Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:04, 19 January 2007

/archive 1 27 august - 17 november 2006

Tiraspol Times

I think you misunderstand William there: The letter and my post he quoted state that the newspaper is indeed available at certain places, but it's not for sale (evaluation copies, I guess). The guys I asked said that they didn't see it available for sale in public. I say, let's wait for Mark's reply/reaction to my proposal before jumping to conclusions. --Illythr 21:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why you didn't ask your friends to check directly on the places indicated in the e-mail you received? Anyhow Mauco misquoted you, jumping at the conclusion that hard copy existence of Tiraspol Times is an established fact beyond question, using your name as a proof.--MariusM 21:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I replied to you over there.

The letter states that TT does indeed exist in printed copies. Just not everywhere and not for sale yet. I think it's that English word "available" that may be (and probably was) interpreted in several ways. --Illythr 21:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Proper place for this discussion - Talk:Transnistria.--MariusM 09:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Way

ahead of you. Check the talk page :) - Francis Tyers · 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi Marius,

Thanks for your note. I appreciate the time it took you to write it. I will look into the situation tomorrow, but it is too late here to do anything effective tonight. I would ask that you refrain from making major edits on those articles until this mess can be unravelled. Please do not bother reverting Mauco's additions, as whatever the problem is, quickly reverting it won't solve the problem. I promise to look into the situation more tomorrow, and thanks again for your note. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Da, sunt de acord. Drept sa-ti zic, nu stiam nici eu sa fi existat asa ceva. Dar el cum e insistent, tot zicea ca a citit el ca o republica a fost declarata pentru cateva zile la Odesa. Oricum, daca vei propune stergerea, eu te sustin. Dapiks 06:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please contibute

to Transnistria#Propaganda_and_disinformation. Let`s add all those links to The Economist, Ziua, etc. Let`s turn this campaign against them. Mauco is gonna loose his job, Mauco is gonna loose his job, Mauco is gonna loose his job... hahah haha Greier 12:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You are so evil! Mauco has a familly to feed, think at this!--MariusM 12:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Markstreet and Mauco

Was there ever a ip check on these users? This reply of Street is surprisingly simmilar to how Mauco reverted and argued that the version to which he reverted to is the one "agreed on". Also, I find certain talk patterns in Street, which I also noticed in Mauco... It`s clear (at least for me) that Mauco works for ICDISS, and considering that Street works for TiraspolTimes (itself a ICDISS site), than I think all chances are Street and Mauco are the same person... What do you think? Greier 13:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Better discuss through e-mails (check it). You can ask a WP:RCU, however, this check is done in only some limited situations (see instructions), and only for recent edits.--MariusM 13:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about checkuser. Checkuser policy allows users to willingly allow for their IPs ot be checked, as to clarify any doubts on the user. I asked Mauco many times to allow a check of his IP with that of all of those anons popping from nowhere to edit Trns-related articles, but he declined... I doubt that if I ask Street the same thing, he will consent... Greier 13:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria

Nu a fost intenţia mea să şterg acel pasaj. Eu am vrut să anulez o serie de schimbări haotice de către Markstreet şi Greier, şi se pare că partea cu şcolile s-a nimerit printre cele mai recente editări. Dar totuşi, posibil că ar fi mai bine să adaugi partea ceea la articolul Moldovan schools in Transnistria decât la cel principal. TSO1D 13:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Bine, am mai adăugat unele detalii, însă nu întreaga versiune originală. Cât despre referendum, acest eveniment a fost destul de important pentru Transnistria şi secţiunea doar conţine şase linii de text, deci eu nu sunt sigur cu tu vrei să schimbi acolo. TSO1D 14:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Salut Marius, can you please show me what the consensus intro was? Thanks, Khoikhoi 16:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. As for the terrorism thing, I don't feel as comfortable about changing that one because I'm not sure if a compromise has been reached yet (unlike the intro). How about "domestic violence"? Usually "terrorism" is a word we try to avoid on Misplaced Pages (see WP:WTA). Khoikhoi 16:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Marius, thanks for the link, but you didn't understand my comment. I also don't think we have ever talked about democracy in Transnistria before. You must be thinking of someone else. jamason 23:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR

If you want 3RR enforced, put your request on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. As I told you at Wikipedia_talk:Romanian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Duble_standarde_la_Wikipedia, this is not something I do. - Jmabel | Talk 16:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now endorsed your request at 3RR. But, I'm sorry, I'm not the one to enforce it. I do so many different things here, and I don't want to set a precedent that I do this one as well. Once I wade in there, people are going to start expecting me to be involved in that activity. As it is, I have almost no time to write articles or work on translation, which is what I originally joined Misplaced Pages to do; I need to have some things here that I simply don't do. - Jmabel | Talk 16:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Marius, tare apreciez sprijinul dvs. Mulţumesc frumos. Biruitorul 20:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletionist?

