| Revision as of 19:46, 1 August 2008 editXasha (talk | contribs)2,048 edits →Moldovan economic relations edit war: rv-v← 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 | ||
| (96 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Topic ban violation== | |||
| <!-- note to self: Articles currently hosting panromanian propaganda: ], ], ], ], ] --> | |||
| <div style="text-align: center; align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px black; background-color: #F9FAA1;"> | |||
| '''Survey''': If you reached this page, take 30 seconds to answer to the following question:<br> '''Is it fine to criticize something for being supported by soviets, but not for being supported by nazis?''',<br> originally put . Leave your answer on the ''']''' in my user subspace.</div> | |||
| <br> | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Where have you got the information that Tighina is a Turkic name? Afaik, that Тягянакача thing is (old) Slavic... --] (]) 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think I read it some time ago in a book about prestatal Moldavia (by Spinei, if I remeber well). I knew that book said it was Turkic (although I don't remember very well what kind of Turkic), and by searching Google for "Tighina" and "cuman" I've found several Romanian sites that support this version (although it could be another attempt to erase the Slavic memory in Moldova). I don't remember what they implied it meant, but no viable stem comes to mind when thinking at it as a Slavic one.] (]) 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Xasha, from where you have take that ''official'' name of the city is "Bendery"? can you bring a credible source? --] <sup>]</sup> 13:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Man, are you from Transnistria? about what "officiality" we can talk in this region? You can't use the "official" therm. You can use only the "consensus". What about official name, please see - an official document. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| A report of your violation has been filed ]. - ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Btw== | |||
| It's generally considered impolite to delete stuff from your talk page (unless it's really nasty). Consider ] instead. --] (]) 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I've seen others do it and, anyway, the "history" subsection acts virtually as an archive.] (]) 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== April 2009 == | ||
| <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)}} | |||
| Can you please clarify - or point me to an example --] <sup>]</sup> 23:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Fixed I think - thanks for your help --] <sup>]</sup> 00:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 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--> | |||
| == Golden horde == | |||
| Actually, instead of the Golden Horde, it would be a better idea to have an article about the Tatars and Cumans in Moldova. The Golden Horde's control of Moldova was ephemeral, but those Turkic people came and stayed there. ] (]) 15:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==What if.. Moldova unites with Romania?== | |||
| ==Appeal response== | |||
| 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) | |||
| I was reading through ] and it appears that your question is why you were first warned by administrator Rlevse. about being subject to ArbCom's ] on the ]. You were placed under this restriction because clearly violates ]. After this valid warning by Rlevse was given to you, you made which clearly violated the ] you were just placed under, and therefore subjected to a block per the ArbCom case's ]. | |||
| == ] GAR == | |||
| Hopefully this clears everything up, if not let me know exactly what is unclear and I'll try to provide further clarification. ] <small>]</small> 17:10, 13 June 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) | |||
| :I'm bothered by that part in which he calls me a racist.Xasha (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I assume you're referring to given for your being blocked. I won't quibble too much over the fact that it refers to your ''commments'' as racist and disruptive, not you personally, but I do agree that your comments can appear to be racist in nature. I haven't gone through all your edits, and I haven't contacted the other administrator who blocked you (which is the block Rlevse is actually referring to), but the mentioned does appear to have racist overtones (e.g. the very first sentence in the post, and accusing others of ]). ] <small>]</small> 18:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Then I'd suggest being much more cautious and completely avoid any use of sarcasm or satirization of other editor's purported positions, beliefs or statements. Repeating racist remarks or making comparisons to racist movements, even to be sarcastic, is not something that should be done. It appeared racist and was remarked upon as such. ] <small>]</small> 18:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I explained above, it looked racist to me. I'd suggest leaving this be and moving on. ] <small>]</small> 19:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I was just writing a suggestion that you approach Rlevse in a different manner than you first did, but I saw you already with . Nice job. ] <small>]</small> 22:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == suggestion (re.) == | |||
| Hi,<br> | |||
| Hey, thanks for letting me know. As of now, I am really not ready to take care of it, but would be most interested when I am more into the subject ;)--<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">]</font><sup>]</sup> 17:58, 14 June 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 --> | |||
