Jump to content

User talk:Dc76/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

This page was archived following the instructions at Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page#Cut and paste procedure.

Transnistria (continuation)

Ai participat la prima discuţie pentru ştergerea sandboxului meu, poate eşti interesat să ştii că a fost iar propus pentru ştergere [1]

Fiind activ la articole despre Transnistria, poate eşti interesat şi de [2]--MariusM 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Poate ar fi mai logic sa incerci si ceva mai diferit. Multe din informatiile respective ar merita puse independent in alte articole, iar acela sa devina un articol de 3 aliniate, articol scurt, dar in toata regula.
M-a mirat foarte mult cand am aflat acum vreo 10 zile ca Pernambuco era aceasi persoana cu WilliamMauco. Pernambuco mi-a promis ca rectifica harta ca lumea, sa corespunda cu situatia de pe teren si chiar s-a angajat s-o faca, si eu ma asteptam sa-l intreb peste vreo cateva saptamani daca n-a terminat-o... Insa sa umblu acum prin istorie sa caut ce si cand si ce-a facut, eu n-am timp de asa ceva. Ce se va intampla acum, pentru ce se aduna "evidence"? :Dc76 23:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Roman difficulties

If I may barge into your discussion with Phiddipus once again...

When we talk about theological differences with Rome, we are of course not thinking of cultural differences, differences in vestments, beards, and so forth. We're not even really thinking about their use of azymes. The big one is of course Papal supremacy, with the filioque, Papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, and so forth close behind.

These are serious issues, and I'm afraid it's unrealistic to expect the Popes to change any of it. That Popes cannot be bound against their will by a Council, even an Ecumenical Council, has been determined by them (ironically) in an Ecumenical Council, that of Basle-Ferrara-Florence, the same council which attempted reunion with the Orthodox. I call it an EC here even though we don't consider it one, because by their lights it is one, and they are therefore required to obey its dogmas as infallible doctrine. The overarching principle of supremacy, where the Pope has "ordinary jurisdiction" in every one of his diocese over the will of the local bishop. (In that sense they have no ruling bishops such as the Orthodox Churches do.) Most of the others -- purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility -- have been similarly decreed by their Ecumenical Councils. (Council of Trent, Vatican I and Vatican I respectively.) To abandon these doctrines would require repudiating those councils, and they're not going to do that any more than we would repudiate, say, the Council of Ephesus.

In their apparent willingness to compromise on the filioque, they are in fact weaseling. It's been used in the version of the Nicene Creed confessed to in a number of their Councils as part of the acts. The fact that it was never promulgated as a specific decision of a council is what gives them wiggle room, but it seems fishy to me.

So it would not be a small miracle for them to change. It would be the most impressive large-scale miracle since the Lord emptied out Hades. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. The discussion is interesting, but I guess you realize it has relevance only to us personally, not to the article. And it's very long already.
You are right, every change can not be accepted right away. In fact, people educated in one mindset would likely change only very little their view till they die. But the point is that with every generation people are educated slightly differently, and per total the society does change, although the individuals do not change their oppinions (they simply die). I am from Eastern Europe, and I have seen how much things have changed in 20 years, even in less than one generation. If you would asked me 15-20 years ago, I would have not believed.
So, I guess some in Vatican want to create a new atmosphere in which the next generation of Catholics is just starting to grow. When those people will be in their 50s-60s and influential, let us see then! They would have lived all their life with the recognition that filioque etc would have to eventually go. Unlike today's higher clergy, they will be much more likely to compromize. I do recognize the difficulties posed by the issues of purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility etc. My point is, people with different mindsets/educations would assign less and less weight to those issue in exchange to more an more weight of the church as the moral pillar for the society, and Catholic church will eventually call them misteries/unknowns, not facts.
We, Orthodox Christians also will change our mindsets with new generations: we will recognize that the split is temporary, and that as soon as the issues we talk about are dealt with, then the re-union is the only way to go. We will no longer talk about "a possibility if they ...", but about "a certainty immediately as they ..." There are hundreds of millions of Orhtodox and one billion Catholics. There are those who will never want or even accept re-union, and those who are ecumenic. The dialog and the agreement reached will never be all with all, but the good majority with the good (in the sense of "big") majority. Church being a more "educated" are that society, noone will call the "hardliners" extremists, everyone will simply wait till they die out.
You see, to whom did Jesus Christ address his message: not only to the clergy, but to every honest person's inner mind. The purpose of the church is, IMO, that eventually to reach everybody. Not to impose anything on people, but simply be always ready to support, to give a sense of community lasting from before times till after the end of times. The purpose of the church is, IMO, to serve bringing people closer to God. - Not to worship God, b/c God has no need for our worships, He wants our good, not His good, He alaways was and will be good, it's about us not Him. -- And not to define "abstract theology" without any practical relation (as filioque or immaculate conception for example do), but only that which is sound and relevant, and helping creating a common spirit for the society. B/c the God has known the answer to filioque and immaculate conception before the times, and because people will never know the answer until the end of times. Therefore who supports it would eventually drop it - it is like the truth, white or black, drop or carry.
As for the councils, God has worked miracles that by far exceded this. I don't think it will be a problem for Him to arrange the things. :Dc76 19:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Vot