You are badly mistaken, colleague. `'mikkanarxi 05:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

you need to read this

Every edit I have ever made has been reverted

The Transnistria page is pure Romanian/ Moldova Secret Service Prpoganda. As a major voice of Transnistria here I have not been allowed a single edit here nor has an other Transnistrian editor. Frankly. it is a sad when they will not allow the Transnistrian voice to have a single word on the main page. Currently It is pure lies and propganda. They agree things and then delete the parts of the agreement they don't like. The link to tiraspoltimes was voted on and is always removed . TSOID removed it again today. We have proven the Terrorism word is not true. But the Romanian Secret Service types just flaunt the rules and plough in their edits and insert Terrorism even though it is clearly not true. . The Independence Referendum is always deleted and the section is deliberately written in a highly confusing manner. The first day I arrived in Transnistria I was told be a senior person that The Moldovans treat the Transnistrians like animals and this Transnistrian page on Wiki is an example of the pure bombastic nature of the Moldovan/Romanian people here that refuse to allow the Transnistrians have a say on there own site. There is three views possible; ours, yours, and how things are. Here thr page is currentlly entirely yours. We want to turn it not to ours but to how things really are. This we are denied. Sadly for you we are Free and will remain free, we are in a position of strenght and this you cannot see. The current tactic is to strangle and starve the Transnistrian people into submission. Treat them like animlas like the Americans treated the indians in the west in the 1850s. When this fails. How can we ever meet in the middle. One place we can currently co-operate togather is here. So far I have not been allowed to insert one single work on the main page as it is defended the the Romanian Sectret Service types. Until there is mutual respect we can abandon hope, Surely it is in your interest to work together, to find common threads? Or am I dealing with pure hatred here ? No effort is ever made to reach compromise. Perhaps I am wasting my time trying. Maybe we are never meant to work together and have respect. Does anyone have any idea how to reach out to the other side. I have tried so many times. Currently you have me. I can leave it if you want. Have your honourless proaganda site and I can go...... and what then. ...Mark us street Dec4th 2006.

I would just note that the article had been locked for quite some time (for good reason) and there is not much point in changing it (especially the intro) once unlocked since you insist the PMR is an independent country, albeit unrecognized for the time being, moreover, needing protection by Russian peacekeepers on the border to protect them from the belicose Moldovans attempting to "starve them" into submission. I, nor most of the participants, have any desire to be drawn into an edit war. I have currently suggested a neutral intro on the Talk:Transnistria page that accurately and as simply as possible states the historical facts with no judgement on what they mean or interpretation of what the PMR should be considered. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ossetia

Marius, here is info about the Ossetian Opposition movement to pro-Russian regime in Tskhinvali, The Salvation Union of South Ossetia and also see Alternative Government of South Ossetia on South Ossetia article. Regards. Luis. Ldingley 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Marius, thank for your massage, i did read your article. There are striking similarities between two pro Russian separatist enclaves in Georgia and Moldova. Both separatist regions (including another one of Georgia, Abkhazia) are utterly militaristic and aggressive towards the other ethnic groups. This is a very hazardous for global stability, especially for the stability and territorial integrity of Russia herself. Best regards, Luis. p.s Do most Romanian believe of being descendents of the great Romans ? p.s.s I have great images/photos of Romanian civil war, if interested, I can email you the most interesting ones Ldingley 16:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cease-fire

From the block log:

• 05:55, December 9, 2006 Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "William Mauco (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (edit-warring with MariusM on several articles for several weeks)
• 05:55, December 9, 2006 Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "MariusM (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (edit-warring with William Mauco on several articles for several weeks)

—freak(talk) 06:08, Dec. 9, 2006 (UTC)

meta: please confirm

Could you please confirm your identity with the user m:User:MariusM in Meta? It is needed to confirm your vote on the page m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Siberian Misplaced Pages because of sockpuppetry issues. Thank you in advance. --Yms 15:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I confirm. I am the same person as metawiki user MariusM.--MariusM 20:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In my case, someone else (not me) claimed to be "William Mauco" over there. It is cleared up now. - Mauco 17:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Banned users

