has significant (fixable) problems with the copyright status of its images. Please visit the review page to join the discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)