User talk:Xasha

Welcome!

Hello, Xasha, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

MSGJ (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

History of Moldova

Could you, please, first talk, and then edit. It is ridiculous: you add again and again 13 december. It is 13 January 1918 old style, 3 p.m. that the Romanian troups enterd Chisinau. Gregorian style would be January 26. :Dc76\^talk 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• In 1994, there was the referendum for the constitution. If you interpret it as a referendum for independence, it is POV. However, is it not POV if you find someone claiming so, and you say "X, president of Y, believes..." Do you understand?
• Please don't remove red links. And please don't tell me about absence of NKVD presecutions upon intellighentsia. You discredit yourself with that. :Dc76\^talk 20:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• • There are a lot of things in the constitution. The population voted for the constitution as a whole, not for each thing separately. lLs, say "the referendum was for constitution, whose first article says..." Otherwise it is your interpretation. Correct or wrong doen't matter. Avoid interpretation altogether.
  • well, about 90%, and that is very relevant, as the elite of the nation was killed. The opinions of some individuals can not weigh as much as killing tens and hundreds of thousand of people. think about this. I am not saying you did anything, it's the Soviets! :Dc76\^talk 20:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Bender-Tighina redirect

Xasha, i'm not taking any position in what concerns the name of that article. I would however like to point out that you're wasting your time changing the name in every single article leading to it: click Tighina, and you'll see that it leads there because of the redirect. See also: WP:REDIRECT. Dahn (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Bender-Tighina

I reverted it because it was a controversial move and I'm not sure whether is the consensus for the move, especially since the three most important English-language encyclopedias, Britannica, Encarta and Columbia use the name Tighina. If you still want to change it, try proposing the move on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves. bogdan (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Bender

I used the form Bender (city), because I thought that was the normal disambiguation for cities. However, after your comment, I brushed up on Wiki policy in this area and saw that you are also right. The guidelines are a mess, because every region has a specific convention, sometimes using "name (city)", "name, country", "name, province, country," etc; However the intro says that in general where no previous pattern exists, the form "city, country" should be used, so if we'll move the city, then it would probably be best to move it to Bender, Moldova as you did. However, since there are editors who contest this move, you should follow Bogdan's advice and list the proposal for change first so that the issue can be discussed. Please contact me if you need any help with that. TSO1D (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

Well, Xasha, my comment was mainly about the persistent failure to apply WP:MOS standards in that article and others. One of the things that jump out is the chaotic use of citations: never mind how they look or were cited (I haven't got around to verifying that), but you'll notice that notes come both after and in front of punctuation marks, that they either follow a space or are glued to the word preceding them. In places with several notes, there is a space between one note and the other. All of this is obviously wrong. What I would normally say to editors is "stick to one style". But, in this case, the guidelines say exactly which style should be used: notes should always follow punctuation, and there should be no space between them and the preceding word; also, there should be no space between notes. You are new here, and I will not hold unfamiliarity with the standards against you. My comment was not aimed at anyone in particular, but I have to say that I am perplexed by the fact that there are users here who have contributed to this project for months and years, and still don't know/don't care about the basic quality standards.

Now, concerning the article. I tried to mend some obvious mistakes over and over again in the past, and it mostly proved a sysiphic effort - every once in a while, the same old unsubstantiated POV seeped back in, the same sort of tendentious editing from both sides had a field day with the article, and was always accompanied by lack of respect for various guidelines. Users like TSO1D and Illythr have tried to apply a standard of neutrality and quality, and what they implemented was commendable. But they too have pushed the rock up the slope only to have it roll back on the ground. I would like to do more for the article, but I would like to convince myself that all the main editors involved have quality and neutrality on their minds, and are not there just to push a POV or another.

While I have to say that I find some of your recent edits controversial and, in some cases, tendentious, I also will gladly acknowledge that most of what I've seen was constructive. I can only hope this is a sign that the minority of users from both sides who want to approach such subjects rationally and calmly, and who want to add relevant content, is growing. So I will perhaps help some more in the future.

Thank you for your kind words. Best, Dahn (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Moldovan language

Hi. Reverting back is not nice and certainly is not the solution to any dispute. Talking is.