Bună. Poate că Talk:Odorheiu Secuiesc te interesează. Biruitorul 16:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories in Transnistria

We had a category "People from Transnistria" and you created an other category "Transnistria/People". I don't believe is a good idea.--MariusM 15:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

imho

IMHO stands for "in my humble opinion". See here, for example.

In Russian IMHO (ИМХО) is sometimes interpreted as "Имею Мнение - Хрен Оспоришь" :) Alaexis 19:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks, I was guessing "humble", but wasn't at all sure. very dialectic translation :-) :Dc76 19:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything's ok. I guess your edits were made in good faith... Alæxis¿question? 04:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote

You should find all the info needed at Wikiquote, it is similar to Wikipedia.Ultramarine 19:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your "sandbox"

We just had a discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria (2nd nomination) that has led to the deletion of Marius' "Heaven of Transnistria" "sandbox". I now notice you have the same material in a page of yours. Would you mind removing that material too please, as the same argument obviously applies to it too. I'd like to spare us all the trouble of going through the same full process again. Thank you, Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Poate eşti interesat de cererea de revizuire a ştergerii sandboxului meu, la [3]. Nu te lăsa intimidat de FPS, lasă-l să dovedească prin propriile fapte că nu este persoana neutră care se pretinde. Orice abuzuri trebuie raportate la arbcom [4], [5].--MariusM 12:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Namesi

Thanks for your message. Actually, "nemes" has a much wider meaning in Hungarian than simply a person having land. Most of them had land, anyway, but it was basically the social status of a person. All people were regarded like this who were not obliged to provide any tax or services to feudal landlords. The landlords themselves were "nemes", but social groups like Székelys had this rank, too, even if they were smallholders or landless. This word, by the way, belongs to an important group of words in Hungarian (nem=type/gender, nemzet=nation, nemzetség=clan, nemzetiség=ethnic group). Maybe I oversimplified it but basically I think I was right when writing that sentence. --KIDB 13:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Buffadren

Checkuserul a spus că Buffadren şi Mauco sînt diferiţi. Nu există dovezi că sînt aceeaşi persoană, doar că servesc aceeaşi cauză. Există însă şi posibilităţi de a fenta checkuserul, cu "open proxies" (Boni ştie mai multe despre asta). Este dovedit că Mauco a folosit "open proxies", dar în lipsă de dovezi nu trebuie lansate acuzaţii.--MariusM 20:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Answer

You know, I'm not authorised to answer your questions. Contact the Generallisimus please.

ps. Is the concept of humour known to you? Alæxis¿question? 20:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't ask me, please. You don't know what could happen with me if I disclose this information. Alæxis¿question? 20:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
First, what does quatify mean? Does it have to do anything with quaternions, quatrains or quatrefoils (or quotes)? Alæxis¿question? 21:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Wait a bit please. I'm watching UEFA cup final penalties. Alæxis¿question? 21:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Poor chaps...
All the actions that benefit Mother Russia are rewarded :) That's all I can say to you. Alæxis¿question? 21:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Traian Băsescu

