User talk:Xasha

Survey: If you reached this page, take 30 seconds to answer to the following question:
Is it fine to criticize something for being supported by soviets, but not for being supported by nazis?,
originally put here. Leave your answer on the specialised page in my user subspace.

Bendery

Where have you got the information that Tighina is a Turkic name? Afaik, that Тягянакача thing is (old) Slavic... --Illythr (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I read it some time ago in a book about prestatal Moldavia (by Spinei, if I remeber well). I knew that book said it was Turkic (although I don't remember very well what kind of Turkic), and by searching Google for "Tighina" and "cuman" I've found several Romanian sites that support this version (although it could be another attempt to erase the Slavic memory in Moldova). I don't remember what they implied it meant, but no viable stem comes to mind when thinking at it as a Slavic one.Xasha (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Xasha, from where you have take that official name of the city is "Bendery"? can you bring a credible source? --serhio ^talk 13:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Man, are you from Transnistria? about what "officiality" we can talk in this region? You can't use the "official" therm. You can use only the "consensus". What about official name, please see Geography and administrative-territorial division (1999-2006 years) - an official document. --serhio ^talk 13:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Btw

It's generally considered impolite to delete stuff from your talk page (unless it's really nasty). Consider archiving instead. --Illythr (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen others do it and, anyway, the "history" subsection acts virtually as an archive.Xasha (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

template malfunctions

Can you please clarify - or point me to an example --Matilda ^talk 23:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed I think - thanks for your help --Matilda ^talk 00:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Golden horde

Actually, instead of the Golden Horde, it would be a better idea to have an article about the Tatars and Cumans in Moldova. The Golden Horde's control of Moldova was ephemeral, but those Turkic people came and stayed there. bogdan (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Appeal response

I was reading through this discussion and it appears that your question is why you were first warned by administrator Rlevse. You were warned about being subject to ArbCom's specific editing restrictions on the Digwuren RfARB. You were placed under this restriction because this comment of yours clearly violates this warning. After this valid warning by Rlevse was given to you, you made this commment which clearly violated the specific editing restriction you were just placed under, and therefore subjected to a block per the ArbCom case's Enforcement by block.

Hopefully this clears everything up, if not let me know exactly what is unclear and I'll try to provide further clarification. Dreadstar † 17:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm bothered by that part in which he calls me a racist.Xasha (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this reason given for your being blocked. I won't quibble too much over the fact that it refers to your commments as racist and disruptive, not you personally, but I do agree that your comments [1] can appear to be racist in nature. I haven't gone through all your edits, and I haven't contacted the other administrator who blocked you (which is the block Rlevse is actually referring to), but the one edit mentioned does appear to have racist overtones (e.g. the very first sentence in the post, and accusing others of russophobia). Dreadstar † 18:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest being much more cautious and completely avoid any use of sarcasm or satirization of other editor's purported positions, beliefs or statements. Repeating racist remarks or making comparisons to racist movements, even to be sarcastic, is not something that should be done. It appeared racist and was remarked upon as such. Dreadstar † 18:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As I explained above, it looked racist to me. I'd suggest leaving this be and moving on. Dreadstar † 19:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just writing a suggestion that you approach Rlevse in a different manner than you first did, but I saw you already did that with good results. Nice job. Dreadstar † 22:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

suggestion (re.)

Hey, thanks for letting me know. As of now, I am really not ready to take care of it, but would be most interested when I am more into the subject ;)--Moldopodo^talk 17:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for getting involved in this discussion, but I'm sure I would also be able to help you to edit this article. I have lot of informations about Romania's rule in Bessarabia. Please remind me when you intend to write such an article. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldovans

See this discussion. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain this revert or, in how far my edit violated this rule? You may answer here. Inf you don't answer during the next 24 hours, I will revert your edit. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Canton vs District

Hello Xasha. Just a quick question. I think that canton better describes our raions, as compare to district. The reason in my view is that having analysed the usage of the term "district" - I ran into conclusion that this term is appropriate for countries with federal or at least a construction where some other superior territorial unit exists, in which a district is included. Analysis of usage of the term "canton" brings to the conclusion that it is rather used to describe the final territorial unit, which is not included in any other as a rule. Consequently, our raions, not being included in any Oblast, for example, are not really districts. What do you think?

