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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

. (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[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

If you want me to bring additional sourses, add ^{[citation needed]} 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[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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

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

WP:3RR

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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

The state language of Moldova is Moldovan (per constitution)
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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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]

Reply

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

Bad faith

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

moldova talkpage

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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.Sambure ^talk 13:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]