Hi - I got your request, but, unfortunately, I cannot do much about it, I will go on a wikibreak later today. But, indeed, I saw that that page has turned into a POV-pushing jamboree, I don't know what can be done, it should be cleaned up. If in a week or so it's still a problem, I'll try and see what I can do at that time. In another vein, I know you've been very much involved with the article about the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. I put a link to it from a newly-created page on "Soviet occupation denialism". That page is now under discussion -- you may be interested in it. In particular, I wonder what you think about the link about the two pages, and whether it could or should be expanded upon. Turgidson 17:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom on Transnistria

Eh, I wasn't scared away from editing the Transnistria page by Mauco. :-) I just have less time to get seriously involved with it. Likewise, user:jamason was invited by Mauco, so it's pretty unlikely that Mauco spooked him away, too (I suppose jamason's busy with his doctoral by now... awww, and I didn't comment on it, too!). I also think that user:Beagel (the economics guy) was hit by yet another Bonaparte-sock-revert-war... Anyhow, it'd be best to present diffs for those statements anyway.

PS: Um, yes. Marius and me do indeed understand the concept of humor (well, I hope). Note the smileys in our posts. --Illythr 16:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Jamason and Beagel. Good! Excellent! I thought those names are lost forever.
Sorry if I misunderstood your remarks. Your discussion was heated to the degree it became personal. And if you two accumulate a grudge on each other, I am going to depart Transnistria, the only thing that still keeps me here is that people like you two, as well as EvilAlex or Alaexis are personally civilized, dispite political opinions about some particular issues, which who doesn't have. I am actually getting worried that continuous warring results in neutral people siding with one or the other side. This is just like Europe in 1939-41 at a miniature scale: people who you'd never thought would ever shoot into each other... :Dc76 17:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't you even think about departing! :-) Conpromise-ready contributors are sorely needed there.
As for EvilAlex, well, I don't consider this, this, or this...etc even remotely civil. His behavior seems to have significantly improved lately, though. Still, this and this ones are fairly recent... --Illythr 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't really have much time for WP...
About the third example, well he has been asked to show he knows a specific dialect of Russian. :-) I guess so he could cool down afterwords. Normally, he should have added afterwords "This was just rhetoric, I do not actually mean it. I'm sorry". For that one he should have appologized, as well as for the 2-3 uncivilized words in the first two. The Tundra agrument however is interesting, and actually logically infaliable. :) But I don't know how much it helped him. Anyway, that's something you can bring in a heated debate, not in a normal discussion, where you can achieve the same goal without it. The recent ones - I don't see any problem. Mauco was a puppet master, only that there should have been an edmin, not Alex puting that tag. What is wrong with the barnstar? It reflects the personal attitude of one person to another. When you write love letters you can use the word "terrorist" in reference to a third party. Love is by definition a state where there is not only logic. Ok, in this case it's "affection", not "love" b/c they are both guys, and apparently not gays. But, haven't you never believed someone just because you like what she/she generally says, without even listening to what he/she said in that instance? :Dc76 19:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, since he had never wrote anything even remotely resembling an apology, I consider that statement to be his natural opinion on ethnic Russians, from Transnistria or elsewhere. Oh, and there's the little hate site, of course.
Hehe, actually, the Tundra argument was quite off the mark. It should've been taiga or steppe, see here. ;-)
It's not about the tag, it's about the comment, the very opposite of civility.
The barnstar is a direct personal attack. It has no place on Wikipedia regardless of its informational or whatever other value. In fact, I'm going to ask for more opinions on that one... --Illythr 11:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't you see, he just feels good by saying Tundra. :-) I don't think he ever gave a thought how that might be perceived by every Russian. Presonally, from childhood I was educated that there are 3 types of "Russians" - those who came as "guests" in Moldova, those who live in Russia, and those whom you see what they present professionally, esp. scientists, etc. but also incl many ordinary people. 3 completely different categories, and you should show 3 completely differnt attitudes. To the third one, you shut your mouth even if he or she says something out of the way. To the first one you turn your back and don't speak with (Tundra with this caterogy is ok :-) ). To the second one - treat just as if you treat any other nation. [Also, a forth category: Russians and Ukrainians that lived in Moldova during 1917-1940, which in fact are rather a category of Moldovans (just look at their attitude in 1988-91 !), and therefore not included in "Russians". I call them Moldovans of Russian descent, even if they maybe have 0% Romanian blood. They feel for the country more than the vast majority of ethnic Moldavians.]
I personally do not intend to ask appology from everyone I hear saying anti-Romanian or anti-whatever non-sense. One's rhetoric just showns one's level, and I don't intend to compare with them. Also, some of them maybe teenagers, and simply are rude because did not yet learn to be civilized. If you look on the same page where the barnstar you talk about is situated, you will find my personal oppinion about barnstars. I remember when I was little and instead of watching a cartoon had to count Brezhnev's or Chernenko's medals b/c there was absolutely nothing else on tv, so i got a personal grudge on those who show up their medals. When my grandparents died, I happened to notice that they have got some medals for the time they were Soviet solders in August 1944-May 1945 (pre 1944 documents etc had to be destroyed for obvious reasons), and I was so surprized to see medals of quite high value. They never ever wore them. If those who usually wear medals on 8-9 May would have had them, they would have imagined they are gods. If you got a medal in war, then you know that the price of that medal is perhaps human blood, extreme currage under fire or serious injury, and you know it is not a thing to put on your chest, but something to keep in your draw, for which your descendants would be proud of you. In fact, if I were to give medals, I would only give them as japonese did during WWII - post mortem. Personal oppinion. :Dc76 13:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW

Looks like my reply to you was archived before you could read it...

Hey, Dc76, you can read Russian, right? Here, this book should provide an interesting perspective for you. Read at least the "Хаос как средство обогащения" and "Создание армии ПМР" chapters, if you don't have the time for the whole book. --Illythr 14:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I will need time to read it. But look how it starts: peace-loving Hemenguay, then have it:

Мирные, добропорядочные труженики в исключительных случаях тянутся к оружию. Значит, в те дни на улицах городов Республики Молдова кричали «Давай оружие!» люди с сомнительной репутацией и еще более сомнительными планами.

It fails even to follow it's own logic. It should have concluded: the SITUATION was exceptional. And then ask itself, why was is exceptional? Instead, it made all Moldovans who demanded to be let to defend their country "people with doubtful reputation and doubtful plans". Imagine calling americans who put ribbons in front of their houses in 2001 "people with doubtful reputation and doubtful plans"!
There is a fine difference between putting ribbons on one's house and demanding weapons to be able to go and kill people, don't you agree? ;-) I think the author meant that the honest workers were not the ones to actually want to go to war. Instead, they were incited by certain other people. Once the possibility to get drafted into the army got real however, the workers realized that in a war people can get killed and lost their fighting spirit. Basically, read the sentence in connection with the previous one, the quote from Snegur. --Illythr 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Many Amricans enrolled in the army after 9/11. I was in US at that time, and I saw it with my eyes. In Moldova, I know people who honestly wanted to defend their country, and went to war in Transnistria in full seriousness. But true, all examples I know (both volonteers and police officers) were very "cu scaun la cap" people. I don't exclude there were others that knew just to talk. I just did not have the "privilege" of the latter's group company.:Dc76 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course, I just wanted to add that the US were very quick to, uh, go and "defend their country" as well. They just went a bit farther to look for the bad guys. But that's not the point here. The author doesn't imply that those Moldovans were cowards, but rather, that the general populace (the "Мирные, добропорядочные труженики") were incited to go to war by "люди с сомнительной репутацией", who used them for their own "еще более сомнительными планами". --Illythr 11:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The author forgot 3 times the word "некоторые" ("some"). I understand him, the book was written for a Russian audience, and a completly neutral characterization of "the other side" might have got him into trouble, at least he would have been blamed of being "pro-Moldovan". :Dc76 13:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Heh, of course, the NPOV is not exactly a widespread trend in such books. :-) Still, the author does a god job attempting to maintain it: At least his rhetorics are directed at ALL conflicting parties. Except for Lebed, whom he seems to idolize. Which is perfectly understandable, IMO. --Illythr 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
As for Americans, IMHO I think they were absolutely right to go to Iraq. But they should have told the true reason: take down Saddam Husein, not some fake WMD. B/c the conflict is not just America vs al-Qaeda, it is larger, it is about the environment in the middle east that allowed al-Qaeda to develope. To rectify that, you need to intervene and bear all implications. I think (IMHO) it is a noble deed what USA did in Iraq. They should do the same in Iran, North Korea, Somalia, Zimbabwe. Venezuelea, Burma, etc. Regardless of whether a country has oil or not. Take down all dictatures.:Dc76 13:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hehe you ARE an idealist. :-) There is no good or evil in geopolitics, only national interests. Here's an example of US willing to support a dictatorship if it's in their national interests (the article itself is in a pretty sorry state, but the general tendency is still visible under all the POV). Hussein probably deserved what he got, but the reasons for the intervention were fairly practical and had nothing to do with freeing the Iraqi people from oppression. That was merely a collateral. The problem with these dictatures is that the people are often so brainwashed, they will resist a foreign intervention until the end. Just you try to invade North Korea... --Illythr 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I just scroll down and see:

30 марта в Кишиневском аэропорту в ожидании военных грузов из Румынии заменили русскоязычных авиадиспетчеров и грузчиков на молдавских.

Эта замена явилась своего рода промежуточным финишем развития событий. Молдавская сторона этим актом заявила всему миру, что, во-первых, она уже сориентировалась в выборе новых союзников и обратной дороги и никаких иных путей у нее не будет, во-вторых, она также безапелляционно определилась с выбором средств разрешения Приднестровской проблемы - война до победного конца.

So, the fact that those people overstayed for 3 years their positions and did not learn Romanian language, now is presented as if there was some conspiracy and weapons were being smuggled. BTW, not a single evidence of weapons from Romania has ever been given. The weapons came from very well known places: Balti, Ungheni, Chisinau, Cahul, were there were military units. Or even from Cocieri, when the depot was left by the Russian army! I will read it as a POV, but it is obvious to me, that the author has a conclusion to make and has to deliver, so he has to adjust the arguments here and there.
Yeah, the day they were all fired was purely accidental, sure... The Transnistrian troops had "acquired" weapons (from the field of battle), that were not on the 14th Army equipment lists. More on that in "Пресс-конференция 4 июля" chapter. --Illythr 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no proof that on that (or any other) day any weapons were brought in from Romania. (but I will read your source, too) In fact, some army depots in Moldova had munition and weapons withdrawn from Czechoslovakia by the Soviets in 1990-91. There was Czech made stuff that this way ended on the battle field. That wasn't neither from the 14th army depots, nor of Soviet construction, nor brought in from Romania. Another example, at the military bases in Ungheni, Balti, Chisinau, Cahul and Marculesti, ethnically Romanian officers of the former Soviet Army that returned to Moldova in 1992 managed to refit some weapons damaged by the Russian solders and officers before they left in April 1992. Sometimes they had to improvise, and rather than ordering the details at the factories in Russia, made them in Moldova, on their own sketches. The biggest advantage of Moldovans in 1992 was that there were many qualified officers of the former Soviet Army and many solders who were in Afganistan, previously stationed throughout USSR, which now returned to Moldova. The were 3 times more pilots than airplanes, talented miltary engineers and artilerists, and even one commander of a nuclear submarine. But maybe most importantly, people who before 1989 knew day to day combat with mudjahedeen in Afganistan. :Dc76 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, some of that is mentioned in the book as well. I have never heard of any Czech weapons in Moldova, though. --Illythr 11:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Or this:

Бывший лейтенант Советской армии, участник вильнюсских событий, Р. Сабиров вместе с группой рижских омоновцев приехал защищать русскоязычных жителей Приднестровья от молдавских националистов. Намерения были благими.