The infobox in Moldovan language has been the subject of repeated and sometimes heated debates, see Talk:Moldovan language/archive12 and the other archives. Also, see this poll about that infobox. There are quite strong arguments against having an infobox in that article. First off, it is not an article about a distinct language, but about a controversy, that's why the sections typical to language articles (phonology, syntax, morphology, vocabulary etc.) are not included. Linguistically, Moldovan is just another name for Romanian, and, as a consequence, most fields in that infobox contain inaccurate (or even wrong) data. For example, what source says that Moldovan is a Romance language? Sources say that Romanian is a Romance language. Also, how do you count the speakers? Census data are almost useless, because people's choice between Romanian and Moldovan was determined by political views, not linguistic facts.

I won't revert the article for now. I expect we can have a rational discussion. — AdiJapan ☎ 10:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Croatian, Bosnian, etc. languages are irrelevant here. We are talking about Moldovan. As far as I know there is NO linguist who claims that standard Moldovan is different from standard Romanian.

You mentioned James Minahan, but his book gives more detailed information than you shared with me. Here's what he says in his Miniature Empires: A Historical Dictionary of the Newly Independent States (at page 182) about the major languages in Moldova: "Romanian (Moldovan dialect), Russian, Ukrainian, Gagauz". He doesn't say "Moldovan". Actually he never mentions a separate Moldovan language. Where he talks about "the most easterly of the Romance language" he doesn't specify if it's Romanian or Moldovan, and actually in the same paragraph he's giving the Soviet position in the matter. In conclusion, Moldovan and Romanian are one language, despite many attempts to make it seem they're not.

I don't have access to Alexandru Graur's book, but I know some of his other works and I am prety sure he couldn't have stated that Moldovan is a separate language, unless he was forced to, politically. Current works, written in politically free conditions, no longer make such statements. Even Vasile Stati admits that literary Moldovan and literary Romanian are identical. It would be silly to say otherwise.

I didn't say that the census data were manipulated. The problem is with the census forms, which required people to choose between Romanian and Moldovan as their native language. Since the two languages are one, obviously the respondents chose a name for the language they spoke, not a language. As I said, it was not a lingustic choice, but a political or maybe random one.

I am Romanian, and I can tell you that Romanians are not "educated to contest the Moldovan language" (your accusation only shows that your approach in this discussion is political, not linguistic). I have nothing to contest. I have Moldovan friends (on both sides of the Prut), we perfectly understand each other when we speak, I watch Moldovan TV stations (NIT) and I can see we all use the same language. It's a fact. What you do is contesting this fact.

Now, do you have any other arguments to keep the infobox? — AdiJapan ☎ 15:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I reported you for WP:3RR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Xasha_reported_by_User:Dpotop_.28Result:_.29

Dpotop (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Because you had not been warned of the policy beforehand, I have not blocked you. Please read and be familiar with Wikipedia's policy on edit warring and on the three-revert rule. The short version is that repeatedly undoing edits rather than discussing it on the talk page is bad and if you revert an excessive number of times, you can be blocked. --B (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mutually intelligible?!

I won't comment on your other statements, because there is this one which warrants a categorical rejection: "Moldovan and Romanian are mutually inteligible to a large degree". Mutually intelligible?! To a large degree?! Do you realize the enormity of this? It's like saying that French and French are mutually intelligible to a large degree... You're still talking about two languages, when there's only one. Remember, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. — AdiJapan ☎ 10:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop talking in terms of "mutually intelligible" about Romanian and... Romanian. There is no place for comparison with Metropolitan vs Canadian varieties of French. (Read those articles. Actually, you chose a particularly ill-suited example; if I may quote a Romanian&Moldovan saying, you're trying to sell cucumbers to the gardner: I speak French fairly well, I lived in France, I traveled to Canada, so I know the situation personally.) — AdiJapan ☎ 11:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My comment in the brackets above was not an argument, but a simple note. The argument is for you to bring: you still haven't specified any reliable source that classifies Romanian and Moldovan as distinct Romance languages. In contrast, all authoritative sources I know (Ethnologue, Encyclopedia Britannica, Academy of Sciences of Moldova, all contemporary linguists) claim that Romanian and Moldovan are one language. The Moldovan language article is about a controversy, not about another language. — AdiJapan ☎ 15:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Xasha, I was the user who first welcomed you last month, and so had this page watched as default. I've noticed that you've really got into the project and have made many great edits. Obviously you come from or have a strong interest in Moldova. I have also noticed that at times that your edits have been causing some stir and feelings may have run high. Can I just advise you to keep a cool head while editing and to seek consensus before rushing into things. Anyway if I could ever do anything to help, let me know. Best wishes, MSGJ (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