to be honest I prefer "canton", but hey if the community decided to use districts - I adhere. Also, I just wanted to thank you for your help in rewording the Moldova article, which starts getting a presentable shape. I think we could delete some of the references (or mark them with the code that makes them dissappear on the final version, but not in the code of the page) on the "cession" of 1812, having all 30 referecnes taking half a line in the text looks a little ugly...--Moldopodo^talk 16:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Maps of Moldova districts

Hello, Xasha. This is very good to add maps for the Moldova districts. But let's have a convention in naming maps. By example: DistrictName_district[,Moldova].svg or something like this, in order to have a general svg template. --serhio ^talk 16:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Xasha

Please tone down your comments, whether on talk pages or edit summaries. It is very important to act and write with a proper tone. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but you must avoid Reductio ad Hitlerum - even if it is true and factual! Bearian (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, per the restrictions you were blocked for at the beginning of the month - it would be a shame if you ended June under the same conditions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Diffs" are like references and sources, it allows people to see what happened in its entirety - and it allows the reviewer to quickly go to the source of the dispute. In case you are not aware of how to produce a diff, when you go into the edit history and compare two versions the address bar on your isp page gives an URL for the edit. Copy and paste that URL (surrounded by square brackets - one at the start and one at the end) to the correspondents page, and they will see the exact edit. It is perhaps unfair, but most admins prefer to be given references in this manner rather than "hunting" through the history of the dispute itself - it is much more convenient if they are busy.

Re fatigue, etc. It is, of course, one of the methods used by editors who game the system - sometimes they will simply tire out their opponents. If you have a valid claim of vandalism or policy violation, and especially in relation to the Digwurren ArbCom, then you can ensure that matters are dealt with appropriately by following the correct practices. In matters like these, persistence and politeness is the best way to get results. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, crap, I wrote a long post here, but it got wiped due to a link to an encyclopedia dramatica page I kinda should address to myself now. In short, accusations of Stalinism are not as done to death as those of Nazism, so the latter WILL get one banned, while the other probably won't. Otherwise, what LessHeard vanU said, He be wise, mon. --Illythr (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a good essay I ran across. Point 23 in particular deals with futile expectations. --Illythr (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There's another very simple fact here - Wikipedians don't get paid for their work. So, usually, something else drives them. Usually it's just a hobby, some particular of area of interest and so on. A strong POV to "share" with everyone is a great motivator. I understand that most Romanians don't care about Moldova, but a small but vocal minority, etc, etc... ;-).

BTW, there are many unionists in Moldova as well, so geographic location doesn't really matter all that much.

Me, I improve my English. And typos. Oh yes, the typos... :-) --Illythr (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm talking about - a small but vocal minority. As for admins - they're only human, doing their stuff out of free will. I can only agree with LessHeard vanU here - don't supply your opposition with ammunition to shoot you with: don't revert on sight, or without comments, avoid those silly accusations and, ideally, any ad hominem in general (a virtually unreachable ideal, that, but hey). If you stay cool, use the talk page first and provide good sources, the credibility of people who will stick to revert warring and accusing you will drop like a stone (mmmh, in tar, I guess). For now, all that (most) admins see, are two equally bad POV-pushers who disrupt Wikipedia with their bickering. --Illythr (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I would also advise against campaigning of any kind aroind here: it is sometimes successful, but tends to backfire more often than not, especially when the other side is more adept at gaming the system than you. --Illythr (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

96 hours for your recent disruptive editing. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Great. And that's for restoring deleted reliable sources. Silly me for believing in all that WP:V and WP:NOR... it seems gaming the system is the best way here.Xasha (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked you again for continued revert-warring, now across several articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer

I think the reference to Nazi-ism was more to the logical fallacy of supporting or opposing something due to who else may have supported or opposed it, and not necessarily hitler or anyone specific. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, no. The reference to Nazis is incidental, and could be replaced with any group that is widely reviled for their beliefs. The fallacy rests in saying that "The Nazis were bad. The Nazis supported X. Therefore, X is bad." I think Bearian was pointing out that a position or belief isn't good or bad because a particular individual or group holds it. The involvement of the nazis in the analogy seems incidental. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Had an editor been effective at prolonging the block or otherwise causing harm, I'd be inclined to say yes. However, to refer to a recent example, I note that there has been very little additional discussion at AN, and - indeed - two comments encouraging Olahus to stop provoking you in this manner. I also note that User talk:Xasha/Deleted (not archived!) discussions from emptied pages was deleted in under 2 hours. So, harassment? Maybe technically, by the dictionary definition, but I do not think it is worth pursuing. Put another way, if his concerns are baseless, then calling him out for harassment would only serve to lend weight to his concerns, which does not seem like it is what you would want. I'd let it go, for now, and report to AN if it continues beyond this point. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Socor

I expect an aswer from you in this issue. --Olahus (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom Enforcement

Greetings, Xasha! Your recent comments regarding Olahus have prompted me to issue a report on the matter. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again

That last posting of yours [2] was totally out of line. You can't really expect you can get away with that, can you? I really have no choice but to block immediately for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually expect an answer to that.Xasha (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I think you don't actually expect me to respect a topic ban when an user ready to defend the characterisation of a Nazi invasion as a "liberation" and with a very strong POV on the matter [3] is left roamnig free on that topic.Xasha (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, if a topic ban is imposed by admin consensus, you'll have not much choice. It's respect it or be blocked completely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If I were to wikilawyer it, I can't be topic banned under Digwuren Arb in its current form ;) However, topic ban means I can't participate in talk page discussions? Also, what about evident socks by Bonaparte (like the one currently on rampage on Moldova; note this may be Olahus evading his block, it wouldn't be the first time)? Should I follow Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits or an eventual topic ban?Xasha (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

To join in the lawyering, a topic ban can also be imposed individually by admin consensus independent of Arbcom, so we don't necessary have to invoke Digwuren to do it. Whether it covers talk pages or only article space needs to be determined. Reverting obvious socks is probably something you ought to leave to others in this situation. By the way, can you point me to evidence that Olahus has socked in the past? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. As for your question, note the block evasion in his block log (although he contested it, if I remeber well).Xasha (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Xasha, if I start going down the same path Olahus did, then you would have cause to report me and a similar restriction imposed on me. But that hasn't happened yet, has it? Biruitorul ^Talk 16:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I ever reported someone. I'm too lazy. Anyway, since you claim you don't edit the topic much, I don't see the problem with a topic ban.Xasha (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oraş-reşedinţă

La noi se zice "centru raional". --serhio ^talk 06:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban

Per the thread at [4], Olahus (talk · contribs) and Xasha (talk · contribs) (you) are banned from all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania, expires in 6 months. This does not apply to Romanian and Moldovan articles on other topics, such as geography in Moldova and Romania. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You can participate in talk page discussions, just stay civil. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:36, 29 July 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The extension of the block period has no base in Wikipedia policy, and moreover is denigratory towards my persona. Rlevse block had nothing to do with civilty, so it was impossible for me to continue something I never began doing. Moreover, there was no personal attack against nobody in my comment, and I doubt the unique use of the word "shit" guarantees a block, much less one lasting one week

Decline reason:

The extension of your block is founded in policy because WP:BP provides that "a user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." —  Sandstein  21:11, 23 August 2008 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

1I fail to see how the single use of the word "shit" in an informal, but not offensive, manner (i.e. clearly not a personal attack) can have any effect described in the policy Sandstein mentioned. Moreover I cannot understand how a summary of an edit on my talk page can "severely disrupt the project".

Decline reason:

Calling someone's actions "shit" is uncivil. You now have some time to think about it. I'm protecting this page. Toddst1 (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for unprotecting, Toddst1.^(Discussion) El_C 22:31, 23 August 2008 (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.