This edit summary does not make sense: "read WP:BAN. Is not saying that edits made BEFORE the ban should be removed."
Question: How can a banned user make an edit AFTER his ban?
See also WP:3RR: Removing edits by banned users do not count against 3RR. However, restoring them, as you are now doing - twice so far - does count against 3RR. Do not edit war, please, but seek consensus first if you want to defend Greier's work. You may also want to see Greier's block log as well as his Talk page, so you understand these issues better and hopefully do not fall into the same behavior. - Mauco 17:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There's also this from WP:BAN: "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing." You have now done so twice so far . - Mauco 17:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, you again didn't understand Misplaced Pages policy or knowingly make wrong comments about it. A banned user can edit after the ban evading the ban (like Bonny is doing sometimes). Greier was blocked after a fake 3RR report (he made 5 reverts in 10 days, didn't broke 3RR) and the block was extended to a ban, but this is an other discussion. Yes, I take responsability for reinstating Greier's edit done before the ban, is my right as a Misplaced Pages user. When you take out the paragraph you don't revert Greier, you revert me, and this is counting for 3RR. If you don't trust me, just try.--MariusM 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with you with this assessment, and I do believe that I have a pretty good grasp of how Misplaced Pages works. It is based on consensus and collaborative editing, something which Greier consistently failed to understand and which he is now perma-banned for. You are reinstoring his edits - again, without consensus or prior debate, just like he originally introduced them - and this is hardly acceptable. Not to me, but to Misplaced Pages, as per WP:BAN: "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users."

Your comment "just try" is perceived by me as a threat and overly uncivil. - Mauco 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You have no right to talk about civility after you made edits like "I am disgusted to my bones by the editor who wants to include this" - the editor being me.--MariusM 18:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that every editor has the right to ask for civility here. That includes me. As for the diff you post, you almost immediately received a polite apology afterwards even though every single editor on the page agreed with me that your original entry was out of place, out of line, and (in the words of one of the Romanians) amounted to propaganda. - Mauco 19:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your attempt of accusing me of antisemitic propaganda failed and you apologies only after a Jewish editor wrote his disagreement with you. In fact, I was the one who removed from Misplaced Pages Smirnov's antisemitic propaganda included here by you .--MariusM 23:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How on earth can it be anti-semitic to state that someone is Jewish? Is that now a slur? Only in the minds of someone who does not like the Jewish people. As you know, there are several sources who claim that Zenovich is Jewish. I am not sure if they are correct, but I will accept the sources that say that he is not. Either way, if he is or isn't, it is hardly "antisemitic propaganda" but, at the most, a difference between two sources as to his religion. Please chill. And with regards to the current issue: You should not reinstate the edits of banned users, MariusM. It is very uncool and it reflects badly on you as an editor. - Mauco 00:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't pretend you don't understand. In electoral campaign in Transnistria, pretending that a Smirnov's opponent is Jewish is a way to make propaganda against that person. This is the climate in Transnistria brought by Smirnov's regime.--MariusM 00:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not reinstate the edits of banned users. This goes against the policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits .Firsfron of Ronchester 20:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I answered in Firsfron talk page.--MariusM 23:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"source that in bookstores are only Russian-language books"

Er, the source only mentions libraries in Grigoriopol. I don't think that it is enough to cover the broad statement it is attached to. --Illythr 19:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Truli

User:Truli is out of control on the Transnistria page. I happen to agree with some of his/hers edits, but that is beyond the point. The point is that they are large, they are affecting a fairly stable version of the page, and they are made without consensus. I have written a message to Truli to not continue, along with a vandalism warning, and have instead urged these changes to be dealt with in Talk. I also made a 3RR warning. I mentioned vandalism, so I think that if you and I revert Truli, it will not count against your 3RR or my 3RR. I already reverted Truli once, and I see that you are reverting too. You can safely continue to do so and I assure you that I will not report you for 3RR. - Mauco 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I just posted another message to this user so if he or she continues, we can safely report for 3RR and that is that. No further warnings are required. - Mauco 14:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A rather unlikely alliance, eh? :) --Illythr 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mark us street

Just letting you know, the RFCU you filed has been completed and acted on. Luna Santin 11:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Tiraspol

I didn't mean that the tank was ugly, I said the picture was. IMHO it degraded the quality of the article—perhaps you could find a better quality one? Anyways, aren't there any nicer pictures of Tiraspol, or is the city nothing but Soviet monuments and ugly buildings? :-) Khoikhoi 11:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark us street

