User talk:Moldopodo

History of Bălţi

Hi. I have noticed you very nice contributions to the article about Balti. However, why did you create a separete article about its history? I don't think it is notable. The history of the city, taken in its totality, was no different than the history of the whole surrounding region. There is very little one can write specifically about the city. Of course, if some researcher would study, and write a special book about it, containing many specific details, we could make a separate article. But until such thing would happen (if ever), why repeat the information in the history section of the city, and in a separate article? Some events of 1940-1945 might desearve their own articles, but that's a different story. Think about this: if you want to read all articles about history of Moldova, you do not look for articles about history of different localities, but for articles about events. If an event took part only or mostly in the city - fine, we would have an article about that event, it would be linked to both the city, and history of Moldova. Do you understand my objection? Personally, I prefer things to be simple and clear. I shy away from making a title of a wp article if I have not seen that as title of at least one book. Take care, and keep the good work. Nice to know more poeple are interested.:Dc76\^talk 18:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Balti

Hi, Sorry i don't have time to answer you tonight in full, but I will in the following days. First of all, you misunderstood my joke: adding phrases and tones like "somewhat Ukrainian", or unnecessary comments "you must be a heal of party goer" I spoke of you in appreasing when I said about parties. We must have different humour tastes.

About the same paragraph from your answer. It is absolutely true that city, where Russian is spoken just as Romanian, having a Ukrainian mayor with a strong Ukrainian community in plus, I don't think anyone is doubting that. But to claim from here that Bălţi is a multinational is false. Balti is a city in a country, which has 80% ethnic majority. It does not have any special status. The word multinational suggests some special legal status. If all you mean is that there are more ethnic groups - absolutely true. But you expressed that with a word that implies much more, a legal status.

Also, I don't think Ukrainians or Russians represent a majority in the city. There are only 25,000 Russians and 30,000 Ukrainians comparing to almost 70,000 Romanians, according to the last census. And so is the frequency the languages are spoken outside the city hall. The ethnic belonging of the mayor is a big plus, his policies IMHO are a big minus. I do not see any relation between the two. I know hundreds of Ukrainians who are much more intelligent than him, and would do an excellent job. But what I was refering is that in the older text was a delicate mention that some language policies (i.e. not having Romanian as the working language) are simply ilegal. Strictly speaking, juridically, but that was intended only as an observation, nothin more. Please, don't see agressiveness where there was nothing meant. All it was meant was directed at a number of individuals, who are NOT faithful representatives of their ethnic group. I have the same observations in relation to the other parts of your respons:

1) please, try to see that often I was/am being expeditive and did not explain a lot, as I considered some things self-evident - no problem, we can definitevely talk and explain in more detail. Who told you I wouoldn't understand you POV?

2) please, try to stop making a relationship between ethnicity and politics.

3) I am not steadfast about details - we want to make a good article, and there are many ways of improving. One can tall the same thing in several different ways. I have never been about the precise formulation, but about the sense, that it refelcts the truth.

have a nice day:Dc76\^talk 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

About WWII military action, is it not interesting? I wanted very much to find information also about 1944, but could not find such online. Maybe you find? The size of the history section is ok, imho, comparing to the size of the whole article. Most of the localities in the world have history section at 1/2 or more (those that have more than 1 line article), so we are much better :) Is it not interesting that the city one had a large Jewish community, was a famour horse fair, were burnt to the ground and rebuild again, was founded by a princess and was developed (from a fair into a city) by 3 hard-working brothers, got the seat of a Bishopric from one of the oldest cities in eastern europe (hotin), had a concentrations camp, had and has small Armenian and Catholic (BTW, the latter polish-ukrainian in origin) communities etc. etc. All that is good to know, maybe even more than naming all its pubs. Not that I have anything against the list of pubs, on the contrary, that is very useful info! :) :Dc76\^talk 19:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your harsh language on some aspects in the massage you wrote on my talk page as a temporary lack of tact and I will ignore it (the language): I prefer to remember the positive and forget the negative details, if a person does not insist otherwise. I believe it is a lot we can do to improve the presentation of the city on wikipedia. Do you agree?:Dc76\^talk 19:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to repleat again: please, dialog. Talk pages exist for that, and every issue can be analized step by step. Otherwise, look what you do. On the talk page of the article you blame me of:

Language and politics are very sensitive issues and for me, they have no place at Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, and not a forum for expression of personal thoughts, regrets, etc.

while simultaneously, in the article you edit:

Unfortunately, the resistance went too far, by imposing Romanian as the only language in Moldova, which ended up in declaration of independence of Dniestr's left-bank cantons and creation of break away from Moldova region Transnistria.

Who is expressing here regrets?

Every issue, including politics and ethnicity has to be present on WP, because it aims to be a universal encyclopedia. But every information has to be clearly attributable: who said that, who claims that, etc. The article is not perfact, so it can be understandable when we have "X claims Y" without giving a sourse (presumig one would be added in the future). But to painly say "Y is the truth" is wrong (unless it is a scientific fact), and when repeated could be interpreted as meanness. An educated person always can reformulate in the form "X claims Y", "accorgin to X, Y", etc Is it so difficult to dialog issue by issue on the talk page? thank you:Dc76\^talk 21:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bălţi

Please explain your reversions on the Bălţi page. You need to discuss changes with people who are in disagreement with you. Corvus cornix 22:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read attentively the Bălţi discussion page. It is very well explained there.Moldopodo 22:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Really, we need to take issue by issue before your changes. Let me repeat for the 100th time, that they might be ok, but we need to talk about them and reformulate them properly one by one (I mean, with the exception of the technical info which was very good!). Your "explanations" on the talk page are an example of what explanations shouls not be. They are blames, and some quite false and, sorry but this is at least in my point of view, shameful.

It is hard because it take time to do it one by one, but it would improve the article. I second Corvus cornix request. Is it not possible to do a civilized technical/accademic-like discussion? :Dc76\^talk 22:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this plan?

1) we list all the problems (group together if it is the same issue repeating a couple times through the article)

2) we see if we can eliminate 3-4 of them just by frank discussion between us two.

3) we asked the oppinions of others on the talk page of the article (if anyone wants to give) to the remaining issues

4) we ask WP:MEDCABAL for the remaining

5) we ask WP:Mediation Committee for the remaining

I think it was uncivilized of you to rv, especially so agressively, but you can have your version for 48 hours. All I want is for you to start doing 1) during 48 hours. I will also start doing 1) tomorrow.:Dc76\^talk 23:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Your Report

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

NPA

Calling me a nationalist on your wikipage is a personal attack. Please refrain from that, and remove the qualification.:Dc76\^talk 14:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

talk page of Balti

Why did you just ersed all my recent comments? Add what you want, but if you keep removing my comments, i'm going to report you for vandalism.:Dc76\^talk 15:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See this, smart man. Who deleted? YOU deleted. Do you even know how to edit wp without deleting other people's work?:Dc76\^talk 15:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

take a brake for 15 minutes. i'll restore both yours and mine. :Dc76\^talk 15:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

are you giving me the 15 minutes? please let me restore, and them edit what you want. And next time, please do not edit offline and copy it online, because you erase what people work in meantime.:Dc76\^talk 16:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I did NOT erase anything you wrote. I moved that section upper, so that people could see what is being discussed here: the 27 items. And no, you can not stop me from adding a sentence to my argument, just as I can not stop you. "Smart man" meant that you editted offline, and then deleted the version that was of the page when you came back online, and put your comments, without realizing that someone could edit the page in the same time. What you need is more experience with WP, otherwise you do such impolite erasings.:Dc76\^talk 16:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Done it. I've restored my comments in your last version. Please, try in the future to not make me do my work twice. Also, please keep mine and your, and everyone else's arguments for every issue together. It is not chat, it is a presentation of arguments. Obviously, everyone should be allowed to correct his/her spelling, add links if those were not added the first time, etc. :Dc76\^talk 16:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

"Edits expressing nationalism, political views, personal opinions or simpy false statements, like those made in the past by User:Dc76..." can defenitely be considered a personal attack; it puts another editor in a bad light. This is simply not allowed, so I am removing it once again. — Edokter • Talk • 20:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Report to WP:AIV

Unfortunately, this page deals with only blatant vandalism (see the strict definition there). If you have issues with an editor, can I please suggest you try dispute resolution, including third opinions, Wikiquette alerts, or an article or user request for comment. Cheers, Daniel 08:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Moldopodo, you see for yourself what all admins tell you: the fact that you personally perseive agrumentations in support of a version with which you disagree as vandalism does not mean it is vandalism. You are being furious because you don't agree with my proposed edits (in fact to propose edits you should have done, because you started all this one month ago). Think logically, why another person should be obliged to explain in front of you? You are not an examiner, and you do not owe a single word on WP. Everyone is here to discuss proposed edits to the article, not to launch and answer accusations

• That's why you kept simply deleting all my edits, putting in the comment line that you were editing X, whereas one would find as a result the whole previous version with nationalist Romanian orientated proganda back on? It is called bad faith, Dc76. Don't try to play innocent "civilized" sheep now. Moldopodo 20:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

. (Do the latter somewhere else with someone else, please.) If you have a specific edit you want to make to the article, and I editted differently, present them normally as issue 28 and so on. Ditto if you want to do new edits. The current version is the one you like.

• Really? Earlier you used just to undo the edit and put in the comment line "no Balti Steppe". Did characterisation of your vandalism play this role?... Moldopodo 20:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

You did not allow me to do any modifications, agressively reverting everything I did (a lot of that were compromize versions, that you successfully ignored, or perhaps did not even bother to read).

• It should be clear here, from the very beginning you were continuously undoing my edits with no proper explication. Moldopodo 20:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

So, please, stick to the discussion of the content of the article.