From Illythr

Indeed, you are on the verge of breaching 3RR again in the same article. Note that it is not a strict rule and editors are often blocked for revert warring even if they don't technically break the rule. Please heed Msgj's advice and bring sources instead of playing this pointless tug-of war. --Illythr (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, bring the issue to the talk page - list the sources and arguments there for all to see. Then, should direct discussion fail, you can ask for mediation over there. Eventually you can request for comment as well. Constantly reverting stuff will surely get you blocked and earn you a reputation of a revert warrior, which will certainly not help your cause. --Illythr (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hope your ears aren't burning now... :-) --Illythr (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at my latest contribs... ;-) And you really should go to bed, I have an advantage of 1 hour over you. --Illythr (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: A random thought: why won't you make yourself a userpage, now that your username is bluelinked anyway? WikiBabel, some nice userboxen, whatever tingles your sense of individuality... :-) --Illythr (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm guessing it's the userboxes. First, judging by the warning note left for you by El C, the editing restriction applies only to Eastern Europe pages. Mainspace pages. Second, it's 2RR per page, although I woudn't recommend WP:gaming the system on that. Third, your userpage is the only page on Wikipedia that is "yours", or at least, no one is expected to edit it but you or admins (and vandals, of course). As for userboxes, you may use the {{subst:}} template to add the box you want to your page and then edit it to your liking. As long as your page conforms to the standards of WP:USER, nobody will hold it against you (at least, directly :-) ). --Illythr (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you should be more persuasive than that if you want people to actually follow your advice. Especially when you're right. ;-)

And what's the deal with the political thing in what looks like pure geography to me? --Illythr (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, antagonizing Dc76 even further really won't help him see or accept your point. Sure, just sticking to facts doesn't seem to work all the time, but expressing frustration does the opposite of helping. --Illythr (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course not! Just argue about the articles themselves, not the editor(s) who wrote them. In that particular article (steppe/plain thing) your position seems far stronger, due to all the source-finding work Moldopodo has done for you. So make a point on prevalent usage and see if Dc76 can refute it. Bring it to mediation, if need be. --Illythr (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Shook is an obvious sockpuppet of Bonny. You can normally request a checkuser against him, but often it is enough to ask an admin familiar with him to block the guy. user:Khoikhoi is the rouge admin to ask about bonny-related socks, but most Moldova-related admins know him as well (user:Bogdangiusca, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise). This particular case is especially simple, because he's vandalizing your user page. Ask any admin to block him.

Oh, yeah, and he's unrelated to Dc76, he just likes to follow some Romanian users around and support their POV (or harass their opposition), thus discrediting it. --Illythr (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just don't abuse it - it's considered a last resort measure, after all. Besides, I think the one that would interest you most - Bonaparte-Dc76 - has already been performed. --Illythr (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I left you a note on Talk:Moldova

Dpotop (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Xasha, I beg you, give me time to develop those articles. I can understand your urge to do something if you really contribute to it. But you never had in mind to edit those before you met me. At least have some patience if you do not intend to search the internet, the libraries, the bookstores. I am not God to do it in 5 minutes. Dc76\^talk 05:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Xasha, if your only aim is to insult me, please give me a break. I detest such change of rhetoric. I am talking about German made maps, for example. And they also show Râbniţa. Could, please, at least try to hind behind some mainstream ideology. And for the last time: do not forget you are talking about my country: I won't wait to report you if you insult my country (Moldova) again. Dc76\^talk 23:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

File:Yellow warning.png

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

Accordingly, you are hereby restricted to one revert per two days for two weeks on all related articles. Any incivility on the talk pages, and you will be banned from there, and the article, for a period of two days. If you wish to appeal this, please do so before other admins or the Arbitration Committee. Thanks. El_C 11:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Move

