Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:07, 7 July 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Illythr, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 01:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not a bot (for one thing, bots don't go on wiki-sickleave). Welcome to the wikipedia. We're a friendly bunch here. RJFJR 01:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Romanian

Do you speak romanian? I see that you come from Chisinau. --Chisinau 16:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm, too late, I guess... On a very basic level. --Illythr 18:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Creationism

(cross-posted from my talk page) Thanks for your support, MrMonkey! Yes, I agree that his behavior has been quite disappointing, especially his more recent ones. But I am still confident that he can continue as a productive editor. I'm not ready to brand him a troll, although of course his recent behavior crossed the line into trolling. But I don't recall him ever vandalizising articles, though he has certainly made edits with which I disagree. Of course, I could easily have missed them, but resorting to vandalism doesn't seem like something Scorpionman would do. If it's something recent, then as Illythr mentions I certainly would appreciate a link; if not, I think we can let it go. I think it is actually useful to have different viewpoints around. Unfortunately, Scorpionman's comments so far have been largely unhelpful, mainly criticizing various scientific theories using a web site whose purpose is to " the authority of the Bible" and which states "The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs." He may be correct and all appearances to the contrary, today's life forms may have been created separately ex nihilio, but such speculation hardly belongs in a science article as if it were somehow approaching the matter from a scientific perspective or as if there problems with science beyond its perceived conflict with some religious ideas. Perhaps he will understand this with time, perhaps not; my purpose is not to change his religious beliefs but to show that arguing them on article talk pages is not appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Illythr, for your kind words. I shall preserve them on my user page. I believe that we can accomplish most through courtesy, logic, and reason. Of course, I have no desire to change anyone's religious beliefs—reading a religious text is certainly a possible way of learning about the world—although science has been far more successful than any religion in explaining the mechanics of how the world works. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Tali-Ihantala

Hi. Please don't do grammar checking for most of the contents of Battle of Tali-Ihantala as its content is currently totally out of touch with reality. Somebody had mixed Battle of Valkeasaari with Tali-Ihantala and edited things from there to the article. --Whiskey 11:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh, sorry. I'm just such a correction maniac... --Illythr 11:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria stubs

I've made a little over a hundred stubs for Transnistria, here: Category:Transnistria_stubs. If you have the time or the inclination then some of them could be expanded or moved into different languages, like German or Russian. - Mauco 00:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria

Thanks for pointing out that link. I actually did not intend to give that address, I think I was still learning how to use references and I copied one about the Moldovan census. In any case I corrected it now. The link opens an archive of documents, among which there is one entitled Implicarea Armatei a XIV-a, or the Participation of the 14th army prepared by the Altemedia Research Institute. The argument presented there is that the 14th Army was directly involved in the armed conflict and aided the separatists. I cannot assess the basis of that argument as I wasn't there, however it does present an important side of the debate upheld by many adherents. TSO1D 23:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be glad to look at your list. TSO1D 23:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I satisfy both points D:. TSO1D 00:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Moldovans

Illythr, could you please do me a favor and look at the picture on Moldovans. I don't seem to recognize any of the people depicted, maybe you know some of them. TSO1D 00:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the pictures. TSO1D 13:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Soviet movies

I thought so. If you have some more info, my e-mail is dpotop1 at the Yahoo mail server under the commercial superdomain. Dpotop 16:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

War of Transnistria

The Altermedia file was a pdf file part of the altermedia archive linked to. The article is only in Romanian though, and pretty biased from I could see, so I removed it. The political studies article is indeed vague as you pointed out, the sentence you found is the only direct mention of the 14th army's involvement, but it still backs the theory. The last one is the best I could find, and I saw that it was cited in various other books and articles on the subject and it is pretty comprehensive. TSO1D 00:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The rar archive containing the file is here, and the name of the particular file is: Implicarea Amramtei a XIV-a în Conflictul Transnistrean. I also copied the text to User:TSO1D\tc. TSO1D 02:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

a simple request

Please read this: . Thank you. Adriatikus 08:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Say what?

I'm afraid you did not get me. First of all, I don't have to mind any grammatical changes whatsoever: on the principle advocated by Node, different spelling=different language (so it shall be not "this" or "that Russian", but "some kind of Russian" - it'll do just fine); judging by Node's standards, all I'll have to do is this, the rest being entirely up to me (whether I may want to invent verbs, whether I may want to consider three words in a row "an article" etc.).

Now, moving beyond such plans. I think you are a reasonable and highly intelligent person, Illythr, and I'm glad that you contribute on these articles with a balanced perspective. I originally edited on pages dealing with Moldova only because the Romanian POV was not straying away from the most annoying themes that I have come to detest in our nationalism (and, thus, it seemed to go nowhere); on the whole, I'd rather edit something else, but when I saw the standard of quality tolerated on debated pages, I feel my blood boil. I need to express this very clearly (as I have had before): I do not support Moldo-Romanian unification. However, when editing here I bumped into the other side, and into tantrum-like reactions - as exemplified by Node_ue and occasionaly by Mikkalai on Talk:Moldovans, as seen in the repetitive "Romanian=fascist". I can even accept a large part of that from a certain perspective: as I have said before, my country's climate has almost always been oscillating between blatant indifference for the other and all-out banditry (just look at what we did to Bender-Zadunaysky!); as I have said before, a sizeable portion of Ro contributors still advocate morally bankrupt principles. Fine - I can live within that internal ideological chasm.

However (and I believe we can reach an agreement here): if an ethnicity, as I have said before, is always subjective (which makes it exist the moment it is stated), a language is not. A language is not: that is a fact which is void of consequences (I, for one, am not going to build any politicial scheme based on that). A language is not, not only because that would be nonsensical, but because pretending this is not the case would also be without consequence (political identity relies on it only in a Volkgeist-infused society - not in Belgium, not even in France, but in Romania: it is especially ironic that a Moldovan identity needs to use the same crapola my indifferent-to-bandit-like society has been using...). Hoping we see eye to eye. Dahn 17:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't sign in with an email. Do you have one made public where I can send you mine? If not, we could carry on here. Dahn 18:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I did. That "email this user" link to the left should work. --Illythr 18:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

See... I have never used that before... didn't even know it was there, to tell you. Anyway, I'm on it. Dahn 18:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sent. Dahn 18:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"...but don't understand the Latin script having never learned a Latin-based language before."

This is you here: .
I don't want to start a flame/off-topic war, neither here, nor on meta.wiki (that's why I didn't write it there), but can you tell me what script were you using in the sentence above ? Do you think it's logical what you claim ? -- Adriatikus 00:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read it again. ...having never learned a Latin-based language before.. I learned English as a second language and German the third. Besides, I live in Chisinau, so when I went to school back in 1989, we already were taught Moldovan/Romanian based on the Latin script. That whole passage in Cyrillic was me playing by your rules, a pointless effort, its only positive consequence being the respect of DPotop, that is all. --Illythr 01:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)