Afterwords it tries to protray Anyufeev as though not from Riga like Sabirov, and hence to black one Riga OMON guy but save the face of the others. But Намерения были благими is like I go fighting for the Taliban and say Намерения are благe.
Hmm, what's wrong with intentions? The author implies that the guys were told that the are there "to protect the Russian-speaking population from Moldovan nationalists" He then goes on to describe what were they really used for. --Illythr 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Come on, that is clear-cut mercenary. Moldova was an independent country in 1992. Imagine I go to Russia to fight for Chechens. And I assure you, I would have very good intentions. But that is 100% mercenary. Only local Chechens are not mercenaries. I might agree if they are Ingush or Daghestani, but Georgians or Azeris - 100% mercenary. Want to fight, come with the regular army of your country, declare war - that's the only honest way to fight on a foreign territory. :Dc76 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I still don't get what's wrong here. First, not mercenaries, I doubt they were hired. Sent, rather. Second, you've explained it yourself in your first sentence. Indeed, "protecting peaceful Chechens" would look like a good intention to someone sympathetic to their cause. That it would involve participating in terrorist attacks against Russian civilians would be... unfortunate circumstance for most, a bonus for some, a disgusting crime for a select few. --Illythr 11:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Then, look at this example of twisted logic:

Повторюсь, «лодку раскачивали» и те и другие. Но из множества преступлении, совершенных приднестровскими «гапонами и азефами» против своего народа, мы можем с уверенностью говорить только о тех, которые стали достоянием гласности.

So, if someone somewhere brings a rumor about Moldovan side doing something - that is 100% believable, while if someone claims something about Transnistria side - "we can say for certain about those that became publically known". This leaves room to call everything "publically unknown" and deny even if the Pope would come with proof. However, as piece of information, I would be interested to eventually read it. Thank you very much for the link. :Dc76 19:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh, no. You totally misinterpret this part. He means that many of the crimes committed by the Antiufeev gang have never surfaced, so, while they are surely guilty of more than what he mentions, he can only talk about those that became known, in order to stay objective. --Illythr 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
So, who is "и те и другие", Antyufeev and his opponents within PMR? If so, they yes, I got it wrong.:Dc76 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
He means people from both sides of the Dniester interested in a war. Как и молдавские националисты, некоторые руководители Приднестровья упорно «раскачивали лодку». However, the first half of the chapter deals with crimes and shady business committed by Antjufeev's people, so the sentence is there for POV balance. --Illythr 11:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, there is no "necotorye" in the first part of the sentence. :Dc76 13:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the last chapter contains information about illegal sell of weapons by Smirnov.  :Dc76 19:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, just you read it. It's got lots more of that. The book is of course POV, but what makes it valuable is the fact that it is not a piece of pro-Smirnov propaganda. The author is quite clearly no friend of Smirnov & Co, we can be sure of that. Nor is the author happy with the actions of the Russian government. --Illythr 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I noted that. Thank you very much for the link. I will read it, it seems interesting. :Dc76 18:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Look, there is one more aspect to the War in Transnistria, the responsibility beared by Snegur and other people from Chisinau, who instead of letting the police and newly formed army arrest the leaders of PRM in one week, were saying "only take that village, but don't dare to go any further". You know that the city of Dubasari was taken twice, and both times left by Snegur's order. And Tighina the same. Then, on 20 June 1992, they were expecting the order to go further to Tiraspol, to arrest Smirnov et Co, noone wanted a fight in Tighina. Only "debil"s take cities house by house. Take the 3-4 major points of resistence, and more on, the rest will automatically run. 95% of the population shouldn't even notice how you take a city, and the other 5% should just be waked by noise, but feel no inconvenience. But not - they got orders from Chisinau to stop, and consequently every separatist troops that fled, within 1 week were all back in the city. From the point of view of civilians, the best is when the war passes your locality within a couple hours, and the life continues just as before. The last thing you want is your city to stay next to the frontline for more than 1 day. Civilians should feel relief when you arrive, knowing that finally the war is going to pass them and never return again. Noone was ever going to do house by house searches in Tiraspol as PRM propaganda was saying. Arrest the leaders, arrest the mercenaries, give a small "выговoр" to the police/militsia officers who sweared alegiance to PMR, and leave the latter to make order in their own city. You just put 50 solders in the central building and 20 on each exit road to search coming in cars for weapons, and here you are - everything is over. But no, it had to be Snegur et Co, it had to be blood... It is easy of course for me to say, I wasn't there myself, but when I hear people who were there saying such things, I wonder who bears more responsibility for the dead, Smirnov who killed them or the leadership in Chisinau who let Smirnov do that? :Dc76 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the situation was of couse more complicated than that - lots of people were killed by both parties, mutual hatred, propaganda etc, - but the fact that both sides have willingly ignored possibilities for a (relatively) peaceful resolution is undisputable. --Illythr 11:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
My main point is that there were not two sides, but each "side" contained totally different groups within, mutually exclusive groups. Characterizing one group by some adjectives might be correct, while another group of the "same side" - wrong. IMO, the problem was that those in power did not feel responsibility for the fate of the country, they were accustomed to just go along with the wave and profit from whatever the environment smiles at them. The did not realize maybe till this day that half of the bloodstain belongs to the person who shoots, and half to the one who allowed the shooting to happen. The fact that they never stepped on the battlefield or never were in contct with the troops does not make them innocent, maybe they are 100 times more guity. For example, I don't think Smirnov personally killed anyone, but ... Ditto on the "other side". :Dc76 13:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. This is one part I liked: Chapter 5 «Пусть они перестреляют друг друга...», Netkachev's reply to Snegur. --Illythr 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Băsescu

