Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:30, 27 April 2007

From Alaexis

Thanks for the support. I think we should use the same words in both Abkhazia and S. Ossetia articles. Alaexis 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what 'de-facto control' is. 'Control' is afaik not a legal term (like independence) so it cannot be 'de-jure' or 'de-facto'. It either exists or not. Regards. Alaexis 09:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's clear from the intro that S. Ossetia is internationally recognised as part of Georgia. It's written there 2 times actually (on 3rd and 6th lines). Returning to your example there is such legal term as 'private property' but 'control' does not equal to 'ownership' neither legally nor by common sense. I think 'de-facto' is redundant and should be removed. Alaexis 11:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks there

Concensus is always the best thing, but don't be afraid to be bold when removing linkcruft. Nikola 18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Governments can not arrest?

Why you believe governments can not arrest, as you made an edit in Transnistria article? Of course, arrests are made by the police, but this issubordinated to the government. Transnistrian government did made some arrests, some of them explained in Human rights section, and not all are related with religious freedom.--MariusM 11:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

MariusM has a good point. At any rate, Dpotop later changed that section of article and managed to make it both more critical and more NPOV at the same time. Despite my misgivings, it is better now than the way that both you and MariusM (and myself) left it. - Mauco 13:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

From Alaexis 2

Hi! Why do you insist on those changes? Imo they are relatively minor and not worth the efforts to enforce them. There are much more needed things to do. Regards. Alaexis 16:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take care at 3RR.--MariusM 09:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind :) Alaexis 20:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo

Thanks yourself for being a calm and non-partisan contributor. As I said, my revert was mostly to keep the agreed version, but I think it's better now anyway. Davu.leon 12:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: River incident:
To keep the conversation coherent I replied in my talk page, as I will usually do when one is started there. - Best regards, Ev 14:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I copied the comment from my talk page to the article's talk page. - Best regards, Ev 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure!

All in a day's work. LittleOldMe 16:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey you need to understand that nobody looks at you since you don't have a clue about Transnistria.--Criterium 16:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Criterium is now on a 24 hour block. LittleOldMe 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know

There's no problem if you're User:MaGioZal (and I have to say that everything indicates at that direction). You did nothing wrong. :) --PaxEquilibrium 12:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

we are not the same, you have no evidence to support this claim. Buffadren 14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

United Nations semi Protection

Hi I notice you semi protected the United Nations page, Good move, you may have noticed were we discussing this on the talk page and were about to request it. How long to you intend to keep it like that. Buffa Buffadren 18:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The request for protection was made at WP:RPP, which is why I semi-protected the article. As the history notes, the semi-protection will expire 23:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC). -- tariqabjotu 18:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Doing in Pristina?

Not UNMIK, if that's what you're worried about. I'm researching a documentary about Kosovo. Slow but fascinating work. Davu.leon 00:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

UN Protected

You're welcome for the support. The article deserved it. oobug/_contrib 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Uninformed edits

Why did you make this edit and include the same link twice? Just curious...--Domitius 18:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit is not mine and i question the decision to include it. I RV to what was agreed by others on the Talk Page .Buffadren 12:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Do You claim that 3 Chapters of the UN Charter alone are not guaranteeing borders of internationally recognized countries? --PaxEquilibrium 15:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

It's on my watchlist. After we'll have reached some sort of agreement about the intro I'll look at the other issues. Alaexis 13:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hy! Nice work! Even I don't agree with some of your reverts is nice to know that somebody really neutral is looking and revert our biases. Thanks !!! You keep me in line. Catarcostica 07:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Check this - http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/#Alaexis and this - http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dikarka . Regards. Alaexis 18:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take care of 3RR. Kind regards.--MariusM 18:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, please take care at 3RR.--MariusM 13:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Paul (Pax?)