Jamason, Mark us street didn't leave Misplaced Pages as he told. He only edited under other names. I caught him using 2 sockpuppets after he told he left Misplaced Pages Request for check user confirmed, probabily he will use or already is using more sockpuppets. His job is to make on-line propaganda for Tiraspol regime, he will do this as long he is paid for it. He just realized is not a good tactic to openly admit he is editor of Tiraspol Times. I am expecting a lot of sockpuppets invading Transnistria-related articles in Misplaced Pages.--MariusM 18:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this too. By repudiate I was referring to his claims that the article was "black propaganda" and not his stated intention to end participation. Both Mark and Diana have called the article "propaganda." Perhaps that's not such a bad thing, eh? jamason 19:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Diana

You are writing about me on the pages of other users, what is that about, and why do you not write in English? I just want to know what is going on? You said yourself that it was vandalism to delete paragraphs without discussion, and that is what Diana is doing, you can see this, all I do is to restore vandalism, I never add new things and that is a fact, you can see my log. Pernambuco 20:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC) PS: Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Diana_Teodorescu&diff=prev&oldid=97193680 Pernambuco 20:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC) please translate it for me

What, please explain, I do not understand a thing now, do you endorse Diana's version, or what? You said on the talk that the person who removes paragraphs without discussion is a vandal, that it is vandalism, and this is what diana has been doing, and now you reverted me to that version from diana? I do not understand, you are also including the link that the others do not like, it is transnistria.ru.ru and this has not been discussed, it is a terriple POV link and you are putting it under Transnistrian side, what is that, please explain yourself. Pernambuco 20:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

explain.... your comment that ¨Removing paragprahs without disscussion is vandalism¨ only applies when I do it (do you think that I am a vandal) but when Diana does it, then it is oK?? you are digging yourself a big hole, mariusM, you are not making any friends, not with me, with this double standard attitude. Pernambuco 20:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I also want you to translate the text that you wrote in a foreign language about me.Pernambuco 20:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? Learn Romanian if you want, on my page he is allowed to tell me in my language. I don't speak too well english..--Diana Teodorescu 20:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You are rude, it is polite when you talk about others in a foreign language, that you translate, I am also not from England or United States, it is not my language, but when I discuss others then i do it in a language that they can understand, so do not be rude Pernambuco 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You already were, do you want me to remind how rude and impolite you were? You even lied saying MariusM agree with you since what he said was not that, for me you're a liar and rude. Most Russians hate Romanians, but I never thought that also Brazilians are. But regardless of what you say, there was a conflict that you just keep reverting and trying to impose your POV with rudeness, liars and personal attacks. What you do is discrimination against Romanians and against females. To put it bluntly, it is because of this totally negative, even racist mentality of your that I think you should not be contributing on these matters. --Diana Teodorescu 21:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop arguing in my user page. Use your own user pages.--MariusM 21:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Most Russians hate Romanians"? "Racist mentality"? Hmm, deja vu... Now, where did I see this before? --Illythr 21:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria

Er, sorry, that was a wholesale revert, I'll restore the previously agreed stuff back, now. I reverted to Jonathanpops because I thought that he reverted to the last stable version. Looks like I was wrong...

BTW - I'm thinking of Corsica. ;-)

Whoah, I skipped on reviewing the article only for several days and look what's going on with it. I'm surprised that you actually supported those highly controversial edits. I will have to do a thorough review now...

I think the article needs to be reverted waaay back to TSO1D's edits on 27th and locked, so that all the new stuff can be discussed first.

Also, I don't remember who started this, but please stop calling each other's reverts "vandalism". Clearly, none of the regulars here (except Boni) have the goal of doing damage just for the sake of it. Obviously, we have a POV conflict, instead.

I think that reporting Pernambuco the way you did was politically correct, but morally wrong, considering that his last three editswere to revert changes being introduced without any kind of consensus at all. I believe that it's only fair that you report Diana as well; I understand that you have already warned her.

I'm too tired to continue editing tonight, so I hope you will clean up the mess yourself, before the other editors arrive.

Although my good faith of you is severely strained, I will assume it nevertheless. Good luck in restoring the article to a version, where at least some consensus was achieved. --Illythr 23:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of comments about Tiraspol Times from my userpage

Hi Marius,

Now that William Mauco has shown TT to be a "real" paper newspaper, please remove your entry on your userpage which suggests Mauco is lying and/or that the paper only exists as a propaganda website. Mauco has clearly shown, through photographic evidence, that the paper exists, and apparently is distributed in fairly large quantities.