I'll give it a look, especially now that the situation has calmed down a little and is more stable. Biruitorul 15:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful. Thanks for the laugh. Biruitorul 23:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I think 8 hours is a decent interval. Biruitorul 23:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Cu plăcere! Biruitorul 16:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Moldova

Checked 4 times. That's the most modern estimate I was able to find.

But ya now estimates are estimates - they're never ever correct, but they're the best thing we've got. ;)

A similar thing is with Serbia. Go and see the table over there. --PaxEquilibrium 21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW see Demographics of Moldova. --PaxEquilibrium 21:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
But it already is in the article. --PaxEquilibrium 16:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Valter Roman

I am still looking for what Dahn calls "style rules", and I still believe they, if they exist, do not impose what Dahn says. For instance:

Given this, my proposal was to simply strip the article Valter Roman of nationality/ethnicity information, and let the reader decide by itself what the guy was while reading the article. :) It is his presentation as solely a Romanian that bothers me, because it's misleading (and, again, not imposed by any Wikipedia rule). Dpotop 09:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Biruitorul RfA

Hi. This would be the second time it came up, and, as before, I fully support your proposal (btw, you need to work on your brackets-as-links system). I'm not sure if he feels he's ready to run again, though: the last time, he fell short due to some minor issue of sysop-like edits, so he needed to build himself a portfolio - he may consider it needs some more work, just so he doesn't get rejected again (though, from my perspective, he was always suited for the job). Dahn 18:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


Hey. Did you read this? While he does have his POV, I can see that he can keep it under control. It seems that the most serious reason for the last failure was the lack of edit summaries, a rather minor issue, IMO. I see no reason not to nominate him again except for the relatively short time since the last attempt. Perhaps it may be best to wait until 4th of June to put six months in between? Oh yeah, the only REALLY serious reason to oppose the new nomination would be the oppose vote #10 (stricken out). Have mercy! ;-D --Illythr 19:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

:-) :-) Dl.goe 08:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
While funny, it qualifies as vandalism. Consider making such edits in this article. ;-) It's probably best to move these edits over there before it's noticed by someone not as humor-loving... --Illythr 14:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