I read the arguments and judged that at the moment consensus for a move does not exist. You are free to ask for a second opinion or even relist it if you have to, but I doubt anyone would agree that WP:Consensus could be observed from that discussion. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Please, do not follow individual WP users and rv everything they edit. If I have disagrement with you in 2 articles, does not mean you should do this: [1] to pages on subjects you never edited before. This is very not nice! If you have something to say, please first say in the talk page of the article and wait for answers there from several users, don't add random tags. That article is very serious. Kindly, please abstain from following me in the future. Dc76\^talk 20:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not post more messages like the ones you just did in the talk page of that article. You are braking several things with that:

• "Also, please use other sources than the one published by the Romanian Church propaganda department." is a hate attack on the Romanian Orthodox Church, on the Roman-Catholic Church ,and on the German Lutheran Church. If you read it carefully, you will see the book is published with the express consent of all those churches. The authors are reputable scientists, not clergymen. Please, refrain in the future to use words "propagamda department" in reference to 3 mainstream churches.
• "We don't use books published by some warmongering immams when writing articles about Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers (also called martyrs by some" is another hate attack. Although I do not share the belief of muslims, I am appalled at calling them "some warmongering immams". You are comparing scientists with "warmongering"? You must be kidding. One more like this, and I will officially request blocking you.
• Read the article, it says that there is a very specific sense in which the church can use the term "martyr". ROC, Vatican and Lutherans, and any mainstream denomination for that, are not Bin Laden, so please don't make such comparisons in the future. Even if you want to attack bin Laden, do not do it on WP, pls.Dc76\^talk 20:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Moldova

It's up and running, please join! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Map of Moldavia

1. The name in Arabic doesn't really matter, the image can be copied, edited and re-uploaded under a different name. 2. The two naming errors can be fixed with any editor that can add text to images at various angles. I seem to lack one, though. 3. I doubt there'll be any problems with that, since Anonimu's maps are one of the few things he got praises for even from his bitter enemies. --Illythr (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. GIMP, huh? One of those things I rather miss under win. --Illythr (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Information about Balkans

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Moldova considered to be in the Balkans here? Cause it doesn't appear to be on that map and, from what I've heard, Moldova is almost everytime included in the geopolitical region of Eastern Europe. Also, if I restore the version I consider to be the right one, but this restoration would normaly constitute a breach of the 3 restoration per day rule, I'll be exempt if the editor who put the current version is blocked? (this may sound a awkward to a native English speaker. sorry)Xasha (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Moldova is considered to be in the Balkans. No, you may not make a 4th revert. Get someone else to. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To expand on the above a bit, WP:3RR does allow you to revert blocked users who are evading their blocks. This means that, technically, socks of Bonaparte are fair game, whereas reverting edits made by, say, Olahus he made outside of a block, is not allowed, even if he gets himself blocked. However, as articles on Eastern Europe are a hotbed of contesting POVs, the policy is often "block 'em all and let the gods sort 'em out". So I would advice you (again) to avoid revert warring of any kind, because there will always be more users out there to revert you, and while a number of them may eventually turn out to be socks (in case of Moldova and Romania - almost invariably, thanks to Bonny), it won't help your block log much. The proper way to deal with this is either seek admin intervention (in case of obvious sockpuppetry) or try to settle differences on talk pages, which often turns trivial matters into month-long squabbles. Nevertheless, the system does seem to work, at least for those who have the nerves to keep cool and focus on finding sources instead of pointless revert warring or empty debate. --Illythr (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Moldovans

Perhaps you might want to join the discussion? There seems to be some kind of agreement building there... --Illythr (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Template:Romanian diaspora

You are currently involved in an edit war at Template:Romanian diaspora. Please remember that such behaviour does not benefit Wikipedia in any way, and in fact you may be blocked for it (especially, but not always, if you have made four or more reverts in 24 hours).

Therefore, please remember: if you are having a dispute with somebody over an article, you must follow the dispute resolution process - that is, discuss your differences with the other parties. Sometimes, that is all it takes: leave a message on their talk page, and come to an agreement civilly and peacefully. Once again, bear in mind that revert warring is not acceptable and you may be blocked for it: you should consider this a final warning on the matter. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 18:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bender, Moldova mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bender, Moldova, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Anthøny 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bender, Moldova. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 23:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

About maps

3gpacmBbime, sorry for my poor english (I'm best in french)

Easier to read the political map o a connaisseur, yes, but not right nether efficient for a profane. Why ?