Generally speaking, we do not use our userpages to try to discredit other users on Misplaced Pages (in fact, userpages should never be used to disparage or try to discredit another editor! This goes against so many Misplaced Pages policies I don't know which one to link to). I was uneasy with you posting that message in the first place, but since anyone can now see your statement was incorrect, please remove this from your userpage immediately. I will be checking back to make sure you have done so. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I updated my page. Mauco didn't ask to remove his name from my page, only to tell the truth, which I did. What I written is not a personal attack, but about one of Misplaced Pages sources - "Tiraspol Times", and is relevant to disscuss the sources we have in Misplaced Pages. Fact that Tiraspol Times didn't had a printed edition at the end of October 2006 is correct, even chief editor of Tiraspol Times recognized that they operate on-line, while he was newbie at Misplaced Pages: .--MariusM 20:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: User:Jayjg asked and received confirmation that User:MarkStreet is indeed editor of Tiraspol Times.--MariusM 20:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Another admin has agreed that your userpage violated WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F, and I have removed the most inflammatory content. Using your userpage to attack another user will not be tolerated. Do not restore these comments. You have many good edits to Misplaced Pages articles, Marius, but your continued attacks on user:William Mauco are a bad idea. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding personal attack on Mauco, in fact is he the one who made the most personal and unjustified attacks: Here he told that he is "disgusted to his bones" by me, claiming that I want to deny mistreatment of Jews in WW2 (while I didn't edit anything related to Jews). He stopped only when a Jewish editor (admin) told he don't agree with those attacks. I am in fact very moderate about Mauco, who is exhausting the community patience. See for example what other users told about him: Peteris Cedrins (registered Misplaced Pages 20 June 2005, never received any block), , Peters J. Vecrumba (user registered at Misplaced Pages in 3 December 2005, was never blocked) , Greier , Ldingley , EvilAlex (this one is from Transnistria - comment about Alexander Litvinenko, who was allegedly killed by Russian agents, poisoned at a sushi bar - see Misplaced Pages article) --MariusM 21:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, Marius.

It is never "okay" to use your userpage to try discredit another user; both of you have engaged in repeated personal attacks, incivility, edit wars, and other nonsense in articlespace and on talk pages. I can't stop you, although I have tried, by using warnings, and by eventually blocking both of you to prevent the disruption of the encyclopedia. None of this has worked.

What I can do is remove long "I was right, he was wrong"-type rants from your userpage. These comments have no place on a userpage, and can only stir up more anger between the two of you. You have stated on my talk page that you are "very moderate" about William Mauco. Please do not insult my intelligence; you've complained about this user and/or reported him dozens of times. The very fact that I had to remove your comments about him on your userpage tells me your feelings are not "moderate". Had William Mauco left comments about you on his userpage, I would have removed those as well. Please go back to doing what you usually do very well: editing the encyclopedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

First, Happy New Year!
I've noticed your interest in Transnistria, and maybe you would like to vote in the survey on the inclusion in Tiraspol article of the images with the Soviet tank monument in Tiraspol and Transnistrian Government building in Tiraspol with statue of Lenin in front. The survey is here. Thank you, Dl.goe

Moldovan Romanian

Eh, what was that about? I myself "recognize" that Moldovan is a dialect of Romanian. And I don't live in Transnistria... --Illythr 18:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you also read my argument with Adriaticus&guys below? The actual voting entry was a bit too emotional, the more serious reasons for opposing the closure were down below. In short, there are two: 1) There are still people in Transnistria who use it and are taught in it. 2) mo:wiki deserves to live, just like the Latin(dead), Klingon(fictional) or Simple English(non-language). Unfortunately, instead of being a "normal wiki", it was turned into a battleground between Node and Bonaparte&co with way too few users willing to actually work on it. So, those who want to close it due to political reasons (almost every pro vote) are in error, whereas those who point out the real problems of the wiki (Dahn, TSO1D, DPotop etc) are correct.

On a side note, I wouldn't object against a ru-sib (the situation is similar there, but trickier) or ru-padonki wikis either, if the initiators of the former were not so anti-Russian (and that being Russians themselves!) and those of the latter didn't start it just to spite the ru-sib guys. --Illythr 20:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We are Wikipedians. Klingons will be assimilated just like everyone else. Resistance is futile!