| Excuse me for getting involved in this discussion, but I'm sure I would also be able to help you to edit this article. I have lot of informations about Romania's rule in Bessarabia. Please remind me when you intend to write such an article. Cheers! --] (]) 23:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Moldovans== | |||
| See ]. Cheers! --] (]) 23:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Can you explain revert or, in how far my edit violated rule? You may answer ]. Inf you don't answer during the next 24 hours, I will revert your edit. Cheers! --] (]) 11:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==] vs ]== | |||
| Hello Xasha. Just a quick question. I think that ] better describes our raions, as compare to ]. The reason in my view is that having analysed the usage of the term "district" - I ran into conclusion that this term is appropriate for countries with federal or at least a construction where some other superior territorial unit exists, in which a district is included. Analysis of usage of the term "canton" brings to the conclusion that it is rather used to describe the final territorial unit, which is not included in any other as a rule. Consequently, our raions, not being included in any ], for example, are not really districts. What do you think? | |||
| :to be honest I prefer "canton", but hey if the community decided to use districts - I adhere. Also, I just wanted to thank you for your help in rewording the ] article, which starts getting a presentable shape. I think we could delete some of the references (or mark them with the code that makes them dissappear on the final version, but not in the code of the page) on the "cession" of 1812, having all 30 referecnes taking half a line in the text looks a little ugly...--<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">]</font><sup>]</sup> 16:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Maps of Moldova districts == | |||
| Hello, Xasha. This is very good to add maps for the Moldova districts. But let's have a convention in naming maps. By example: '''''DistrictName'''_district.svg'' or something like this, in order to have a general svg template. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Please tone down your comments, whether on talk pages or edit summaries. It is very important to act and write with a proper tone. ] (]) 18:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :No, but you must avoid '']'' - even if it is true and factual! ] (]) 18:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, per the restrictions you were blocked for at the beginning of the month - it would be a shame if you ended June under the same conditions. ] (]) 23:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::] are like references and sources, it allows people to see what happened in its entirety - and it allows the reviewer to quickly go to the source of the dispute. In case you are not aware of how to produce a diff, when you go into the edit history and compare two versions the address bar on your isp page gives an URL for the edit. Copy and paste that URL (surrounded by square brackets - one at the start and one at the end) to the correspondents page, and they will see the exact edit. It is perhaps unfair, but most admins prefer to be given references in this manner rather than "hunting" through the history of the dispute itself - it is much more convenient if they are busy. | |||
| :::Re fatigue, etc. It is, of course, one of the methods used by editors who game the system - sometimes they will simply tire out their opponents. If you have a valid claim of vandalism or policy violation, and especially in relation to the Digwurren ArbCom, then you can ensure that matters are dealt with appropriately by following the correct practices. In matters like these, persistence and politeness is the best way to get results. ] (]) 08:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Oh, crap, I wrote a long post here, but it got wiped due to a link to an encyclopedia dramatica page I kinda should address to myself now. In short, accusations of Stalinism are not as done to death as those of Nazism, so the latter WILL get one banned, while the other probably won't. Otherwise, what LessHeard vanU said, He be wise, mon. --] (]) 23:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Here's a ] I ran across. Point 23 in particular deals with futile expectations. --] (]) 12:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's another very simple fact here - Wikipedians don't get paid for their work. So, usually, something else drives them. Usually it's just a hobby, some particular of area of interest and so on. A strong POV to "share" with everyone is a great motivator. I understand that most Romanians don't care about Moldova, but a small but vocal minority, etc, etc... ;-). | |||
| ::BTW, there are many unionists in Moldova as well, so geographic location doesn't really matter all that much. | |||