3gpacmBbimes

My english is poor, excuse-me. But I see your contributions about Moldova. Sincerely between us, about the Moldovan/Romanian controversy I consider that:

1)- If the will of the major part of citizens of Moldova is independence and not union with Romania or anymore, the neighbours (all of them) must respect this will; so, the Moldovan citizens, all of them, are NOT Romanians politically ! But many Romanians refuse to admit it. It's not my case. I'm not a nationalist, not a fascist, not a communist, I'm never said "kill" or "crush" the "enemy", I'm only a simple man and I love the russian culture ans especially music and movies.

No problem. And I like the Ottoman culture and love European film (except the nationalist ones once characteristic of East Europe). What has this to do with anything?

2)- The political will, citizenship and reality must be considered and described without POV, but can't explain some not-political and not scholar realities:

• If Moldovan and Romanian are two different languages, why can I understand the both without school, learning or translator ? Am I a fool or a lier ? Are 24 millions persons the Daco-Roman speaking people) fools or liers ?

There are plenty of dialect continua whose speakers can understand eachother without translation. Just look at Serbo-Croatian and the German(ic) continuum.

• If the Swiss citizens can be equally Swiss, all of them, even if they speak german, french, italian, why the Moldovan citizens cannot be equally Moldovans, all of them, even if they speak a slavic, romance or turkish language ? Why, only the romance language-speakers are definied as Moldovans ? (despite the international rules : when you give a Moldovan passport on a border point, you ARE a Moldovan, even if you speak only russian...)

Every citizen of Moldova, whether ethnic Moldovan, Gagauz or Russian, can consider itself a Moldovan, just as Romanian citizens of Hungarian, Roma or Ukrainian ethnicity can consider themselves Romanians. There's nothing wrong with it, unless you want to accuse all countries in Europe that have the name derived from the name of their ethnic majority (Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Albania, Greece, Romania etc)

• If the russian- and ukrainian-speaking Moldovans can use freely russian or ukrainian language and enjoy the russian or ukrainian culture and history, why the latin-speaking Moldovans cannot use freely romanian language and enjoy the romanian culture and history, if some of they want it ?

There's nothing that prevents Romanian ethnics from enjoying Romanian cuture and history. I know that even some Molodovan politicians deplored the lack of any Romanian minority organization, and blaimed Romanian irredentism for it.

• If the german-, french- and italian-speaking people from Switzerland can use freely their languages and enjoy their culture and history in frienship with Germany, France and Italy, without accusations to be "agents of the german, french or italian imperialism", why the slavic-speaking and the romance language-speaking people from Moldova are accused to be "agents of a foreign imperialism" by one or other part of opinion and media ? Why Moldova cannot be free and peaceful as Switzerland, after 17 years of freedom ? Why this cold civil war ?

There's no Cold War, and Moldova is preety free. But state unity has nothing to do with it. Unlike the ethnicities in Switzerland, a vocal part of Romanian minority in Moldova wants the downfall of the Moldovan state. Anti-statal movements are equally criticized in France(Basques, Bretons), Spain (Basques, Catalonians) and Romania (Hungarians). Moreover, such ethnic-based movements are generally condemned by the International community. That's the case in Moldova, and the gvt treats all anti-statal movements the same, whether they're Gagauz(as was the case in the South in the 90s), Slavs (as in Transnistria) or Romanians (more dispersed, but concentrated in Chisinau).Xasha (talk) (Originally written on August 25. Due to ISP problem posted at 11:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

May be am I a fool with this questions without answers. But may be tomorrow, the future generations consider our collecive madness as me today... Who knows ?

Best wishes, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Deprecated names of Romanian localities

Hy. I would like to inform you that unless you cease adding the deprecated form of various Romanian localities, I will have to ask for an RfC. I hope that we can quickly resolve the dispute here, and spare us both of the RfC hassle. Ovidiu2all (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban reminder

Do I have to remind you that you are currently banned from editing articles dealing with the "historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania"? Doesn't this strike you as obvious: "historical ... relation between Moldova and Romania" and the "Historical regions of Romania" article??? It only takes a few minutes... Ovidiu2all (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You hurt your topic ban again

If you doubt it, answer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rlevse#The_same_old_problem_again... Regards! --Olahus (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Xasha