• Exactly, that's what I am asking without result. Here I am, reading your poems on my talk page, whereas Bălţi talk page needs archivation now because of often unfounded and pointless explications of yours. If you had a source and a link to put to each of your edits, why do you keep writing so many words each time to explain something you simply can't prove? Just look how I and other users leave our comments: concise, clear and a source. Try this, please. Moldopodo 20:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

If you want me to bring additional sourses, add  in the places you want them, let others agree that is necessary, and I will put them. It is the whole community that decides what kind of an edit is done, at which sentence soursing is nenessary and at which not, whether the presented sourse supports the text. You are not the only one, they don't have to be presented in front of you.

• Listen, these citation tags were put in a good twenty places more than a week ago in the article on Bălţi history, as witten by you, they are still there, empty. Besides the same issues were commented on the Bălţi proper talk page, where again, nobody has seen any source or link from you so far. Only megabytes of irrelevancies, this is what other users are saying, not only me. Moldopodo 20:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

In the section that you added today to the talk page, you simply launch yourself in a suite of accusations against me, you do not ask there to discuss any specific edit, just listen to yourself: Spam, Sneaky Vandalism and Intentional Misinformation, Changing Street names, Covering of Historic prevalence..., Falsifying history of migrations ..., False presentation of ... history, False presentation of ... ethnicity, False presentation ... language, Unverifiable data, Personal undocumeted opinions, Pure nonsense, Intentional Nonsense Edits. Is that how a civilized individual talks to a civilized individual?

• This is exactly what you have done. Why do you want to forget it now? I mean if you have lied intentionally on a Wikipedia - you have lied intentionally on Wikipedia article, it can't be put in other words. You have deliberately disrupted integrity of Wikipedia. Moldopodo 20:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

If you don't get the sense of something, ask: 'what does that mean?' Give me a single reason why should I try to answer accusations? I have no intention of convincing you of anything. The only thing I intend to, is to show the community that the edits I propose are better. If you want to be part of that community, discuss the issues. WP talk pages should not be used for interpersonal accusations: chat exists for that.

• So far, almost all the comments done by other users are in my favour. Moldopodo 20:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Just to give you a single example. How could one answer this accusation: Diminishing the importance of the Ukrainian community in Bălţi and in the North of Moldova generally. First of all, what this has to do with north [with small, not capital letter] of Moldova in general, is a mistery. Since when is this article about the Ukrainians in the north of Moldova?

• Great, I finally made you understand the difference between one subject and the other. I hope now you will write only about Bălţi. I guess that means that you will no longer write in teh article about Moldavian Railroads generally, about Romanian history, about your personal thoughts of Soviet Union, etc.) Moldopodo 20:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

And then consider: suppose I'd say 'Ukrainians of northern Moldova are made of gold'. You will tell me 'Wrong answer! They are made of platinum' Because from platinum to gold is a hell of diminished importance. What would such an accusation/reply have as effect for the presentation of the article is clear: zero. Not to mention the fact that one has to be a heck of an arrogant to pretend to talk in the name of a whole minority, and demand that in its name one should conceed to that individual's demands/interests.

• Very good, does that mean you will not speak for Romanians anymore? Besides "golden or platinum" argument is not my style, rather yours. Remember all your edits with no link, nor source whatsoever, and your strogest argument "I know many people who..." Does not look serious to me. Moldopodo 20:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Also, don't dear accuse me of 'Lack of linguistic knowledge', you, who living there did not bother in 20+ years to learn the official language of the country you are citizen of. I asked you directly: do you speak the language or you don't? If you have anything to say about other people's knowledge of the language, first answer: do you speak it? :

• You should take it easier, you have made an error, accept it, other users have already corrected you, besides me. Moldopodo 20:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• Also, I remind you there are four official languages in Moldova, which one do you refer to?

• As for personal question, it's not about writing an encyclopedia article about me, but about Balti city, remember, stick to the subject, that's the point, and do check again a Moldavian (identical to Romanian) language dictionary for swamp. Moldopodo 20:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Dc76\^talk 17:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a user request for comment. Daniel 07:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You may want to read the above policy. Anonimu 10:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You should follow the steps described at WP:DR. Revert warring can only bring the two editors a block. Better temporarily accept a wrong version of an article, make your case stronger, and then ask an uninvolved user (preferably an admin, or an user with more than 1,000 contribs, that has never edited the section you dispute). If the uninvolved guy decides you're right, your opponent will most likely accept your version. BTW, i think a version similar to the one in the article about Russia is the best one.Anonimu 14:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You should believe very well what you read. Stop attacking others, read WP:CIVIL. You keep inserting WP:POV, and WP:OR. Stop adding your Russian nationalism in Romanian-related articles. --Moldorubo 17:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You break the rule.--Moldorubo 17:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, that's what I was thinking, User:Moldorubo was permanently blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte.--Moldopodo (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Eventual Block

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Moldopodo_reported_by_User:Moldorubo_.28Result:_.29 State your case there why you break the rule. --Moldorubo 17:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

what was that??

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Moldorubo 18:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not notice any vandalism on any edit made by me. Who are you mysterious Moldorubo created today in order to avoid 3-revert rule and to be able to edit to the 5th, 6th time the same thing? Whose clone are you, the one of Dc76, Anittas or someone's else?.Moldopodo 18:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Who am I? I'm Moldorubo, don't you see? I know you, you speak dutch. That's a clue for me. --Moldorubo 18:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You should change your name into Moldopudo, it will sound better.--Moldorubo 18:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to step into your argument here, but you've recently been edit warring and violated the 3 revert rule. I didn't block you, since there were other parties involved in the edit war, and thought that some talking might help instead of blocks. However, accusing other people of being sockpuppets is not very nice without some good evidence. Yes, he's a new user and, yes, he betrays a surprising degree of proficiency — however, it's sometimes better to just keep your suspicions to yourself until you feel ready to act on them. Until then, I hope you join the dialogue on the talk page and happy editing! --Haemo 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, User:Moldorubo was permanently blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte.--Moldopodo (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Vandalism

Er, do you intend to keep your page vandalized like that? Moldorubo was permablocked as a sock of Bonaparte, he's not related to Dc76, AFAIK. --Illythr 17:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

reply to Hi

With respect to [1], I wasn't talking about other users. My point was just that we have 2 obviously contradicting positions. One (IMHO the law) must be false. But we must present them both. So it would be unfair in this case to write in an article about one (considered by me to be false) and not at least mentioning the other, as long as they contradict (more unfair and missleading than the reverse case, which wouldn't be fair - hm, politically correct, buah - either). Cheers ! adriatikus | 23:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any pisition, I am citing the laws and the Constituiton of the Republic of Moldova for the names of official languages. It's neither true nor false, it's just what it is. Now, everybody here agrees that linguisticly speaking Moldavian is the same as Romanian, for that reason a proper explanation should be given on the page on Moldavian language. So, when one clicks on Moldavian, everthing is explained on a proper page. However, one can't add on all Wikipedia pages to Moldavian "/Romanian", because such name of the language appears nowhere in the present Moldavian legislation. Moldopodo 13:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Your logic is faulty. Now read this: "DC". Stop for a while and guess what it means... It could mean "direct current", "District of Columbia", or "600". If I don't mention a context, the reader wouldn't understand. The same is with the so called "Moldovan language". It is a political concept. It was defined by political will only (of Stalin, and recently of Mo communist party). If you don't mention this at least briefly, you are missleading. Or you may take a look at Norway and Sewden articles [2] [3] - although currently not a so hot topic (by comparison to Mo-Ro), the high similarity is mentioned, so a reader from e.g. South Pacific easily understands. What you are talking about is virtually "lying by omission". Not mentioning that defining it by law is a communist method of making politics. Well, another example - I bet you've heard about Stachanov (I may be wrong with the transliteration). By your logic would be just fine to write about his and his followers achievements (after all, official data) in a "Soviet Russia" article, leading the reader into thinking that, well, the Soviet Russia was a highly economically powerful country, while mentioning that it was only propaganda in a separate "Stachanov" article. adriatikus | 21:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, now that I think about this, they don't really contradict each other. Here are the verifiable facts that we have:

1. The state language of Moldova is Moldovan (per constitution)
2. Moldovan is Romanian (per linguistics and whatever else).

Therefore, we conjecture that Moldovan is the official name of Romanian in Moldova. So, the actual dispute is to what extent we may apply the law of transitivity to these facts. --Illythr 00:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• To Illythr, I cannot agree with your selective reading of legal texts. You forgot to cite the entire article 13 of Constitution, namely it's second (Russian and other languages on the territory of the Republic of Moldova) and third point referring to organic laws (two dated 1989 and one 2005) which explicitely state the legal regime of Moldavian, Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz. Illythr, whne deciding what is official language I explicitely cited the definition given by Wikipedia,

definition of official language on Wikipedia:

An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in the countries, states, and other territories. It is typically the language used in a nation's legislative bodies, though the law in many nations requires that government documents be produced in other languages as well. Official status can also be used to give a language (often indigenous) legal status, even if that language is not widely spoken.

you have not cited any source so far to support your argument. What are your sources, Illythr? Moldopodo 13:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Looks like you've been answered on the Russian Wikipedia. Funny that my sources are the same as yours. An official language is the same as state language and the only state language of Moldova is Moldovan. Additionally, I find your habit of ignoring the sources I cite [4] (last link) inexplicable. Here, the relevant part:

В конце 2001 г. правящая коммунистическая партия представила в Конституционный суд законопроект о придании в Молдове русскому языку статуса второго официального и внесении изменений в Основной закон страны. Законопроект предусматривал свободное использование в республике русского языка, при этом граждане Молдовы должны будут владеть обоими языками. Этот законопроект был принят парламентским большинством республики, опирающимся в своем решении на тот факт, что на русском языке говорит более трети населения. Тем не менее, в июне 2002 г. Конституционный суд признал молдавский язык единственным государственным языком страны, отменив тем самым решение парламента об использовании русского языка наравне с молдавским в качестве государственного. --Illythr 20:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your reply, Illythr. I am sorry, it's not my habit at all, I am more than hungry for sources after tons of unverifiable statements and personal opinions.

To start with, which source suppots your following statement: An official language is the same as state language.