Well, the logic lies in the fact that Serb rights in Kosovo are nowadays very low, and that they were up to recently (some say even today) equal to zero. The Kosovo Serbs consider Serbia's sovereignty (regardless if it's factually non-present) as the very last only remaining thing that could guarantee for them some hope in the future. However in an independent Kosovo, there is absolutely no last guarantee present and there is nothing that could make us think things'll improve.

Although both NATO and UN have utterly failed ("pathetically" as the Kosovo Serbs say) with some even being accomplices in atrocities (like the Swedish soldiers that could be identified as light versions of Milosevic's butchers) - note: the Kosovo Serbs have grown weary with a huge anti-western skepticism - so they think there is no reason why things would change when EU takes over protection as inclined (and frankly, their skeptical fear is somewhat justified). --PaxEquilibrium 21:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope I shed some light for You.

BTW what precisely (regarding International Law) are You studying if I may know? --PaxEquilibrium 18:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A bit like yourself I have many 'balls in the air', but my area right now is Transitional Law for International Dispute Settlement' Buffadren 15:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion of mnerge

Hi Buffadren,

I’ve just suggested the merging of History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1941–1945) and Independent State of Croatia articles. If you want to contribute with the discussion, please go there… See you later.--MaGioZal 20:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for continuous edit warring on Transnistria. Although you didn't technically reach the 3RR level, you were continuing a disruptive long-term edit war. There had been previous warnings that continuing edit-warring on this page would not be further tolerated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in this. Regards. Alaexis 16:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes, thank you. --PaxEquilibrium 18:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

Just a quick note - one more edit on Transnistria in the next 12 hours or so and you'll probably end up blocked. I suggest stopping edit warring on this article now. Arbitration is a very serious process and continuing with disruptive behaviour will not help your case with ArbCom. -- Nick 16:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Buffadren, your repeated reverts on Transnistria are troubling. You were all warned that continued edit-warring would not be tolerated. That does not mean people should cease to be WP:BOLD. Quite to the contrary. The injunction against edit-warring was exactly so that people could again "boldly" edit articles in peace. If another editor makes a large rewrite edit and you don't like it, it is your responsibility, not theirs, to initiate a constructive discussion on talk. You need to bring forward concrete objections to individual points. You cannot counter other people's with blanket reverts and demand of them to get your consent first. Much more so when you do blanket reverts including potentially uncontentious copyedit improvements, as you did last.

Since you just came off your last block and have already run up to three two again, in this unconstructive manner, I'm blocking you again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Correcting: two, not three. Sorry, I didn't realise one was arguably a genuine vandalism revert. Well, so, then, okay, hummmmph.... okay, I'm letting you off with a warning for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is not just a edit war but a political war going on there. I have tried my best to keep things under control and calm as not to ignite things Buffadren 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, even after the warning above, you continued edit-warring and actually managed to break 3RR within just 4 hours, with misleading and confusing edit summaries to make things worse:

• 12:09 (edits "agreed on talk", but no evidence of such an agreement, mostly a revert to your older version )
• 13:28 (reverting intro)
• 14:56 "reinserted deleted intro"
• 16:08 (misleading edit summary "revert myself", but in fact again mostly a revert to your own older version.)

I'm probably going to block a few other participants too. Your block is three days this time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And another ...

This is bordering on the ridiculous. You just come back from your second block in ten days and you have nothing better to do than immediately continue the same old stale revert-war ? And again referring to the other side as "vandals" (), and again falsely claiming "consensus" for your edit when clearly there is no such thing? (After all, why would there be an edit-war otherwise?) - This has to stop. Blocked for another four days, together with your opponent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This block is so unfair and is a wrong punishment for upholding an agreement on Wiki. Please see achive where we agreed to insert this. I believe the 'opponent' has a personal commercial interest in deleting Tiraspol Times link. This is not proper from him. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Transnistria/archive_6 Please reconsider this block. It does not make sense. Like you I am not edit waring but trying to keep the peace and stick by agreements make on talk.