• Russian (Нистор, Ӡасчук) and many other scholars mentioned continuously since the 14th century the Volokh/Vallachian language in Transylvania, Valachia and Moldova. It was, upon this times, the same one: the "abstand daco-Roman language", so defined by all linguists, included the Russian ans Soviet linguists. "Moldovan-", "Muntean" or "Transylvan-" languages are local names of this "abstand daco-Roman language", no different languages. One more time again, to definite the past with the referencies of the present, is an anachronism. The Ukrainians nationalists do this : because Kiev is in Ukraine, because the Kievan Rus' preceded the Moscovan Russia and the Russian Empire, because the word "Ruthen" (and the Principality of Galicia-Volhynia, called "Ruthenia") are older than the Russian Empire, they said: "Ukrainian language and civilisation preceded the Russian language and civilisation". Sincerely, under communism this strange way in philology (as Lysenko's way in genetics) are understandable, because we had no choice. But today?

P.S. I don't criticise anyone who support an idea by idealism. I criticise all them who support a political killing people power by opportunism. Personally, I lived under communism and under democracy, I never support nether nazis, nether communists, nor nationalists, but only the democrats ans the scientists who search no to demonstrate a thesis, but to understand the complexity of the facts. Пока, again me, the Старославонь old-fashion Balkanic scholar... --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please stop using this mix of English and some slavic language. I don't know who those "Nistor" and "Zaschuk" are. Volokh language is not Romanian! Why? Because 1)Slavs called "Vlachs" all Romance speaking peoples in the Balkans (and please don't begin claiming they're all Romanians; if I understand Romanian to a significant degree, I can't understand Aromanian at all, except some obvious neologisms) 2)Modern Romanian is made of 2/3 French, Italian and Latinate neologisms forced into the language in the 19th century. I don't care what Ukrainians think. However it is clear that Moldovans and the Moldovan language are mentioned before Ukrainians. And anyway Moldova was much more civilised than Wallachia in the middle ages. Moldova had Milescu, Ureche, Costin, Neculce, Cantemir. And all considered themselves Moldovans. Even later, after Romanian state propaganda created the "Romanian nation", the most important men of culture were from Moldova. It's quite strange to see Ion Creanga's books in "Romanian" having a dozen pages of dictionary at the end. I don't see anyone wanting to kill anybody.Xasha (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Xasha, before commenting, please read around and stop trying to sell nonsensical information. For instance, can you source the idea that 2/3 of the modern Romanian vocabulary was borrowed in the XIXth century? (And by the way, in this context, can you logically explain the moldovenist insistence to call this allegedly modified language “Moldovan” instead of Romanian???) Can you indicate to me an edition of Creanga with "a dozen pages of dictionary"? I'm from Romania, I grew up with stories by Creanga, but it is the first time when I hear that the guy spoke another language than mine... Moreover, can you explain what you mean by Moldova being “more civilized” in middle ages? Please, indulge yourself and read a bit about how the old texts written in Romanian all over the actual territory of Romania have always been part of a common cultural space. For instance, the first extended manuscripts in Romanian (sec XVI) have been part of an evolution process irrespective of the borders. Thus Codicele voroneţean, Psaltirea voroneţeană and Psaltirea scheiană whereas written in Maramures eventually ended in Moldova, and Evangheliarul lui Radu written in Wallachia traveled through Europe and ended up being recovered by the Bessarabian Hasdeu. The first books printed in Romanian (by Filip Moldoveanu in Sibiu and Coresi in Targoviste and Brasov), such as Psaltirea slavo-română published in 1577, are heavily based on the previous religious translations made in Maramures. Whenever the name of the language or the intended readers are specified in any of the earlier texts the names are rooted in the term "român" (for instance take Coresi’s motto for his efforts “să înţeleagă rumânii cine-s (care sunt) creştini”). Moreover, the first book ever printed in Romanian in Moldova was Varlaam’s Carte romaneasca de invatatura (1646), ordered by Vasile Lupu. Pravila aleasa which appeared in Moldova in 1632 was immediately completed with Matei Basarab’s Pravila cea mica (1640) and Pravila cea mare (1652) published in Wallachia, and all three books circulated all over the actual territory of Romania. The first Bibles in Romanian, first the Transylvanian Palia de la Orăştie (1582) and the more complete version Biblia lui Şerban (1688, Bucharest) “care s-au talmacit [..] spre inteleagerea limbii rumanesti” by Greceanu brothers (who also had translated Petru Movila’s Marturisire ortodoxa), reached every church and monastery from Banat to Bucovina, as did the psalter published by the Moldavian metropolitan Dosoftei (usually completed by his translation of Miron Costin verses regarding the origin of Romanians). The first translation in Romanian of the New Testament (Simion Stefan, Alba Iulia, 1642) is explicitly dedicated to all Romanians in Tara Romaneasca, Moldova and Ardeal. Etc, etc.. So, what the heck do you mean when you say that Moldova was “more civilized”? Do you actually have any idea about the history of Romanians? For instance, have you ever read any of Miron Costin’s texts before using his name in a moldovenist attack? Anyhow, it is most obvious to me that you are clueless with regard to the history of Romanian literature. Actually, albeit from RM, I think that your language of choice is Russian since you talk and behave like an outsider in the context of the cultural life of Romanian expression in your own country. It is evident to me that you’ve never read an article about Romanian linguistics as you have no idea about the literature currently produced in RM – overwhelmingly and programmaticly integrated into the Romanian literature. If you wish, I can give you details about this in order to show you that you are as much a Moldovan as the Boers are Zulus…--MarioF (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Translations? LMAO! That's all Wallachians could do: make translations and copy words from French. Writing your own ideas, that's the real thing. Making scientific works like Milescu or Cantemir, not translating some verses from the Slavonic Psalter. About Creanga's book: I don't know its exact data, because I bought it in a flea market in Romania just for the fun of it. So it has no cover, but on the border edge it says "Mari Scriitori Români" (sic!), so I suppose that's the collection (it may be this one). Anyway, it has 9 dictionary pages, and that goes just till letter "L", cause unfortunately the following pages were already lost. Sorry, but the "Romanian expression" in Moldova is limited to some non-mainstream organizations split from the nationalist People's Front, and of course lots of Internet forums were Moldovans are greatly outnumbered by irredentist Romanians.