Actually, I made a few minor edits to the mo:wiki (rvv), but I don't understand a word of Klingon, unfortunately. --Illythr 20:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

PMSSR

acceptable? jamason 02:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is so lame. jamason 00:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Anglo-Saxon Chauvunism"

I don't think there's one like that (at least I've never seen it; I think there is something on US-centrism, though, I never bothered to look), but you can create your own userbox based on some other one. Just subst one into your user page and replace the text&picture if necessary. --Illythr 15:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

209.183.138.82

I don't think I can block him unless he is warned, so I added a {{test3}} template on his talk page. If he does it again, {{test4}}, and then {{test5}} ("blocked"). Cheers, Khoikhoi 18:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he couldn't help it...neither could I. () ;-) Khoikhoi 05:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Events which prepared the war

Marius, where are the key events? The introduction of the language law, the refusal of the Moldovan Govt to grant autonomy to Gagauzia and Transnistria, the massive wave of firings of Russian-speaking personnel throughout Moldova, the various nationalist slogans... Why, even the proclamation of Moldova's independence is missing! This form of POV is called "POV forking", except it's done in the same article. Even here, in Moldova the view on the war is not that one-sided.

Additionally, At the bridge near Dubăsari, clashes are held between the police which wanted to open the bridge and separatists. Deaths and woundeds are registered at both sides. this is the first time I hear of police losses in that particular incident. Weren't the 3 killed and 16 wounded from among the demonstrants (or, as you prefer to say, separatists)? Weren't you also claiming that this was a terrorist act staged by Transnistrians themselves?

I will not remove your edits, though. Instead, I intend to enhance them. The usage of a Russian source would be okay, I understand, considering your own choice.

In any event, proposing such a contentious edit on the talk page first would've been the right thing to do. --Illythr 16:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion take place in Talk:War of Transnistria. You are wellcome to add other events from a Russian source.--MariusM 02:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

I'm sorry, but I do not have the time to really get involved, nor do I feel compelled to. I think that the editing process is anyway a bit slow (which is normal, given the amount of bad faith and manipulation from Mauco&co), and I am merely observing, only intervening when some obvious fraud is involved. Like in this case. BTW, I have already been involved into such a conflict, on Moldova. This makes me think that the Transnistrian problem is going to last for some time. Dpotop 13:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Misplaced Pages in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

Inflammatory articles

Posted here due to the apparent lack of relevance to the War of Transnistria.

Do you have issues of Literatura si Arta of the time? I bet any one published during that period will do. I'll keep an eye out for them. Meanwhile, some parts of those slogans are available even on Misplaced Pages.

• In this version of the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia article, the last paragraph of the "Consequences (up to 1953)" section describes the Russian arrivals as some criminal uneducated riffraff without any professional qualifications except for the fact that they could speak Russian.

The current version (which is indeed more or less correct) was modified only after I had complained about it on the talk page. The original version was a citation from a relatively fresh Moldovan source printed as late as 1999! I feel that these things are relevant, because they are leftover sparks of the fire that burned bright back in those times. I have to admit, I'm surprised that you seem to be completely unaware of it. You may be the victim of the same circumstances you have attributed to me, having read only Romanian-language literature of a certain bent, but I refuse to believe that Romanian press had completely avoided those issues. --Illythr 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

One single matter - I don't understand the word "only" in the first sentence above. Your complait was logical and constructive, that's why I immediately changed. It is impossible to summarize several pages in one sentance without some non-desireble expressions. After all, it was not a text after "peer-reviewing" - you were partly the "peer". It was your job to recommend changes, and you did your job. That's why the article is better. BTW, I would like in the future to merge June 1940 Soviet Ultimatum article into Soviet occupation of Bessarabia article, and add some info about June-July 1940, the reaction on the ground, time permitting. :Dc76 20:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• This fine specimen of historical accuracy by EvilAlex was (and still is, with some) a rather widespread opinion on Russians that even got published (minus the obscene lexic and "Tundra", Alex's specialty) in serious Moldovan newspapers. Also, "Rusoaicele" (to name one), I think, was a fairly recent series (2004) by N. Dabija, encouraging Moldovans not to marry Russian women, because children of such marriages will be sub-par, compared to their "pure" Moldovan counterparts. That's all written already after 2000, long after the most rabid nationalism had abated, mind you. --Illythr 00:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I picked the text, because I remember that an outcry occured even in the Romanian-language media, meaning that it had to be really bad (I hear there was even an investigation launched on the issue; he wasn't even fired, of course). Rosca &co had to disavow Dabija because the whole deal could mar them really bad. Hey, do you perchance know where I can get the original text? I had only read a few summaries and comments in Russian and would like to witness those "câteva afirmaţii greşite" :-) in their full glory. And to think that you had earlier proposed the guy as a reliable source on something concerning Russians...meh. Anyways, I'll see if I can find more such pearls that were issued closer to the 1988-1993 period.