1)- The partition Moldavia (blue)/Bessarabia (green) is ephemere (only 1912-1945): in the larger part of the Moldavian history (1359-1812) Bessarabia was only the lower side of the country (Pridunavskaya & primorskaya nizmennost', Bucak in turkish, now Budzak or Budjak); the larger the actual Moldova was NOT Bessarabia but only the eastern part of Moldavia. The inhabitants called themselves Moldovani, Moldoveni, not Basarabeni, and when Moldova claimed its independence in 1917 and in 1991, it called itself Moldova and not Basarabia.

2)- The PACCM (figured with stripes) is NOT a part of the ancient Principality.

The other map have three advantages:

1)- only the ancient Moldavia is colored, that's clear for a profane reader;

2)- the names of the ancient provinces between 1775 (Bukovina) or 1812 (Bessarabia) and 1945 are writed in black, so the profane reader can't think that the Bessarabia (green) was early (before 1812) separate and different from Moldavia (blue); if he think that, he can't understand why we have Moldova and Moldovans, and not Bessarabia and Bessarabians;

3)- the relief and principal towns are on the map.

So, I suggest to leave the both maps, but in different places. Best regards, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but...

...Bucovina and Bessarabia as your map describe, were definited BY the austrian (1775) and the russian (1812) annexations and do NOT exist respectively before 1775 ans 1812. Before these annexations we had only ONE Moldavia. Verify please. --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

From Spiridon Manoliu

My english is poor but i'm a geographer and historian. I support nether the russian nether the romanian POV about Moldova (I'm not emotionally involved in this controverse), I support history and sciences.

Wikipedia is a COLLECTIVE work and not the private property of ONE contributor.

Read before writing, PLEASE !!!!! And search the historical sources and referencies, not the school books from Romania, Moldova or USSR...

The Illythr's formulation: "The historical Principality of Moldavia was partitioned into Bukovina in 1775, Bessarabia in 1812 and western Moldavia who compose Romania in 1859 by union with Wallachia. Today the former Moldavia is partitioned into Moldova, Romania and Ukraine" is a RIGHT formulation (concording with the FACTS), and the formulation beloved by you: "Bukovina, Bessarabia and western Moldavia compose the Principality of Moldavia" is WRONG (it's NOT concording with the facts).

In the facts, Bukovina was created as an AUSTRIAN Kronland in 1775 and Bessarabia was created as an RUSSIAN Gubernia in 1812: before this, these was NOT "established regions on historical Moldavia". The historical Principality of Moldavia had two OTHER established regions: "Tara de sus" and "Tara de jos" ("Highland" and "Lowland"). The first one includes the north part of the Principality (Suceava, Falticeni, Cernauti, Balti, Soroca), the second one includes the rest.

This is the FACTS: Xasha please, read Dimitrie Cantemir's "Descriptio Moldaviae", read History and OPEN YOUR MIND (if not for Wikipedia or Moldova, for YOURSELF)!

Thank you, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, oh ! I'm finally understanding the problem: as many other not-specialists, may be you think the medieval Moldavia as a part of another state (probably the Ottoman empire). But the Ottoman empire was not organised in principalities, but in pachaliks, wilayets, mutessarifliks, sanjaks, raias. The principality of Moldavia was not an ottoman province (even if the little soviet pupils, and also occidental pupils, learn this). Moldavia was a christian state, with its own Princes (Voivodes, Hospodars), councils (Sfat), laws, armies, fleets, embassies (see Nicolae Milescu by exemple). But a christian state, under ottoman vassality since 1538. Vassality not means rule. And this state was partitioned since 1775. Even if you were right (= even if Moldavia was only an ottoman province), your beloved formulation is wrong, because if Moldavia was not an autonomous state, how Bukovina, Bessarabia and western Moldavia can "compose" the Principality ????? Your beloved formulation makes it seem like the Principality began AFTER the austrian and russian annexations of Bukovina and Bassarabia.