As for the aforementioned article, indeed it is a very interesting one that I found, thank you for this reference. However, it speaks of Russian as not being the "state" language, and the official status as cited in this article is taken in brackets. To the contrary, the definition of official language (without brackets) is clearly given on Wikipedia[5]:

An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in the countries, states, and other territories. It is typically the language used in a nation's legislative bodies, though the law in many nations requires that government documents be produced in other languages as well. Official status can also be used to give a language (often indigenous) legal status, even if that language is not widely spoken.

Illythr, do you see anything missing for Moldavian, Russian, Ukrainian, Gagauz to be called official languages, according to the above given definition?

Moldopodo 01:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Moving Bălți

Hello, I saw that you just moved the article Bălți to Balti. First of all, I have to say that I disagree with this move. The most common form of the city is given with diacritics in English or as a phonetic derivation of that. The reason is that the city is generally not known well enough to foreigners, so that when the name is appears in print, the official name is usually used. In any case, this is a very controversial move, and I urge you to discuss it on the talk page first. In fact, given the sensitive nature of many parts of the article, I believe that it is best if any major edits would be first presented on the talk page, so other users can present their views on this issues. However, in any case, please refrain from moving this page or any page in the way you did for technical reasons. Simply replacing the text with another version does not move the page history or its associated talk page. Instead, the move command should be used, however, since articles for both those destinations exist, you will not be able to do this. You would have to make a request for a move. However, consensus is needed for such an action. Thank you. TSO1D (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Moldopodo is a sock. Move it back or you'll get banned pretty soon.

Mysterious User:62.84.145.2, you forgot to sign your post. Are you TSO1D? Please explain, what means "sock", and why will I get banned? Moldopodo (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

No, that's not me, that's Bonny. TSO1D (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I meant. Not even the main article should be moved by copy and paste. This does not transfer the page history and then causes a mess. See the "move" up on the screen? This is how it should normally be moved, however, it won't work in this case because an article already exists in the destination. So the only way this should be done is through a move request. So please do not just copy and paste, this will cause many problems that will need to be fixed later. Thanks. TSO1D (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Requested moves and more specifically Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves for information about how to make the request. I'm sorry but cannot do it for you, however, if you have any questions or problems, don't hesitate to ask. However, I would like to add something that that guideline also mentions; it might be best to first discuss the issue on the talk page without opening the request officially. I have created a section in the talk page of the article and have explained my views on the subject. TSO1D (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

You're welcome. Recent changes is a fun feature. : ) --Fizzgog (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith

You act in a bad faith against Romanians and what is Romania in Wikipedia. Take care that you may pay for this.

• Well, User:Moldorubo was permanently blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte.--Moldopodo (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Speedy deletion of List of mayors of Balti

A tag has been placed on List of mayors of Balti requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dougie WII (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of List of mayors of Chisinau

A tag has been placed on List of mayors of Chisinau requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dougie WII (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Mayors

No, it is not forbidden to create an article listing the Mayors of Balti, although the community might perhaps consider such an article to be not encyclopedic. But I deleted your article because it contained only three names, together with a number of empty spaces, and no factual data at all. Such a submission is regarded as having no content, and is normally deleted routinely.

To avoid this, I suggest that you create a complete article in a sub-page (see WP:SUBPAGE) and move it into article-space when it is complete. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

-- Avec nat | Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  20:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

moldova talkpage

please refer to Talk:Moldova before reverting my edits. bring references. thanks. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read attentively the Moldova talk page. All of my edits are proeprly referenced with the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova and the organic laws to which refers the Consitution. "Not seeing" these supreme sources and arguments is bad faith from your part. Moldopodo (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Re: 3RR and User talk:Nat

Moldopodo, could you explain the purpose of this?  Avec nat | Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  08:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Moldopodo, first of all, when you stated that

First of all, nor the user who has made this request, not the adminitrator has notified of their intention in advance. The user TSO1D has written on the block that another user reminded me of the 3 RR on the 1 November 2007. That reminder, on my talk page is completely unrelated to the resent dispute...

We did not need to notify you of our "intention" as you have been clearly warned/advised before not to edit war. It does not matter in which dispute it was given, as long as it was clear that the receiver of the warning was notified before not to edit war, I have the right to block violators of the policy. Secondly, I don't care what content disputes you have with another editor, just as long as you do not edit war with another editor. Thirdly, your suspicions as stated on my talk page are partial false

Moreover I suspect Nat to be originally from Romania, as on his personal page he states that he/she likes a Romanian band 3 Sud Est, which is a local Romanian band, not even known in all of Romania and not so popular in fact. To know it, and especially to be fan of it, one really has to have some very strong connection to Romania.

I am not from Romania, nor am I a Romanian. and you do not have to be either to enjoy music in another language other than the one you speak. Fourthly, I will not apologize for a block I believe was justified as you had been edit warring. If you have the intention to have TSO1D blocked, another administrator has already ruled "no action". If you disagree with my actions in blocking you, you can list your grievances on WP:ANI.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  14:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW

Could you, please, remove this from your user page: My page was vandalised by User:Moldorubo related to User:Dc76. I object to using my name in a pejorative way on your userpage. In fact, given the history of your personal attacks against me, I am kindly asking you to not refer to my name on your userpage altogether. Also, please know that I have nothing to do with Moldorubo --> you are walking a very thin ice by blaming me so blatantly of association with a block user, and on your user page, and in bold. :Dc76\^talk 17:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

For your information on 2 articles you list, in case you forgot their names. Previous mayors of Balti were Tonciuc and Iovv. Previous mayors of Chisinau were Serafim Urecheanu and Nicolae Costin. :Dc76\^talk 17:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• To start the discussion, explain to me how this is not a personal attack from you: statements made by User:Dc76 to User:Moldopodo

If you personally are/were apparatchik of the 1940s-1980s, if you personally were a member of NKVD/MGB and shot people, then yes, I have a problem with you. If you are son/doughter of an engeneer who arrived in the city during 1970s or 1980s, then believe me, you are the last of my worries. See this, smart man. Who deleted? YOU deleted. Do you even know how to edit wp without deleting other people's work? Please, no offence, but a child knows that... I am afraid that Moldopodo does not know well enouth the Romanian language and theirfore makes his confusion Moldopodo, this is ridiculous. Do you know Romanian? Tell honestly! If you don't know the language of your own country even at a very-very simple level, proved by the fact that even with a dictionary you make mistakes in a word that means the name of the city you live in, then please... give us a brake with your super-knowledge of the language you don't bother learn even at an elementary level. Alternatively, go to the library, pick up a dictionary, and make a small effort to learn a few words in the official language of your own country. It is a very simple language to learn, it is not Chinese or Hungarian to have to learn from zero. Foreigners come to Moldova and in 1 year speak the language. You live there for 20+ years and don't bother. Instead you blame people of nationalism. And what is your lack of knowledge of Romanian, not nationalism? Noone asks you to write literature, but 1,000-2,000 words anyone can learn. This is a sign of increased demands and increased agressiveness when there are contraditions. It is not something specific to Moldopodo only. It is the traditional Soviet way of negotiating: they tell you X. If you don't accept it, they demand X+Y. They add Y as a revenge that you deared contradict them. On the same tokken, I object to the increased demands, a policy of "revenge" used for agressive "negociations"."" This is another issue introduced as increased demaind, as revenge. Moldopodo has erased the names of the city neighborhods, because they are not of Russian origin. Only one name, BAM, which is on Russian origin was left. This is defined in dictionaries as shovinism

Moldopodo (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• as for the reference on vandalism, here is what supports mystatement:

Dc76 stands behind Moldorubo, I am almost sure. First of, the dispute I had was with Dc76, and lately with Anittas. They are the only ones interested to avoid 3-revert rule, and that's what Moldorubo served for (although it was already fourth edit by Anittas). Moldorubo used the same language, exact same edits in exact same places, and basicly spent all his energy on me right after it was created, using the same threats (NPA, etc) as Dc76. All of that happened as Dc76 was silent and then suddenly reappeared as he/she saw me suspecting him/her and pretended having a dialog with Moldorubo... I also think that Dc76 plays with IP addresses. Another sign that it is Dc76, Moldorubo placed an image (created by Bogdaniusca) on my page and you know that Dc76 makes all that kinds of images on his/her user page. Moldorubo had exactly the same mania to enquire who am I, what do I speak, etc, exactly the same phraseology as the one used by Dc76. Moldorubo, just as Dc76 followed me on every page where I posted or edited something, be it an article or a user's page.Moldopodo (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

1) I repeat again: I have no relation to Moldorubo. I suspect that he followed some of my edits. If you believe I had any illegal associations with anyone, please do report and ask assistance of an uninvolved admin. In absence of proof, you should refrain from mentioning in a negative way the names of you discussion opponents on your talk page, especially to attribute them all sort of things. Please, remove the PA from your user page.

2) If you personally are/were apparatchik of the 1940s-1980s, if you personally were a member of NKVD/MGB and shot people, then yes, I have a problem with you. If you are son/doughter of an engeneer who arrived in the city during 1970s or 1980s, then believe me, you are the last of my worries.

By this I meant to find a communication bridge with you: I was telling you, unless you are directly related to NKVD, you can find common language with me. I was very surprised when I saw you getting this as a confrontation. We must be speaking different English.

3) See this, smart man. Who deleted? YOU deleted. Do you even know how to edit wp without deleting other people's work? Please, no offence, but a child knows that..

In that case you editted an old version of the talk page. As a result you erased everything that I wrote in 2-3 hours. Since both you and me editted a dosen+ sections, I had to redo my edits piece by piece, spent another hour on it. Obvioulsy, I wasn't pleased I had to waste that hour, while you did not have to worry about causing me extra work. Obviously, you did not know how to edit simultaneously with someone else without erasing the other person's work.