As for Alex' comment - this is one time when it's better not to know Russian. Perhaps you can ask him to translate it for you? ;-)

--Illythr 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Answers at Illythr comments were done on his own talk page .--MariusM 13:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm glad that you realize that the situation was not black-and-white. All the more surprising then, is the timeline you presented at the War of Transnistria article. Obviously, all parties to the conflict bear a share of responsibility. Highlighting the share of only one side is, well, POV.

Now, to the other concerns. The original Popular Front with its supporters was a rather loose association of various individuals united under the banner of "national awakening". I'd even suggest that most of them had rather benevolent intentions in mind, at least initially. Obviously, when the tensions (and the nationalists' power) subsided, their differences were made apparent and internal tensions arose. But that only happened later. Within the discussed period (1989-1992) the uniting idea was still strong. I think it was precisely the adherence to that uniting idea (nationalism), that caused Rosca to attack Dabija - to deflect the inevitable generalization people are going to make. Their mutual quarrel only strengthened Rosca's reaction.

Dabija's article certainly doesn't prove him wrong, but it demostrates that he is unable to use a NPOV approach when handling Russian-related things, making him an unreliable source there, unless he's admitting something unpleasant to his theories.

As you stated, the situation was by no means black and white. Seeing as how power and education were mostly in Russian and Jewish hands (especially before Khrushchev's "Rise of the Nation" program), and that large cities were almost 90% Russophone, it was certain that a part of the local Russian population would become elitist. Even now I sometimes hear contemptuos muttering about how quickly they came from selling apples in local markets to ruling the country. I'm sure, however, that you do realize the difference between graffiti like "Roşca - bîc" or "rus - jos" (sometimes scrawled on the same wall :-)) by nameless hooligans and a well-written article by a skilled and respected activist that calls the nation to rise up against foreign oppression and oust the invaders back to Siberia, where they came from, or a speech with similar content in front of a huge gathering.

PS: Baran means a ram in Russian, it is rather derogatory when referring to a person.

PPS: Congrats on your Barnstar! You don't have to envy Mauco any longer, now that you have had recognition of your work, too. :-) --Illythr 16:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is black and white, but NPOV does not mean assigning 1/2 of share. Also I don't think there were only two actors. There were many opinions and forces, which in the end had to adhere to some degree to one of the two "sides". For example Kozyrev, Russia's foreign minister at the time, was viewed as unfair by most of Moldavians, while in Tiraspol, I was told, many viewed him as a traitor. Also, people like former party bossed who stayed in Chisinau but actively supported with their influence on the direct actors the degeneration of the conflict in more bloody one. They have done to Moldovan "side" much more dammage than an ordinary Transnistrian gardsman, who only did something in a group but not by himself. Or, 14th army. Trasnistrians to this day claim it was neutral, but to Moldovans it was synonimuous to Transnistrian "side". Also, there were ordinary Russians from Tiraspol that never took arms against any neighbor, and there was Smirnov, who had an agenda from day 1.

I view the list introduced by MariusM as a working proposal. Noone forbids anyone to complete it with additional information. If I say today that Hitler did bad, and delay until tomorrow to mention Stalin, or leave it someone else's task, are you going to blame me of POV? If I would erase when someone introduces Stalin - that would be a POV.

By contrast, I would say that the vast majority of the people "united under the banner of "national awakening"" had totally "benevolent intentions in mind", and continuously, not only initially. Popular Front was their NGO/political party (both NGO and political parties were still ilegal in USSR when Popular Front started). The unionist (with Romania) idea has developed over time. If you'd taken a poll in 1988 and in 1992, you'd see much more supporters in 1992. The reason was very simple: for 45 years, the word "Romanian" was used in official sourses only together with "burghezo-mosieresc", and sometimes even with "fascist". Many people in countryside were asking themselves if by calling themselves Romanians won't they aslo call themselves fascist. Prior to the summer 1990 there was not even discussion about union with Romania. Only after 6 May 1990 things started to move that that could look possible. But still the question ordinary people asked was "Would Romania provide us as West Germany provided East Germany?" And I have never heard anyone supporting a form of union that was before 1940, i.e. just some more counties, without any autonomy and own government. The general theme in 1988-1990 was "no more big brother" (by that Moldovans understood Russia), noone wanted to replace the "big brother" by the "middle brother".