By the way, how come you resurrected after 2 years to write this tirade on my talk page?Xasha (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Xasha, you obviously miss my point and you prove again that you had no idea about what you’re talking about: there was no such thing as a Moldovan literature produced for the sole use in between the boundaries of the medieval state. The early literature in Romanian – which consisted mainly in religious translations everywhere in the region, including Moldova – circulated all over the territory of actual Romania. Read again my brief summary to see that I do not refer only to the texts written in Wallachia: I’m also talking about documents published in Moldova (where the language is called Romanian from the very first book ever printed in the region) used in Wallachia and Transylvania as there were plenty of books printed in Wallachia and Transylvania used in Moldova (the most salient example is the Bible first printed in Bucharest in 1688 based on Nicolae Milescu’s translation reviewed by Greceanu brothers). The fact that you have no idea about the culture produced in medieval Wallachia and an extremely superficial one about Moldova won’t excuse you. So, please, before trying to sell your rudimentary opinions, try to at least inform yourself, read around at least at a popularization level... Fact is that medieval Moldova was at very much the same (rather poor) level of cultural development as Wallachia and not coincidently: both these princedoms have been in the same political situation, and, sharing the same language and culture, have evolved following the same most often intertwined paths, patterns and personalities. For instance, the societal impetus and the cultural context was the same for the writings published by Moldavian chroniclers such as Costin and Neculce, or by the contemporary Wallachian chroniclers such as Cantacuzino or Greceanu. The grand families of boyars in both countries were related and many of the princes switched their rule from one country to another. No one can understand Cantemir’s politics in the region without considering his relationships with the Brancoveanu’s Wallachia (read for instance Istoria ieroglifica which is a satire about the politics in both countries; also you should read about Brancoveanu, an exceptional prince of the country that you so wrongly consider less civilized, a prince whose anti-ottoman plans were – by the way – to be undermined by Cantemir’s awkward policies). Milescu Spataru was a commuter between Moldova and Wallachia: he was actually a political figure in Wallachia as well (he was the ambassador of the prince Grigorie Ghica in Istanbul). So, again, one cannot arbitrarily split this unitary culture in two and set rankings. Read, learn, train yourself in the proficient use of the language that you should otherwise speak, get rid of the post-soviet ideological ballast pervasive in RM, and then come up with opinions.