4) I am afraid that Moldopodo does not know well enouth the Romanian language and therefore makes his confusion Moldopodo, this is ridiculous. Do you know Romanian? Tell honestly! If you don't know the language of your own country even at a very-very simple level, proved by the fact that even with a dictionary you make mistakes in a word that means the name of the city you live in, then please... give us a brake with your super-knowledge of the language you don't bother learn even at an elementary level. Alternatively, go to the library, pick up a dictionary, and make a small effort to learn a few words in the official language of your own country. It is a very simple language to learn, it is not Chinese or Hungarian to have to learn from zero. Foreigners come to Moldova and in 1 year speak the language. You live there for 20+ years and don't bother. Instead you blame people of nationalism. And what is your lack of knowledge of Romanian, not nationalism? Noone asks you to write literature, but 1,000-2,000 words anyone can learn.

(I believe these are portions from 2 or 3 times, not all at once, if I remember correctly) You made mistakes in translation, in elementary things. I concluded that you don't know the language, but to be sure, I asked you: do you know the language? you could have said openly: yes/no. your reaction was to rv the exactly same elementary mistakes again, so I took it as a sign that you don't know the language but insist you are right just out of spirit of contradiction, to keep the confrontation. You also blamed me of nationalism, which in my opinion is a very grave false accusation. So I answered you in asking rhetorically: when a person lives 20-30 years in one country, and does not learn the language of that country, is it not nationalism on the part of that person? And by learning I mean 1,000-2,000 words, as I said above, not poetry. I stay and will stay by this opinion.

5) This is a sign of increased demands and increased agressiveness when there are contraditions. It is not something specific to Moldopodo only. It is the traditional Soviet way of negotiating: they tell you X. If you don't accept it, they demand X+Y. They add Y as a revenge that you deared contradict them. On the same tokken, I object to the increased demands, a policy of "revenge" used for agressive "negociations"."" This is another issue introduced as increased demaind, as revenge.

The things were as follows: you edit X, I undo 40% of X (as obvious POV in my opinion) and suggest new version for other 20%. Naturally I expect you then to be more flexible on the 20%, to suggest other alternatives, when it is clear that I am ready to accept alternatives; and if something of 40% you still want so badly, to bring it in new formulations. What do you do? Not only you rv all 40%+20%, but now you find some new issues, Y, that you did not suggest when you proposed X. So the answer to my acceptance of 40%+invitation for dialog on 20%+(why not) possible dialog on part of the other 40%, you do this: you ask all 100%+Y. And Y is not just 2-3 issues, but many more, and more controversial than the most controversial of X. Please, tell me if I am wrong, but this is how things looked from my side of the screen. Associations with traditional Soviet die-hard communist tactics naturally come to the mind.

6) Moldopodo has erased the names of the city neighborhods, because they are not of Russian origin. Only one name, BAM, which is on Russian origin was left. This is defined in dictionaries as shovinism.

Ya, you erased all names that were not of Russian origin. So what if only one, BAM, is? Do all the cities in the world have to have only names of neighborhoods that must necessarily be of Russian root? Erasing something out of shear ethnic reason IS chovinism. I stated it as a personal opinion, but I did and do believe it is correct. And you confirm it to me, b/c you did not come to say "no, I erased them for a completely different reason, I wanted to make them all in orange, but I forgot my colors". From the way I see things, you did erase them on ethnic ground.

7) All these i expressed in talk pages, in midst of discussions, not stating as "axioms" on my user page, as you do. Do you see me writing on my user page in bold something like "chovinist edits a la Moldopodo will be deleted"? Now is the first time that (for the sake of this explanation) I even formulate such a phrase, let alone state it, or place it up front as you did several times, and you still mentain such one on your talk page right now. So, don't you think that you are way too agressive and intolerant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc76 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC) ya, I forgot to sign.:Dc76\^talk 18:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A civilised person you pretend to be, you had enough time since your last insults and refusal to discuss[6] were made in my regard to take the necessary steps to improve yourself. Moldopodo (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Even if there was something wrong, you can not ask someone else to "improve". The only things that the discussion (on WP in general, and here in particular) makes sense for, is to find good edits to articles. And by the way, how else can one react to list of 20+ false accusations? Starting a discussion about them would be giving the accusations some merit, which I do not intend to. Your accusations were directed personally at me ("Dc76 writes this, wrote that, does that..."), not at impersonal edits ("this edit is not good imo, b/c..."). :Dc76\^talk 18:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Missing plural

(1) The state language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan, and its writing is based on the Latin alphabet. I don't see the plural there for the verb "to be" and for the substantive "language". If the article is like the one that we both see, then things are very clear for me and should be for you too. The article said very clear that there's only one official language. Please let me know if you have some problem of understanding. Sambure ^talk 12:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sambure was permanently blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte.--Moldopodo (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• I think you have rather a problem reading comments on the talk page, which I understand, taking in consideration the number of irrelevancies there. I don't think I have ever contested that Constitution said The state language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan. What's the problem with that?Moldopodo.

I'm glad that you recognize that "Constitution said The state language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan."Sambure ^talk 13:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sambure was permanently blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte.--Moldopodo (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Oh, by the way, the article did not say a word about official languages or language, may be you have a different version of translation or a different Constitution? (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Once you agree with the statement "Constitution said The state language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan." you would agree that official language is the state language. One and only one. Sambure ^talk 13:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sambure was permanently blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte.--Moldopodo (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• Very strange personal interpretation, interesting why do you come to this conclusion?Moldopodo (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Etiquette

Hi Moldopodo! I understand that you are a new user and may not be very familiar with Wikipedia policies. But I ask you to please make an effort to get along better with other users, just as you would in real life. First, could you please stop the accusations of bad faith. Remember that the policy is to assume good faith, not to ask other users to prove it. If you believe that all other users are out to push their own point of view instead of trying to improve the encyclopedia, you might see evidence for this simply on the basis of those preconceptions and will only enter into conflicts with all around you. Furthermore, making this repeated allegation without further explanation can be seen as a form of a personal attack, which is a disciplinary infraction with associated consequences. For instance I don't understand your hostility towards me. I tried to be nice since I first met you. Of course we may disagree on some issues, but that does not mean we can't work together. But even when I tried to help, you later accused me of vicious machinations, and of trying to mislead users. If I misunderstood you in certain cases, I apologized for it and tried to correct the mistake, but I have always acted in good faith. Please try to keep that in mind.

Also, please think about the changes and arguments of others and consider why they made them. Don't just start a blitzkrieg of changes that you know will be controversial instead of discussing them first, or if there is no consensus for them. The only lasting contributions are those that are accepted by the majority of the active users of an article. Have you noticed that almost on all articles that you edit you have entered into an edit dispute with one user or another, and with users of all backgrounds. Keep in mind that most people here are reasonable and they will take into account your arguments and will agree to those changes that you provide good arguments for. However, also remember that other users may disagree with and that they will not agree to all of your proposed changes. In that case, please do not go against consensus and make those changes anyway. Thank you. TSO1D (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• All statements of bad faith from your side are supported by concrete examples, ref. to the Balti talk page or Moldova talk page. You are openly lying, just as you lied that I did not support my edits with sources. You have to stop this, as this may be considered as personal attack Moldopodo (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

I put a notice at ANI about your behavior and my actions. Please participate in this discussion and explain your side of the issue and what improper actions you believe that I have undertaken so that they can be reviewed. TSO1D (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you from editing for a period of 31 hours in an attempt to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia from your poor editing habits, which hinder an efficient editing environment. Please refrain from making repeated edits contra-consensus.

Please adjust your editing habits and make increased attempts to ensure your edits benefit Wikipedia, rather than damage it. Anthøny 21:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

---

{{unblock|Accepted, on the proviso that you do not resort to edit-warring. I will be watching the article, and I expect the next few edits you make to be aimed at forming a consensus.}}

TSO1D openly lies and I have nothing to hide or to improve. Unfortunately I had no time to write anything on the ANI page, where TSO1D put a comment on me. TSO1D bad faith is manifested by the following:

1) Intentionally enducing in error readers on the Balti talk page as the discussion was started on move of Balti article and ended, thanks to TSO1D ill manoeuvres, in discussion of general move of eastern European localitis and general debate on diacritics. Hence the significance of the initial debate was lost.

2) TSO1D lied, as TSO1D filed a block request against me, that I do not support my arguments with a source, whereas me and other users (Illythr) confimed and reconfirmed this (please see the Moldova page, last days edits), TSO1D also lied on Moldova talk page that I do not provide sources, right after my sections and references with sources.

3) TSO1D has immediately reverted Balti article to the strongly contested pro-Romanian version deleting all Russian names of districts, which is against consensus reached on the Balti talk page previously.

4) TSO1D does not make the necessary effort for a constructive dialog and pushes through a personal opinion both on Balti article and Moldova article.

5) User:AGK please review your decision, as, by the way, neither I nor anybody else had time to post anything on ANI page. However, if you blocked me to let TSOD1 make dirsuptive edits, immediately after I was blocked, against reached consensus on Balti article and probably other articles, I understand your decision.Moldopodo (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

If you want to request to be unblocked, write below {{unblock|The reason you ask for a review of your block}}, although i wouldn't advise it. You could use these 24 + 7 hours (?!?) to find more sources to support your case, preferable secondary ones. (i.e. not official documents) Anonimu (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I actually did not wish for you to be blocked. I simply wanted a review of your recent actions and whether I indeed acted improperly with respect to your case. I will post these concerns of yours on the ANI page and if you wish anything else to be added, please write so here. As for the Bălţi changes that I made, simply undid your last two edits. I don't wish to get into a detailed discussion here, but you had changed all mentions of the city to the form without diacritics, added as official the names "Balti and Beltsy" without consensus and then you added the Russian names alongside all Romanian names. I don't believe that they way I acted went contrary to the consensus of the talk page. TSO1D (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Even in the last reply on my talk page, TSO1D lied numerous times. To support my statement on lies by TSO1D uttered in my regard, please see the following:

As for the Balti article, TSO1D has at 21:44 immediately, after I was blocked at 21:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC) by Anthøny, purely and simply reverted all my edits to TSO1D's previous edits. In case of doubt, please see the comparison here[7], where you will find no difference between TSO1D's edits as of 17:09, 25 November 2007 (going back to an earlier version, Moldopodo, careful the infobox is all messed up) and as of 21:44, 25 November 2007. This reversion of TSO1D is by the way identical to the previous edit by TSO1D[8] as of 18:47, 23 November 2007, with the only difference that at 17:09 on 25 November, TSO1D, against the consensus reached on the Balti talk page to delete the spam reference, which is anonymous amateur free hosted site with an imaginary and irrelevant history of Balti (which was initially copied in the English Wikipedia, and later, according to the consensus reached on Balti talk page deleted or modified in parts), "covered" the reference to this site (balti.atspace.com) (which again, according to the consensus reached on the Balti talk page was decided to be deleted, see the comment of Anonimu on Balti talk page).