In reality, verify if you dont't trust me, the Principality of Moldavia began its existence in 1359, and cease in 1859 when western Moldavia (the last territory again autonomous) compose Romania by union with Wallachia (and this new state, Romania, continue to be under ottoman vassality -but not rule- until 1878). This is the reason because the Illythr formulation is RIGHT. All this discussion and time passsed have ONE cause: you believe knowing, you're sure to be right without verifications, and you try to refrain me... Xasha, you don't refrain me. You refrain human collaboration and knowledge growth. So bad... I'm sorrowful for you. But you're a human being: as me, you're perfectible !  :-) --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

join the Project:MoldovanWines project !

Hello, maybe you will be interested in development of the Moldovan Wine articles. If yes, I am pleased to invite you to join it on the Project:MoldovanWines project page. Best regards, --serhio ^talk 10:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

History of Bălţi

Hello, I saw your constructive contributions on Wikipedia and would like tot hank you for this. I am going to start cleaning from irrelevancies the History of Bălţi article. If you are interested, please, join in. --Moldopodo (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Warned

See Digwuren restriction and Digwuren warning. Cease making any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, especially in East European related articles or you will be subject to said restrictions. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Your contribs tell the story. Warning stands. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure diff — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

These are obvious offensive remarks. Since I just warned you about this issue, you're blocked 24 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't explained to me why I was warned in the first place. An I don't understand how a historical fact (that the interwar fascist held the same views as that guy) can be offensive. Next time I'll see a guy supporting the superiority of the white man or of the Protocols trying to impose his worldview on Wikipedia, I'll bit my tongue and don't note that his views remind me of KKK or the Black Hundreds.Xasha (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I explained, you didn't get it. Calling someone "ethno-racist/fascist" when they've said they find it offensive is disruptive and incivil. How would you feel if he called you that? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That means you haven't explained it clear enough. In Western law you can't condemn someone for something he doesn't understand. If I would express opinions that would led to my characterization as such, I would accept it. Also note that I corrected the mistake I made when I called that guy fascist (i.e. just because he holds the same opinions as interwar fascists on a certain subject, doesn't make him a fascist).Xasha (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the Digwuren Arbitration case,

Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Before the restriction shall come into effect for a particular editor, that editor shall be given an official notice of it with a link to this decision.

This basically means that if someone working on topics related to Eastern Europe (your main area of editing), you can be blocked by any administrator if you are making what they think are uncivil comments or personal attacks. These blocks can be up to a week in duration for the first 5. Rlevse warned you with a direct link to the different decisions that applied, so the block is valid. Just wait for your block to expire and then try to edit more civily in the future. (I know how things can get uncivil on those pages, they are not the easiest topics to work on... just think about your posts for a few minutes before you click "save".) Cbrown1023 talk 02:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the block in not valid. I have my doubts about the warning. I mean it gives too much space for admins. So, I'm warned for something that isn't above common sense (the European urban one, at least) and isn't in flagrant breach of Wikipedia policies. So I'm left with a warning, but no clear explaination for it, and I think that's a problem. (This may be very well covered by some Wikipedia unwritten rule, but this isn't very comforting for newbies like me either.)Xasha (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Rlevse, I think your ban or block or whatever you call of User:Xasha is unjustified. She/he has very truly characterized the person with a fully appropriate description. I feel bad that you, in your quality of administrator, failed to look deeper into the matter and read everything in its context. Otherwise we don't need administrators, a stupid robot could do it as well.--Moldopodo (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo...You're entitled to your opinion. And your equating me to a robot is an uncalled for personal attack. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand how the comment may seem fine while you are in a dispute regarding content that is very controversial. However, (s)he was warned and this short editing restriction will hopefully prevent future problems like this from happening. If Xasha is as "very truly characterized" as you say (s)he is, (s)he will bounce back quickly from this and edit even better. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 02:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a he ( Alexander > Xasha )Xasha (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• UserCbrown and UserRlevse, one does not need to be a rocket scientist to understand, that giving a user his/her just description has nothing to do with the dispute (if there is one at all!). If the user is ethno-racist, then the user is ethno-racist, it's impossible to call him/her "Red Rose", no, it's ethno-racist. Dispute or not, edits of the concerned users repeatedly prove negation of everything Moldavian and organising collective proaganda of Greater Romanian Balkan crap on the entire Wikpedia and all related projects.--Moldopodo (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Some sense

I just want to say I appreciate this kind of editing. It's constructive and attempts to delimit a middle ground. Thank you for the sanity check. Dahn (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)