Dabija has been frustrated for years by what owed to seem him as talking in vain. Sooner or later one or his articles (he was writing at least one a week) was going to contain something over the edge. To say that Dabija "is unable to use a NPOV approach when handling Russian-related things" is like saying the same about Reagan and USSR, or Clinton and Republicans. He was and still is a "leader of opinion", though. He is not an expert scholar on Russia's recent history, he took part in some events. His sources should be used for what they are worth: some are well-documented, some are just attempts to convince different people of something. He is not writing in peer-reviewed journals, neither in extremist press.

The last paragraph that Illythr wrote (before the PS and PPS) - I absolutely agree with it.:Dc76 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I replied to Dc76 on his talk page. --Illythr 01:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Russian-Lipovan Cubreacov

Don't know about that, I can ask around. There was a lot of name changes to suit the change in the political climate at the time, I suppose that some "ancestry cleanup" was quite likely to occur as well. Like Vladimir Zhirinovskiy had once said: "My mother is Russian, my father was a lawyer!" (He was Jewish; "yurist" (lawyer) and "yevrei" sound similar in Russian) ;-) --Illythr 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests for translations / verification of sourses / following links / bringing in new info

Dupa cum ti-am raspuns mai inainte, sunt destul de ocupat. Totusi, din cand in cand pot gasi cateva minute (sau chiar 1-2 ore) pentru Misplaced Pages. As vrea sa le dau un randament mai bun. Pe de o parte, imi este destul de greu sa urmaresc toate schimbarile si discutiile din articole si sa raspund la comentoariile inflamatoare care prin "astroturfing" incearca sa creeze o impresie de opinie quazi-unanima in sustinerea unor puncte de vedere de extrema, sustinute (dupa parerea mea) de un numar mic de persoane frustrate de unele evenimente sau realitati. Pe de alta parte, observ ca tu esti destul de activ: contribui regulat, cauti si gasesti foare multe surse si argumente din diverse surse. Observand unele mesaje ale tale din ultima vreme am urmatoarea sugeste: Eu as putea sa-ti fiu de folos cu "sarcini" care pot fi duse la indeplinre in 30 de minute:

• sa traduc ceva din rusa
• sa urmez sursele si linkurile respective daca sunt in rusa, cautand daca e ceva relevant pentru o tema data
• sa verific daca unele editari corespund cu sursele
• sa adunc surse noi/informatii aditionale despre o tema data

Daca pot fi de folos, te rog lasa-mi de fiecare data un mesaj pe Talk page-ul meu. Daca e vorba de tradus sau verificat, da-mi link-ul (-urile) la sursa. Daca e vreo tema despre care trebuie cautat ceva, descrie in 2 propozitii ce anume sa caut. In felul acesta imi va fi mult mai usor sa fiu de folos fara a promite ca sunt activ zilnic, cand clar nu pot face acest lucru.:Dc76 16:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

Deoarece tu ai urmarit articolul cu atentie, ai putea sa-mi (sa ne) dai o lista (chiar si aproximativa si incompleta) de ce trebuie schimbat. Ma refer nu doar la ], ci in general la articol. Nu e obligatoriu sa explici fiecare punct, dimpotriva eu o sa inteleg din 2-3 cuvinte despre ce e vorba (daca poti indica la fiecare sectiunea). Detaliile vor trebui discutate direct pe Talk page-ul artiolului. Evident, nu ma astept la intreaga lista azi-maine. Cand ai timp, mai adauga 1-2 observatii, ca sa stiu ce surse/linkuri sa caut si la ce portiuni sa propoun variante de editari. Cel putin sa incerc, ca altfel nu sunt de nici un folos concret pentru articolul acesta. :Dc76 20:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

List of sovereign states

Could you take a look at the article and its talk page? Dpotop 13:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is just what we need. ;-) - Mauco 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Veto rights / Edit warring

MariusM, please stop edit warring and please refrain from misleading edit comments. You have at least 3 of those today on Transnistria. See history log. In your latest, you accuse me of wanting veto rights. That is incorrect. As I have pointed out, and as I am now clarifying here again, I merely request that you try to work with consensus. This means that you may want to seek to hear the opinion of other editors first, even of those of us who do not always agree with you. Many of us worked very hard, and very well, with this page before you arrived. You should respect the work of others, and please respect the work of Misplaced Pages. Your 9 edits in 7 hours has crossed the line for 3RR. If you put the same energy onto the Talk page, it would yield more constructive results. - Mauco 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)