As for TSO1D's allegation that TSO1D simply undid your (my) last two edits, please see here[9] that TSO1D has, against reached consensus on the Balti talk page:

- deleted all Russian names of Balti districts, leaving them exclusively in Romanian

- deleted the sentence on the Balti rawing channel, (which shows again that TSO1D knows not much about Balti), which is working for many years now and is not a project at all

- deleted the sentence The district that was built during Soviet Union from scratch and called BAM (because of the similar undertaken efforts as in Baikal Amur Mainline) in the northern part of the city was renamed Dacia, however is colloquially referred to as Bam.

- re-inserted These schools teach either in Romanian, Russian, Ukrainian, English or are mixed. The later case was inherited from the Soviet system, which provided for education in Russian and Romanian languages (at that time Moldovan language), where mixed schools were created with the administration being carried out in both languages. Today, both Romanian and Russian languages are used in the administration. instead of previous version These schools teach either in Moldovan, Russian, Ukrainian, English or are mixed. The later case was inherited from the Soviet system, which provided for education in Russian and Moldovan languages, where mixed schools were created with the administration being carried out in both languages. Today, both Moldovan and Russian languages are used in the administration. The striking evidence was shown by me on the Moldova talk page, that not only the site www.edu.md of the Ministry of Education refers to Moldovan (just as Constitution and laws of the Republic of Moldova do), but the Ministry refers on its site to the Law on Education, which itself refers to the languages of educaton/teaching via references to the same legal provisions: Constitution of the Republic of Moldova and Law on Functioning of Languages on the Territory of Moldavian SSR.

- and since it was a pure and simple immediate revert, TSO1D did not even pay attention that Elizavetovca was modified by me into Elizaveta (which TSO1D claimed as well) and changed it back into Elizavetovca (I have explicitely apologized for the previous confusion on this issue in particular with my last edit of Balti talk page and explained as well to TSO1D where and how the proper legal references should be done for Moldovan legal documents (lex.justice.md) at 18:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo.)

- deleted the reference that "balta" is translated as swamp from Romanian and that even in Russian it means the same (by the way, the provided link to the article in a Romanian dictionary refers itself to Slavic origins, even though the given reference is not to a translation dictionary but to an etymology dictionary)

• Upon the request placed by User:TSO1D on the ANI (also, why TSO1D indicates ANI, being an experienced user, TSO1D could have provided direct link to [[10]] or this or this: 18:30, 25 November 2007 TSO1D (Talk | contribs) m (167,791 bytes) (→Behavior of User:Moldopodo - title above) (undo)?

• In my last edit on Balti article, I have not changed all mentions of the city to the form without diacritics. Please check for Bălţi here[11], already in the introduction, second and fourth sentence, this goes without mentioning the rest of the article where diacritics appear, contrary to the lies of TSO1D.

• I repeat, TSO1D has purely and simply reverted this article right after I was blocked following TSO1D's request.

• On the Balti talk page, TSO1D had intentionally enduced in error participants in the discussion on the move of the article to the proper English name Balti[12], which resulted in total confusion from the side of those who voted against the move, as they voted against general move, refering to general policies, general application of diacritics to Eastern European cities, and have said basicly next to nothing on the question of the move of Balti city proper. I try hard, but cannot think of TSO1D's "good faith" here as well...

• On Moldova talk page, I have always provided the reference to the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova and to laws to which it refers from the officially updated only one legal governmental portal of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Moldova. TSO1D has openly lied in her/his first request to block me for the alleged violation of the three revert rule that I do not provide sources for my statements. I have also placed the reference to the laws and to the Constitution in the article on Moldova proper, but TSO1D had deleted the references in the article, please check the history of Moldova article. Not ony I sourced my edits, moreover I have oversourced the talk page on Moldova, as recent users requested to regroup legal references as there are too many.

• Finally, this is second request to block me from TSO1D in last three days. When TSO1D says TSO1D's intention was not to block me, I guess all I have to do is to assume TSO1D's "very good faith"... just like User:AGK (Anthony) "assumed my good faith", by the way, before blocking me....

Moldopodo (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• Answering Anonimu, Moldovan Constitution and Moldovan laws are the supreme source available to anyone. These sources were voted by the Moldovan citizen through their representatives in the Parliament and are of highest value for me, as a Moldovan citizen. I cannot imagine what importance may have in this case any secondary, tertiary source? Also, for the format of English Wikipedia, the English Wikipdia provides the definition of official languages (to have a legal status and/or to be official even in a region of a country). In Moldova, Moldovan, Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz fully correspond to both elements of the defintion. Moldovan legislation uses the word official only once, in the law on Transnistria of 2005, and in that case it refers to three languages: Russian, Ukrainian and Moldovan.Moldopodo (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

No, I honestly did not wish for you to be blocked. This has nothing to do with good or bad faith, I just didn't think that was the best way to resolve the problem. In any case, if you promise to discuss your changes on the talk page first, both in the case of Moldova and Bălţi instead of reverting for the next 24 hours (which would be the remaining time of your block appx), I could unblock you now. TSO1D (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You honestly prove your bad faith with this statement. Were you full of good faith, there would not have been the first bad faithed unjustified request to block me, nor the second (this one here), nor would you stipulate conditions for unblocking me. Moldopodo (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Moldopodo, I intended to allot 1-2 hours today to edit the article. But since you are blocked, I will refrain, so that it does not seem to you unfair if I do it when you are blocked. I hope that you will reply to this gesture of good will and honest hand hold out to you by letting me edit (i.e. not rv just because I edit), and by approaching them constructively: I do not expect you to simply accept every edit of mine word by word, but there is a difference, when someone says "this/these word(s) and that formulation seem improper to me" instead of bluntly rejecting everything.

About the rowing channel. I know it occasionally works. But do you know that it was intended as a sport park, with tribunes for people to watch and a lot of that? I did not say the channel is not there, I said the park isn't. There is big difference between just the water and a whole complex. And BTW, one does not have to know anything to edit the article. It would help to edit if the user knows something about the city and/or the country and/or the culture and/or the society, but it is not at all a precondition. "Inside" people often do not see the forest because of the trees. "Outsiders" can help then correct that.:Dc76\^talk 15:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

Moldopodo, I still very much try to find some starting point of improving our relationship. I found that your position on Transnistria is very close to mine: the de facto situation should not have prevalence over the de jure one. I very much hope that by finding common ground we can work from there... I can debate the content of all the issues you bring in related to Bălţi, as long as you time your agressiveness. I can not communicate with you when you are agressive - believe me, it is very hard to bear insults.

Illythr, Peters, and Marius has also been very helpful in Transnistria, Alaexis, dispite his sometimes biased views, is very civilized, and is very easy to discuss with. The article has a long story of disputes and edit wars. So, be careful and delicate when you edit it. That does not mean not to edit it. On the contrary - it would be very nice to get your input. If you look for sourses of certain things, chances are the people I just mentioned or me have some. Don't be shy to ask. The fact that we disagree on other articles does not mean we can not agree in other places. How about that as a starting ground?:Dc76\^talk 17:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Dc76, I find the way and the approach you are trying to present yourself as insulted very tricky. You know very well, that you are the one who insulted me, let's have this clear once for good. (ref. to your insults above on my talk page). The same applies to agressiveness. So please for future discussions try to avoid to blame me of what you are guilty. This would make you look much more civilised, than baldly saying that you are civilised. It is by your actons and not by your nice words about yourself that you are appreciated.

And if there is something I would like to ask you, it is to find the exact references to mayors (link, years in service, exact name) of Balti and Chisinau. If you have them, go ahead and insert them on the pages I started to create. I know some of the names, but so far have no exact reference. I know the reference exists on the official site of Balti City Hall www.balti.md, in the article on the history of Balti. It is in Russian and it is very very long (three parts). I have a law degree from Balti State University and could rather help you, as I also participated in an exchange of experience with Ivan Franko (Lviv) and Kyiv Mohila (in Kyiv), and trust me, when I speak of four official languages, I know what I am talking about.Moldopodo (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• • About the fist issue. No, honestly, putting my name on your user page is PA. Did I put your name anywhere? As long as there is a statement on your page saying that I am related to a banned user, I am insulted, per WP policies. I have characterized your contributions as often biased and agressive, but I have not characterized you as a person.

Well, biased and agressive applies to your direct insults of mysemf as person, this is not about my actions, it is a direct personal attack from your side in my regard:

I am afraid that Moldopodo does not know well enouth the Romanian language and therefore makes his confusion Moldopodo, this is ridiculous. Do you know Romanian? Tell honestly! If you don't know the language of your own country even at a very-very simple level, proved by the fact that even with a dictionary you make mistakes in a word that means the name of the city you live in, then please... give us a brake with your super-knowledge of the language you don't bother learn even at an elementary level. Alternatively, go to the library, pick up a dictionary, and make a small effort to learn a few words in the official language of your own country. It is a very simple language to learn, it is not Chinese or Hungarian to have to learn from zero. Foreigners come to Moldova and in 1 year speak the language. You live there for 20+ years and don't bother. Instead you blame people of nationalism. And what is your lack of knowledge of Romanian, not nationalism? Noone asks you to write literature, but 1,000-2,000 words anyone can learn. Moldopodo 01:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• • I believe you are "guilty" of being aggressive, but the correct word is not "guilty", you are simply aggressive, therefore the quotation marks. And indeed the proof of that, IMO, are your actions. I admit that you might be of a similar opinion about me. Well, we can both live with that. All I want is for you to stop having my name on your page. I am not related to anyone. And in any case, without proof (IP check) you should never blame anyone (did they teach you this in law facutly?)