One the other hand, I kind of smiled when you ranted about the Romanian literature in RM as being non-mainstream. Rrrrealy? Well, I guess that you may even believe this, ahem!, idiocy and, let me tell you, this is the big tragedy of the citizens of RM who choose to immerse themselves in a parallel post colonial Russian speaking environment: you are completely clueless about what happens in the literature of your own country. So, I feel like informing you that the overwhelming majority of the young and old writers in RM declare themselves Romanian ethnics, part of the Romanian literature (even the moldovenist Viorel Mihail squeals that he is part of Romanian culture even tough he is only “formerly Romanian” ;)). The most prestigious literary magazines (such as Vitalie Ciobanu’s Contrafort, Valentina Tăzlăuanu’s Sud Est, Vakulovsky’s Tiuk) are all part of the Romanian system of cultural vehicles as are the most prestigious publishing houses in RM (such as Arc, Cartier, Prut International). I dare you to name “mainstream” literary magazines from RM in Romanian which are not self declared Romanian… I dare you to name five “mainstream” young writers from RM who do not consider themselves Romanian. About Creanga: c’mon man, are you serious? Well, please be advised that a book by Creanga with “dozens” of pages of dictionary is just a fruit of your imaginations. In Romania, as in any other country, is not uncommon to publish books in a certain vernacular accompanied by short lists of technical terms or regionalisms – in Romania the language is unusually uniform but there are some terms encountered only in Bucovina, Moldova, Ardeal, Oltenia, Banat, Basarabia and these can be added to the book, but this doesn’t mean that the book is written in a different language.--MarioF (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you try to lower the level of Moldovan culture to the Wallachian one. Hey man, Wallachia is Balkans. And balakans may have it's good part, but high culture is not part of it. Moldavia was much above it (yes, Polisch influence had its good parts too). Costin, Neculce and Cantemir were much better that the one or two Wallachians who tried to write something, and even modern Romanian historiography recognizes it (pity they can't read their works without a dictionary). So what some of those translations circulated in Moldavia too? The Bible in Slavonic circulated from Macedonia to Novgorod, but I doubt anyone would claim the same language was spoken everywhere. Related rulers is again nothing special. Some dinasties, like Anjou, Luxembourg or Bourbon ruled at different times all Europe from England and France to Hungary and Poland. Was Europe just a single large nation? Now you claim Cantemir somewhat prevented Wallachia from freeing itself from the Ottomans? ROFL! Should I remind you how many times Stefan had to invade Wallachia and put one of his vassals on the throne and supress pro-Ottoman rulers that had a habit to gain the throne there? May if it wheren't for Stefan, Wallachia would have been an villayet akin to Bulgaria. But hey, I guess if you ignore this, reinterpret that against all evidence and make up without any proof some theory, you can support the myth of some 2500-old united Romanian state.

You should visit Moldova some time (maybe outside Chisinau, cause there's the greatest concetration of panromanians in the country. Even if they're few, they're very vocal and you may get a skewed image). Go and talk with the people (but again, if you go to the local PPCD office, you can't expect a true perspective) and then we'll talk about how "Romanian" or "Russian" is Moldova's contemporaneous culture. (hint: is neither). Sorry, but more a dozen pages of dictionary is not a "short list". I've read Caragiale in one of its Romanian edition and I don't think it had more than two words explained (even if I had to assume the meaning of some other words or to check my French dictionary to understand them). And those words from Creanga are not something like highly specialised words. They're commons words, but they were purged from the Moldovan speach in Romanian Moldavia due to their Slavic origin (about 80% of the list). You're basically claiming Romanians don't understand their own vernacular. So it's a mystery to me why do they still call it "Romanian".