| ::Me, I improve my English. And typos. Oh yes, the typos... :-) --] (]) 15:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's exactly what I'm talking about - a small but vocal minority. As for admins - they're only human, doing their stuff out of free will. I can only agree with LessHeard vanU here - don't supply your opposition with ammunition to shoot you with: don't revert on sight, or without comments, avoid those silly accusations and, ideally, any ad hominem in general (a virtually unreachable ideal, that, but hey). If you stay cool, use the talk page first and provide good sources, the credibility of people who will stick to revert warring and accusing you will drop like a stone (mmmh, in tar, I guess). For now, all that (most) admins see, are two equally bad POV-pushers who disrupt Misplaced Pages with their bickering. --] (]) 16:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, and I would also advise against campaigning of any kind aroind here: it is sometimes successful, but tends to backfire more often than not, especially when the other side is more adept at gaming the system than you. --] (]) 16:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| 96 hours for your recent disruptive editing. ] (]) (]) 12:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Great. And that's for restoring deleted reliable sources. Silly me for believing in all that ] and ]... it seems gaming the system is the best way here.] (]) 12:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've blocked you again for continued revert-warring, now across several articles. ] ] 09:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Answer== | |||
| I think the reference to Nazi-ism was more to the logical fallacy of supporting or opposing something due to who else may have supported or opposed it, and not necessarily hitler or anyone specific. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Not really, no. The reference to Nazis is incidental, and could be replaced with any group that is widely reviled for their beliefs. The fallacy rests in saying that "The Nazis were bad. The Nazis supported X. Therefore, X is bad." I think Bearian was pointing out that a position or belief isn't good or bad because a particular individual or group holds it. The involvement of the nazis in the analogy seems incidental. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 15:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Had an editor been effective at prolonging the block or otherwise causing harm, I'd be inclined to say yes. However, to refer to a recent example, I note that there has been very little additional discussion at AN, and - indeed - two comments encouraging Olahus to stop provoking you in this manner. I also note that ] was deleted in under 2 hours. So, harassment? Maybe technically, by the dictionary definition, but I do not think it is worth pursuing. Put another way, if his concerns are baseless, then calling him out for harassment would only serve to lend weight to his concerns, which does not seem like it is what you would want. I'd let it go, for now, and report to AN if it continues beyond this point. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Vladimir Socor== | |||
| I expect an aswer from you in . --] (]) 20:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==ArbCom Enforcement== | |||
| Greetings, Xasha! Your recent comments regarding Olahus have prompted me to ] on the matter. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked again == | |||
| That last posting of yours was totally out of line. You can't really expect you can get away with that, can you? I really have no choice but to block immediately for that. ] ] 15:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I actually expect an answer to that.] (]) 15:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::BTW, I think you don't actually expect me to respect a topic ban when an user ready to defend the characterisation of a Nazi invasion as a "liberation" and with a very strong POV on the matter is left roamnig free on that topic.] (]) 15:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Uhm, if a topic ban is imposed by admin consensus, you'll have not much choice. It's respect it or be blocked completely. ] ] 15:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If I were to wikilawyer it, I can't be topic banned under Digwuren Arb in its current form ;) However, topic ban means I can't participate in talk page discussions? Also, what about evident socks by Bonaparte (like the one currently on rampage on ]; note this may be Olahus evading his block, it wouldn't be the first time)? Should I follow ] or an eventual topic ban?] (]) 16:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: To join in the lawyering, a topic ban can also be imposed individually by admin consensus independent of Arbcom, so we don't necessary have to invoke Digwuren to do it. Whether it covers talk pages or only article space needs to be determined. Reverting obvious socks is probably something you ought to leave to others in this situation. By the way, can you point me to evidence that Olahus has socked in the past? ] ] 16:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Thanks for your answers. As for your question, note the block evasion in his (although he contested it, if I remeber well).] (]) 16:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Xasha, ''if'' I start going down the same path Olahus did, ''then'' you would have cause to report me and a similar restriction imposed on me. But that hasn't happened yet, has it? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think I ever reported someone. I'm too lazy. Anyway, since you claim you don't edit the topic much, I don't see the problem with a topic ban.] (]) 16:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Oraş-reşedinţă == | |||
| La noi se zice "centru raional". --] <sup>]</sup> 06:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Topic ban== | |||
| Per the thread at , {{user|Olahus}} and {{user|Xasha}} (you) are banned from all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania, expires in 6 months. This does not apply to Romanian and Moldovan articles on other topics, such as geography in Moldova and Romania.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 12:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You can participate in talk page discussions, just stay civil. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 15:36, 29 July 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)