Please, prove your statements. It is strange that you speak about agressiveness. You are the one who is not searching consensus and baldy reverting edits on which a consensus was reached on the Balti talk page.(northern capital, translation of balti from Romanian, deleting Russian names of Balti districts, etc...)Moldopodo 01:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• • I don't understand what do you mean by "an exchange of experience with Ivan Franko (Lviv) and Kyiv Mohila (in Kyiv)". Is that relevant? What exactly you want to help me with?

You proposed your help, so I explaines where and how you can help (mayors of Balti and mayors of Chisinau)Moldopodo 01:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• • No, I don't have the exact years for the mayors. I just thought that if I remind you their names you could do a google search or remember where to look. If I'll get more info, obviously I'll add.

Good. Otherwise everybody knows the names (funny you do not remeber all of them if you say you live in Balti), but we also need exact references. Moldopodo 01:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• • If you speak Romanian, you could have just said so when I asked you. Obviously you were not obliged, but it would have spared your and my time. However, you by now have read the language laws and know that only Moldavian/Romanian is official in Moldova. Gagauz is official in Gagauzia, Ukrainian in Transnistria, and Russian - in both. If that's what you mean by saying "official", then of course, but that's not what the word "official" means legally for Moldova: you read black on white that the state language is one. You are using the word "official" differently than any other person I ever saw; perhaps you should reconsider (just for yourself, don't have to reconsider in front of me).

Sorry, I guess you were reading a different law or Constitution of a different country than the Republic of Moldova. I did not see anywhere, especially on lex.justice.md, that one of the four official languages in Moldova is called Romanian. May be you could be so kind and prove your statement with a law, or a Constitution (of the Republic of Moldova) provision? Moldopodo 01:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• • You know very well that Old Slavonic had something to do with Ukrainian like Medieval Latin with Modern Spanish. You do not suggest that Spanish was official in medieval Germany, do you? Apropo, corect ar fi sa traduci legile moldovenesti din limba romana in engleza, nu din rusa in engleza. Probabil ca n-o sa fie nici o inadvertenta majora, dar totusi e document si pana la urma versiunea in limba de stat e cea oficiala. Vsego horoshego.:Dc76\^talk 17:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Old Salvonic was used in the Moldavian Principality as the official language, namely by the church. Cyrillic alphabet was used as the first alphabet for what became later Romanian language (using Latin alphabet today)It is hard for Moldavian nationalists then and now to remember that the Cyrillic alphabet was not initially imposed on Romanians by an alien imperialist government. The Cyrillic script was used in Romanian until the middle of the nineteenth century. While linguistically it might make more sense to write Romanian with Latin letters, the logic of

Latinity did not make itself felt until the 1840s. The first language of the Orthodox church, the princely courts, and high culture in the two principalities had been Old Church Slavonic since the tenth century. For its historic value the Cyrillic alphabet even had supporters among some Moldavian nationalists. In spite of the present importance of the Latin alphabet in Moldavia, there was historically no necessary contradiction between patriotism and a lack of enmity for the Slavonic and Cyrillic influence on Romanian/Moldavian.[13]

So why is it constantly deleted by you?--Moldopodo (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Moldopodo 01:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• Also, if you have something to say, please use English on English Wikipedia. Moldopodo 01:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

1. The huge difference is that I did not put those remarks on the top of my user page. I made those remarks in the context of a content dispute with you. Obviously, I stand by them, I am not a hypocrite. But I never said on my user page anything about your editing practice.

I stand by my remarks, and the list of controversial edits on my user page clearly refers to you. Yes you are cited as an example, as a very bad example--Moldopodo (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

1. The language is called Romanian in Moldova's Declaration of Independence, which is just as fundamental as the Constitution. In fact, the two acts do not contradict each other: they say which language is official, not how to call it. The same term is used in various directives in Moldova, e.g. in all of the Ministry of Education documents.

It's an open lie. The fundamental legal documents of the Republic of Moldova are its Constitution and the Law on functioning of languges, to which art.13 clearly refers. In all of these legal provisions, just as in the Law on education, never is Romanian language mentioned, NEVER! Only Moldavian (and Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz). Please stop these pervert interpetations justified by nothing of official Moldovan legislation. Otherwise, present a law that calls the language Romanian.--Moldopodo (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

1. I never denied and do not ever intend to the role of Old Slavonic in middle ages. All through mid 17th century, it was the main language in which all documents were written. Not the language of the courts, though, because the process was always in Romanian, but the acts were written in Old Slavonic. From mid 17th century to early 19th century, Romanian was used in official acts, but with Cyrillic alphabet, which was quite different from the one used in 1940-1989. Latinity is a wide term. As a current it was felt even in early 16th century (e.g. Nicolaus Olahus, Miron Costin, Ion Neculce, etc), but in 1840s is exactly when the transition from Cyrillic to Latin alphabet has occurred. I fail to see any nationalism in that. All these are historic facts, and painting them with modern political color is very strange, suggests that you want to twist them in some way, to use them selectively to infer something about the present.

So why do you delete refrences to this?--Moldopodo (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

1. On the other hand, adding Russian names to city districts in a country where Russian is not official, is, IMHO, nationalism. It has no historical basis, these districts were never Russian. They were built by the inhabitants of Moldova, and everyone has got a share in work. The appreciation goes to people not to ethnic groups. German cars are good because German engineers are good, not because they speak German.

File:Beltsyoldplan1.jpg

Beltsy old plan in Russian

File:Beltsyzakonimpire.jpg

Beltsy receiving city status, a law in Russian

File:Beltsyletterrussian.jpg

Beltsy related official letter in Russian

File:Beltsyaddressletter.jpg

Postal address of a Baltier as receiver of the letter in Russian

First of all saying that using Russian names for districts of the city which in reality received its very city status under Russian Empire by a Russian law is simply an open lie. Secondly you know very well that it is uner Russian and Soviet Union that the city received its infrastructure development in all directions. Before the city was given a city status by Russians it was quite a messy swampy steppe place. But even not taking this histrical fact, I simply added Russian names next to names in Moldavian language, I do not see how this can be nationalism, can you please explain me? To the contrary, deleting Russian names and leaving Moldavian names is an uncovered manifestation of pure nationalism--Moldopodo (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Molodopodo

1. Personally, I believe Romanian culture had a lot to gain from interaction with Old Slavonic, while knowing an extra alphabet is always a plus. I have never had any enmity towards Russian or Slavic culture. On the contrary, but contrast with Russian politics I learned to appreciate a lot Russian culture, and especially Russian scientists, which on average were and are among the most moral in the world. I always admired them. I also know that the vast majority of Russians are hard-working and nice people. On the contrary, I believe that country has one of the worst political class on earth. Also their non-intelighentsia diaspora is famously negative, read the press (e.g. Russian mafia in New York, international racket, Baltic Russians's constant hostility, etc.)

This passage is irrelevant, but anyway, offtopic you want, offtopic you'll have. You forgot how Romanian (with whom you identify yourself) are considered in the rest of the world, as a gypsy ethnicity, read some press on what is going on in Italy and general attitude to Romanians in EU right now: hundred thousands of Romanian immigrant workers getting all the benefits of EU money and labour market, at the same time Romanians gypsies (or not, go figure) are begging money on streets of all major cities in Europe, from Moscow to London, and in Italy they kill Italians...--Moldopodo (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

1. Also, if you have anything to say, feel free to use any language that I have ever claimed I can understand. But the way, you also used Dutch once, which I do not understand. I have only used languages you claimed you do understand.

I have never used Dutch speaking with you, nor have I ever said I speak it. Anyway. I have allways spoken in English with you (except some legal or historic references in official languages of Moldova: Russian or Moldavian, which as a normal Moldavian you perfectly understand), so please stop lying.--Moldopodo (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

1. To prove that someone is related or not to someone else is the duty of the one that suspects. Don't they teach that anymore in the Law Faculty? You should ask for an IP check (there are admins that can do that), and I will second your request so that you can convince yourself that I am not related to any banned user. (A user can not ask for an IP check of oneself.) You see, I also could blame you to be Vladimir Zhirinovski, and ask you to prove you are not... I think you should re-read the dictionaries in all the languages you know for "good faith". :Dc76\^talk 14:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for the IP check, but I couldnt figure out how to place it on the final page, in other words how to finalize it. So it is archived for now--Moldopodo (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Natalia Barbu

I noticed that you made an edit on the Barbu page and since you are the only Moldovan who I know (in addition to Natalia of course), I'm going to ask you: do you know what Natalia has been doing lately? Any concerts, etc? Her website hasn't been updated since Spring and there is no post-Eurovision information about her on the Internet. I would really want to go and see her live, but it is pretty difficult to figure out the time and place when there is absolutely no info anywhere :/ --Tronic2 (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding (on my talk page). I just found out that Natalia has performed her new song (and Fight, again) in Moldova ESC 2008 qualifications (there are some videos of that online), even though she is not taking part in the competition this year. Do you think you could dig some contact info for me (snail mail address, phone number), for Natalia or her agent? I bet that you can find it on Balti phone book, but I don't quite have access to that in Finland. :/ I think I am coming to Moldova (Chişinău & Balti) in the summer, and it might be interesting to meet you as well (it's a long holiday trip around Eastern Europe). I know very little about Moldovan people, but am eager to learn more :) --Tronic2 (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

... well, if you are still reading this, even after 'quiting Wikipedia'; you may also drop me e-mail at tronic+cuv8@trn.iki.fi (the plus sign is part of the address, do not remove it) --Tronic2 (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

I noticed that your recent checkuser request is malformed: it is not copied to outstanding requests and not dearchived, which means it probably won't be noticed for a while. --Illythr (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. I have deleted request for TSO1D... Do I need to copy the request to outstanding requests?--Moldopodo (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

There's a standard form that does everything properly for you here. However, since a request is already submitted, you need to fix it youself - move the new content out of the archive template, properly list the suspected socks and if the request doesn't appear in the outstanding requests section, enter in there yourself, sort of like this.