You still haven't explained how come you came back after two years to edit my talk pageXasha (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

By "Nistor" Spiridon probably means Nestor the Chronicler, author of the Primary Chronicle. Not to be confused with Ion Nistor, the Romanian nationalist historian. Never heard about the other guy. --Illythr (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Moldova intro section

Hi, yes the intro should not be to expanded. I agree, it is only an intro. What I was trying to insert was two things: 1. Transnistria is historically not part of Moldova but of Ukraine (just like Budjak is historically Moldova, not Ukraine) 2. Russian troops are there because the political status is not yet settled.

So, how to resolve this? If it is detailed it becomes to long, therefore at first I removed the Russian military part at first, and then tried to make it NPOV by adding the other POV. What do you suggest? The current version has only one POV in the intro. Der Eberswalder (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Romania foreign relations section

Dear Xasha,

You keep trying to push the "new" government's orientation under the rug, as per [5] (and subsequent edits/reverts, namely [6], [7], [8]). You're removing relevant information as far as the reader is concerned (as opposed to your subsequent [9] and [10], which in my opinion violate WP:POINT), and it's not by any means original research, original synthesis or whatnot -- it's there, it's common knowledge, and it's relevant, whether you want it to be or not. True, the source in question doesn't literally state that "A movement for unification of Romania and Moldova appeared in the early 1990s [...but] quickly faded away with the new Moldovan government that adhered to CIS" (had it read that specifically, we would have been plagiarising it). But the source does explicitly state that "Given the latest developments, the fact should also be understood that Romania's Euro-Atlantic integration does not offer very good chances for reunification with a country which lies in the space of the former USSR and is a member of CIS" (the source is dated 1994, so please judge "recent" in the proper context). As such, the statement above is, in my opinion, very well substantiated by the source (in my opinion the previous wording, "pro-Russian government", was well substantiated as well since you can't be Russian-neutral and join CIS, but I tried to reach compromise by adhering more strictly to the source's wording). --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, feel free to report me for 3RR. I expect you'll make a good faith effort and point them to my explanation above in the process, I'd really hate to end up accusing you of bad faith on account of this silly dispute. --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't advance an ultimatum the way you have ("Unless you self revert in your following two edits, I'll report you for 3RR"), but I would really appreciate an explanation, failing the 3RR report you promised (otherwise the whole thing looks like an attempt at intimidation, which I'm sure you never intended). --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:EthnicChernivtsi 2001UkrCensus.png

Hey, now that you're around, would you mind editing the permission field there? --Illythr (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly good at this licensing thing, so feel free to modify it as you see fit. I don't think anybody cares, though... BTW, that guy asked me about what software did you use on that map... was it Gimp? --Illythr (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR on History of the Moldovan language

Please be advised you have broken WP:3RR on History of the Moldovan language -- please revert yourself. --Gutza ^{T T+} 13:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please revert yourself, you've gone too far, I will report you this time. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#Xasha reported by Gutza (Result: ) --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at History of the Moldovan language. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Stifle (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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

For violating the terms of your ban on historical and ethnic re Moldovia/Romania articles by editing History of the Moldovan language (which I note you were doing, and edit warring to boot, above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban reminder

I would like to remind you that you're currently under a topic ban for "all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania, expires [on 29 January 2009]. This does not apply to Romanian and Moldovan articles on other topics, such as geography in Moldova and Romania. Talk page participation is okay as long as they stay civil." Several of your recent edits violate that ban (e.g. [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]). You shouldn't need any sort of reminder or warning after being blocked precisely for violating that ban, but I wanted to give you fair warning. --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked and topic-banned

I have placed a 48-hour block on your account: your being permitted to edit is facilitating disruption on Moldovian- and Eastern Europe-related pages. See also, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions. Furthermore, I am issuing a topic ban of indefinite duration on your account, from Easter Europe-related articles; you are now prohibited from editing all such articles, as per the discretionary sanctions provision aforelinked. It is regrettable that a contributor be excluded from a subject area on the project; however, it has become evident that you are unable to constructively contribute (namely, contributing without edit warring) to Eastern Europe-related articles. I am open to re-considering this in 2-3 months' time, and would welcome any approach from you at that time, with a view to lifting this topic ban, should you believe you have become able to contribute constructively. (Click for contact details.) This block and topic ban has been recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans. Anthøny (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)