Still, your case is pretty weak: Dc76 was already suspected to be Bonny's sock once, and I believe the suspicion turned out to be false. --Illythr (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The main difference is - Dc76 talks and actually listens. Bonny rarely talks and never listens. --Illythr (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Userboxen

This is the page to check out for general info on the things. You can find the actual boxes you asked for here. Or simply {{subst}} one into your user page and make what you will with it. --Illythr (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible banning

If you don't stop, this time you'll be blocked for 2 months or longer. Watch out.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ungurul (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Bonaparte is back as User:Dc76 is "officially" taking a break?--Moldopodo (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Listen here vandal, you were blocked even on French Wikipedia. Here, you'll take the same prize soon http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=Utilisateur:Moldopodo --Ungurul (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So Bonaparte, aka Dc76, registered at French Wikipedia as well and is called William Pedros in French now? - http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:William_Pedros --Moldopodo (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

I'm not a new registred, I'm from 2006 see my contributions. Ungurul (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violation of 3RR on Balti steppe. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Moldopodo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please unblock me as there is no true reason to be blocked. User:Ungurul was disruptively editing Balti steppe article and did actually more times than myself. Taking in consideration that Ungurul's edits are a mere vandalism, I think the 3RR rule's exception applies here, meaning that in the case of apparent vandalism edits, one can revert more thn three times in order to protect the integrity of the article. The article Balti steppe was either simply deleted (contents) or copied and pasted to Bălţi depression by far more than three times today by user Ungarul. User:Ungurul, just as User:Dc76 has never presented any evidence on the name Bălţi depression, nor any source whatsoever, nor has he ever participated on any related talk page to prove his controversial edits. Moreover, user Ungarul lied on the copyright problem of the text I was translating, as the cited by Ungurul site was never sourced by me for this article. All the sources were discussed previously with interested parties on the Balti talk page. I would also like to ask how to make a user check between French ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:William_Pedros ) and English Wikipedia User:Dc76, User:Ungarul, User:Bonaparte? Thank you very much in advance for understanding, I spent two days now writing Balti steppe article and I hope it is not in vain. 13:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Decline reason:

Edit warring. This is the third time, and a pattern. Your previous unblock was on the proviso that you do not resort to edit-warring. you are welcome to come back after the block expires. — Hu12 (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2007 (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.

Wikipedia 3RR says: reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking – this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself. (For other, less obvious forms of vandalism, please see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents); In the present case, User Ungurul (just as User Dc76) never tried to reach consensus or to prove whatsoever, they just simply pushed through their unjustified personal opinion, moreover, their personal invention Balti depression. Fir all those who would like to get in touch with me, please write here: beltsywiki@mail.md . How can you reach any consensus or any discussion if the person is not writing anything on the talk page. The only thing Dc76 wrote on the talk page (Balti steppe does not exist, that's why it will br moved to Balti depression) Now, please, have a look at just some randomly googled and selected links I have provided on the Balti steppe talk page, check also references and link on the last version of Balti steppe article itselfm as edited by myself last time. User Ungarul. nor User Dc76 had not even tried to present any proof on the talk page. That's why it is mere vandalism and that's why the 3RR rule should not apply to me in this case. Thank you--Moldopodo (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR is a limit, not an entitlement. Understand this does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. Three revert is not to be construed as a defense against action taken to enforce the Disruptive editing policy. Edit warring is Disruptive --Hu12 (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So why did you not block User Ungarul in the first time? This user has edited much more than myself and violated 3RR much more times. Even if you consider my edits as "reverts", please check attentively, as I was continuing to write portions of the article this morning, user Ungaru kept deleting it and renaming it in the same time. These were not proper reverts from my side. I added text. pictures, links, etc... Also, Balti steppe is a widely known and studied gegraphic phenomenon, it is an established name for grassland type in Moldova. To the contrary Balti depression simply does not exist and the first time I saw this was from User Dc76. I also understad why no justification or attempt to find consensus was found on the Balti steppe talk page. It simply because there is nothing to prove it (google 'balti depression' and you will find 0 results pertaining to the topic) Not only the term is inexistent, the geographic phenomenon of Balti depression is inexistent as well. Look now at Balti steppe talk page, where I provided a random selection of available on internet references to Balti steppe, check also refrences on the Balti steppe article itself. Balti steppe article is properly sourced. Have you found any source for Balti depression? This is why the 3RR should not apply to me, or rather apply, but with its exception. However, it isi still not clear to me how come the very same 3RR rule does not apply to User Ungarul, who clearly violated it and this more than once, bringing all vandalism to its name?--Moldopodo (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Ungarul was blocked also. --Hu12 (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So my next question is please tell me why did you not unblock me taking in consideration the dusruptive vandalsising editing undertaken by User:Ungarul and why if you intend to keep me blocked, why was I blocked for one wek and Ungarul for 24 hours. Also, the third question where can I appeal of your decision (in case you decided to leave me blocked) and how can I have an opinion of a different administrator on this issue? Thank you very much in adance for your answer. --Moldopodo (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Moldopodo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

an additional comment on what Ungurul left on the Wikipedia Admistrators Noticeboard. My edits were never conditioned by not editing Romanian articles. This is complete absurdity, nobody has ever stipulated such a condition. More than that. I do not, and have never edited Romanian articles. My interests are clearly set on my user page and you can also check the history of my edits. The only condition stipulated was to seek for consensus, which I always do and have always done. None of the edited by me articles on Wikipedia, has its respective talk page empty of my comments. I always explain and properly source my comments and edits, at the same time I request the same from other users (which is in accordance with Wikipedia rules). In the Balti steppe neither Ungurul nor Dc76 tried to reach consensus, all they were interested in - bold simple vandalism which they certainly cannot justify on a talk page. It is not a dispute about a content or a name, since the pushed through names and contents by Dc76 and Ungarul simply do not exist, at least in available and verifiable English language sources. I hope as a responsible and attentove administrator you will draw the necessary conclusion from this, User:Hu12 --Moldopodo (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Decline reason:

Unblock already declined. — Will ^(talk) 22:11, 23 December 2007 (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.

I also suggest you cease the sockpuppet allegations, as you can get blocked for it. If you have sufficient evidence, put it on Suspected sockpuppets. If you don't and you're using Bonaparte as a scapegoat for any edits you don't like, please stop, as it is a personal attack. Will ^(talk) 22:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Moldopodo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Wikipedia 3RR says: reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking – this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself. (For other, less obvious forms of vandalism, please see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents); In the present case, User Ungurul (just as User Dc76) never tried to reach consensus or to prove whatsoever, they just simply pushed through their unjustified personal opinion, without any single reference to a verifiable source, nor any other type of explication (talk page is empty), which is moreover, their personal invention called 'Balti depression'. How can you reach any consensus or any discussion if the person is not writing anything on the talk page. The only thing Dc76 wrote on the talk page (Balti steppe does not exist, that's why it will br moved to Balti depression). Please, have a look at just some randomly googled and selected links I have provided on the Balti steppe talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balti_steppe), check also references and link on the last version of Balti steppe article itself, as edited by myself last time (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balti_steppe&oldid=179776522). User Ungurul. nor User Dc76 had not even tried to present any proof on the talk page. That's why it is mere vandalism and that's why the 3RR rule should not apply to me in this case. User Ungurul has edited much more than myself and violated 3RR much more times. Even if you consider my edits as "reverts", please check attentively, as I was continuing to write portions of the article this morning, user Ungurul kept deleting it and renaming it in the same time. These were not proper reverts from my side as I was continuously adding new text, pictures, links, etc... Also, Balti steppe is a widely known and studied gegraphic phenomenon, it is an established name for grassland type in Moldova. To the contrary Balti depression simply does not exist and the first time I saw this was from User Dc76. I also understad why no justification or attempt to find consensus was found on the Balti steppe talk page. It simply because there is nothing to prove it (google 'balti depression' and you will find 0 results pertaining to the topic). Not only the term is inexistent, the geographic phenomenon of Balti depression is inexistent as well. Look now at Balti steppe talk page, where I provided a random selection of available on internet references to Balti steppe, check also references on the Balti steppe article itself(http://www.biotica-moldova.org/ECO-NET/part6-2-2.htm) and and Britannica Encyclopedia (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9012051/Balti), but also: Scientific Ph. D. Research dated 2006 on Fertility of Chernozem in Balti Steppe (Beltskaya Steppe/Бельцкая степь in Russian)(http://www.cnaa.acad.md/files/theses/2006/5617/stanislav_stadnic_abstract_ru.pdf), press article in the major Moldavian newspaper (http://www.nm.md/daily/article/2003/06/03/0000.html), travel company site(http://www.spectrumtravel.md/eng/country.php?c=3&cid=13), Draft Assessment Report for establishing a national environment and natural resource information network compatible with the UNEP/GRID (http://enrin.grida.no/htmls/moldova/md_assm.htm), Beltsy Steppe(http://www.justmaps.org/flags/europe/moldova.asp), Belcy Steppe in Columbia Encyclopedia 2007 sixth edition, link to European Commission mentioning Balti Steppe (http://www.coe.int/t/e/cultural_co-operation/environment/nature_and_biological_diversity/ecological_networks/the_emerald_network/Pilot_project_Moldova.asp), National Council for Accreditation and Attestation www.cnaa.acad.md

(http://www.cnaa.acad.md/en/thesis/5617/), Ministry of Environment and Territorial Arrangement (http://enrin.grida.no/biodiv/biodiv/national/moldova/Biodiv.htm) etc. etc... Balti steppe article is properly sourced. Have you found any source for Balti depression? This is why the 3RR should not apply to me, or rather apply, but with its exception. User Ungurul clearly violated the 3RR and this more than once, bringing all vandalism to the article. Please tell me why did you not unblock me taking in consideration the disruptive vandalsising editing undertaken by User:Ungurul, as suggested initially by User:Dc76, and why if you intend to keep me blocked, why was I blocked for one week and User:Ungurul for 24 hours. I would also like to check users for socket pupetting User:Bonaparte, User:Ungurul (uses exact same agressive style, does not listen to arguments and does not provide any sources, edits exclusively on Romania and Moldavia related topics), Utilisateur:William_Pedros (on French speaking Wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:William_Pedros) (exact same style, calling me right off "vandal"), User: 89.185.33.40 (exact same editing style, calling my sourced edits "vandalism") and User:Dc76 (initiator of the page move); also User: 89.185.33.40 used exact same language as Dc76: "pushing POV, bordering vandalism, and edited only on Romania and Moldova related articles, namely to make sure that Dc76's edits or ideas are brought back. Thank you very much in advance for your answer and most importantly: "Happy Christmas!" (even if you do not celebrate it today)

Decline reason:

Stop shopping for an unblock, this is the third decline. — Will ^(talk) 19:02, 24 December 2007 (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.

I'd be glad to answer the question you asked about the differing block times. Like many admins, I generally choose a block length that is a bit longer than the previous block. You had several shorter blocks in your log already, which is why I blocked you for a longer period of time; your fellow edit-warring editor had never been blocked before. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Decision result

User:Ungarul Stop personally attack me.--Moldopodo (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

personal attacks

I was referring to you calling his edits "vandalism" numerous times. Generally such terms should be avoided, except of course in the case of blatant vandalism. But it's not as much anything specific, as the general hostile tone in which you two converse that should be improved. TSO1D (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you. Calling someone's edits - "vandalism" is not the same thing as calling someone "vandal" and "troll". I think the difference is clear. As for calling User:Ungurul's edits vandalism - yes, I remain on my position. How do you call then replacing ALL words "steppe" with words "depression" in the WHOLE article, the term "depression" being never ever mentioned before (or any consensus being found on its usage in advance) in any source available or not? How do you think is called replacing word "steppe" in the citation of poets to "depression", whereas this is about exact citation. It is blatant vandalism to me, not to you User:TSO1D?....--Moldopodo (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Well, by definition someone who commits vandalism is a vandal. As for the second question, I would call that an content dispute, not vandalism. He preferred one term while you preferred another. I mean it's not as though he erased steppe and wrote "poopy" :) TSO1D (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A block for him would be just fine, since he harassed me. Ungurul (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Based on the feedback here, I've blocked you and Ungurul (talk · contribs) for 14 days for continued disruption & edit warring. Upon the expiration of your respective blocks, anything more disrputive than serious good-faith efforts at dispute resolution will not be tolerated. — Scientizzle 21:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

{{unblock}}

This is my last edit on Wikipedia, please close all Moldopodo related accounts

I am sorry to write this, but I see that Wikipedia is not a place where reasonable discussion takes place. I namely quit Wikipedia for the last blocks, which I truly believe unjustififed, for the false interpretation and intentional misinformation by users, whose names you know very well. I remain on my position, and I am not losing my time anymore for answering on insults, hystery and obscenities, namely from Romania related users. I am also disappointed by administrators' actions, or such users as User:TSO1D who covers users obviously related to User:Dc76 and User:Bonaparte; User:Edokter who immediately executes requests of User:Dc76 (although no personal attack was established (I never called Dc76 or anybody else personally with any names)) and modifies my user page and at the same time User:Edokter says he cannot even examine what was said by User:Dc76 in my regard (this goes without saying all the insults I received from User:Ungurul, where was User:Edokter looking this time? Again, even a possibility of examining these insults was not even envisaged? If trolling there was, I do care to mention it was never from my side. I have engaged in the open debate, presenting all the necessary evidence for each one of my edits (usually links to official, often governmental sites). I have never deleted sections of discussion pages (fr:User:William Pedros, aka User:Ungurul/User:Dc76/User:Bonaparte (may be even User:TSO1D. I have presented scientifical arguments for the names of the city on each Wikipedia language verison (under assault of insults of Romanian users) from competent authorities for geographic names in Germany and in France, I have presented evidence with scanned pages of dictionaries. I have contributed by writing a number of articles on Wikipedias, downloaded about more than 200 images on Commons in Balti category, translated laws on Wikisource. I had a plan to contribute on Balti History article namely and to add more info on Balti steppe (there is for example a very interesting known legend about a Tatar borrow/burial mound), inlcuding sorting out all sources (which I have already presented). I repeat, the last blocks were completely unjustified (just see how agressively User:Sceptre answered my unblock request, without bothering to study the problem closer. I also cannot accept statement of users on Administrators Board Incidents: "they cannot get along with each other, they are equally bad". No, I do care to make it clear that no comparison can be done between me and User:Ungurul. But again, once it was done by a number of users/administrators (even not knowing the material question, it's enough to read my arguments, that's why they are administrators, no? Not just to baldly say without looking "I am not going to read this", "you two are equally bad". Is that what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, where is constructive research of evidence, without speaking of true information? In my view, I remain persuaded that changing everything into inexistent "depression" was a pure vandalism, because User:Dc76 and his shadow user friends do not like the word steppe (check Balti talk), because it is of Russian origin, even though it is an established word in English language. The same users deleted or example names of Balti districts in Russian, changed (basicly invented) the history of Balti. User:TSO1D sabotaged the voting on renaming the city, bringing it to no result, as users voted for something else than for what the voting was set initially. Administrators, please do cancel (or close, whatever applies) all my accounts on all language versions of Wikipedias. I will keep a very bitter memory of Wikipedia experience (blocks by a 16 year old User:Sceptre administrator, insults, open lies and pro-Romanian racism - extreme unsupported personal opinions openly supported by a number of users and even protected by others). But enough is enough! --Moldopodo (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

To finish, I will put citations from my other accounts:

« The greatest friend of truth is time, her greatest enemy is prejudice, and her constant companion humility.. » Charles Caleb Colton

« La Vérité est un pays sans chemins, que l'on ne peut atteindre par aucune route, quelle qu'elle soit: aucune religion, aucune secte. Tel est mon point de vue: et je le maintiens d'une façon absolue et inconditionnelle. La Vérité, étant illimitée, inconditionnée, inapprochable par quelque sentier que ce soit, ne peut pas être organisée. On ne devrait donc pas créer d'organisations qui incitent les hommes à suivre un chemin particulier. Si vous comprenez bien cela dès le début, vous verrez à quel point il est impossible d'organiser une croyance. Une croyance est une question purement individuelle, et vous ne pouvez ni ne devez l'organiser. Si on le fait, elle devient une religion, une secte, une chose cristallisée, morte, que l'on impose à d'autres. C'est ce que tout le monde essaie de faire. La Vérité est ainsi rétrécie et transformée en un jouet pour ceux qui sont faibles, pour ceux dont le mécontentement n'est que momentané. » (Jiddu Krishnamurti / 1895-1986)

« Three things cannot long be hidden the sun, the moon, and the truth.. » Confucius

« Je n'agis pas en tant que gourou; car, tout d'abord, je ne vous apporte aucune consolation; je ne vous dis pas ce que vous devriez faire; je ne fais que vous montrer quelque chose que vous êtes libre d'accepter ou de refuser. La vérité ne peut vous être donnée par personne. Il vous faut la découvrir. La compréhension vient avec la perception de ce qui "est". Parvenir à cet état où l'on perçoit instantanément la vérité est possible, et c'est la seule voie... » Jiddu Krishnamurti / 1895-1986 / La première et la dernière liberté / 1979)

« What is laid down, ordered, factual is never enough to embrace the whole truth: life always spills over the rim of every cup. » Boris Pasternak

Please don't use the {unblock} template if you aren't requesting an unblock. There's nothing that has to be done to 'close' a Wikipedia account, if you want to stop editing, you just stop editing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Account unblocked

Account unblocked. `'Míkka>t 05:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I now agree with the unblock. If you wish, you can read the details of how I reached the decision for this action here. You do not have email enabled, so I am unable to contact you directly to simply say, please excuse my mistake, I acted in haste.

If you decide to return, I hope it will be to amicably improve the articles in which you are interested. Thanks, — Scientizzle 02:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

AfD nomination of Bălţi Plain

An editor has nominated Bălţi Plain, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bălţi Plain (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Balti, whatever

Okay now, having closed that AfD and blocked the latest Bonaparte sock, let me come back to you. Your behaviour over this extremely minor dispute during the last few months has been highly disruptive. I'm referring particularly to your repeated re-creation of a POV fork at Balti Steppe. No matter whether you agree with the current title of the original article (currently at Bălţi Plain), creating a competing forked article is never legitimate. You should have understood this much of our policy by now.

I hope I won't see any further disruptive editing about this topic on your part, because the next time I will get you topic-banned from all articles related to Balti. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the talk page of Balti Steppe. I think you did not take enough time to check all the edits and are actually making a mere confusion on "disruptive editing" from my side, for which I undertake your simple good faith solely. The fork was first created with Balti Depression, then another fork appeared Balti Plain, all against reached consensus and never sourced. Balti Steppe or Beltsy Steppe is the proper original name. All the forks were created after. This beiong explained I expect you to take back your argument on my POV in this article, or to support it with a talk page description or a concrete diff--Moldopodo (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Topic-banned for one week

Okay, in response to this, you are now banned for one week from all discussions relating to the Balti Steppe/Plain issue. You have made your point, from now on the final decision about the naming can very well be handled without you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You have further ignored my warnings above, broken the above restrictions twice and added yet more aggressive attacks to the discussion – even at a moment where the discussion was tending towards a consensus in your favour [14]. I am therefore blocking you for the remainder of the week that I intended to keep you off that discussion. Moreover, under the rules of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, I am placing you under a general editing restriction. Any and all further instances of incivility, aggressive behaviour, edit-warring or failure to assume good faith can be met with blocks by any uninvolved administrator. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)