History of Transylvania

1. OK, 60% of the DNA is the same as it's been for 4,000 years. That means 40% isn't. That's almost half, why is it not correct to call that a "significant change"? 2. I personally found "heartland" to be a not-especially-encyclopedic term, even though the Dacian state has indeed been defunct for forever and a day. It's probably an instinctive recoil on my part given how politically loaded a word "heartland" is in American English these days (culture wars and all). 3. Confusion re: Kingdom of Hungary: my bad. 4. Recognized/declared. I'm sure you realize that the "Transylvania question" is very complicated, and far from 100% settled. "Recognized" implied agreement with the Romanian position that Romania and only Romania has legitimate and rightful claim to all of Transylvania, and could be slightly misleading about the nature of the postwar treaties. "Declared" is more neutral, given that most of the Versailles treaty (not just Trianon, but the entire postwar border-redrawing process) was clumsy, often petty and politically motivated, and far from ideally just. 5. Change it back if you want. I'm sorry my minor edits were so disappointing. K. Lásztocska 18:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


OK, I guess I just misunderstood some of your points. No hard feelings in any event, I'll take a closer look at things when I get a chance. PS--yes, I'm a hopeless idealist and proud of it! ;-) K. Lásztocska 20:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Erdeniss

Yes, I see User:Erdeniss is doing these changes - against the agreement on naming. Now I am not in the mood to do revert wars, maybe somebody else will do it. If not, maybe I will later on. --KIDB 20:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read through the conversation, Dahn suggested at a point that both names are boldened. After a repeated long discussion, involving other ideas as well, finally Ronline wrote this: "OK, so I think we all agree about the boldening of the names. I would propose that this be applied to all areas covered by the minority rights legislation." This was agreed by some, others also supported the idea, but argued that the 20% was too low, and a tiny majority did not agree with boldening both names at all. Also, those people, who originally supported that the the title is changed to the native Hungarian version, gave up their positions and supported the boldening. This was summarised below in the table. --KIDB 07:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidenţă

E vorba de cazul de arbitrare, în care s-a propus banarea completă atît a mea şi a lui EvilAlex, cît şi a lui Mauco şi MarkStreet, cu varianta banării doar pe teme legate de Transnistria. Ultima evidenţă contra lui EvilAlex este cea adăugată de binevoitorul Alaexis. Dacă ştii rusa, poate mi-o traduci (eventual prin e-mail). Cu etnicitatea, am văzut limba maternă, într-adevăr n-am date exacte, dacă le ai trimite-mi-le, să-i completez "dosarul de cadre" ;-).--MariusM 22:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's also a good idea. I hope Dc76 doesn't mind. ;-) Marius is referring to point 3 up in my 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC) post here. --Illythr 23:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Maramures1918.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Maramures1918.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to List of countries

The footnotes already explain what you're trying to add in brackets. We've been over this issue on this list before, and the footnotes were decided to be sufficient. You certainly can't have both the footnotes and the bracketed text). As for Transnistria/Pridnestrovie, I have changed it back. This issue has also been discussed (initiated by me, actually), but no action was taken, and another discussion should be undertaken before such changes are made. There are other countries whose names should also be changed to English if Pridnestrovie is changed to Transnistria, including one which is currently even named on its article in the foreign language, Cote d'Ivoire. Lexicon (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

About Cote d'Ivoire, actually, apparently more sources in English use "Ivory Coast" than "Cote d'Ivoire", including the BBC. I was taught that it was Cote d'Ivoire, however, and many others want the article to be named that despite the prevalence of the English translation. As for the footnoted/bracketed information, to make it so prominent that the countries in question are "part of another country" seems to take away from the fact that we are saying that they are countries on this list. The footnotes, and the introductory text as well, should be considered to be enough to explain the situation without attempting to hit the reader over the head with the information, or attempting to push one point of view over the other about the legitimacy of the countries in question. We only say that they are countries, not whether they should or shouldn't be countries. Anyway, you are free to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page—perhaps people will agree with you. Lexicon (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Rugăminte

Am observat o discuţie de mai sus şi am şi eu o rugăminte, poata mă poţi ajuta: ce înseamnă Plurality într-o localitate? Am citit linkul, dar nu îmi este foarte clar. --R O A M A T A A | msg  22:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

If you need a solution, you are free to create Transnistria (geographic region) for discussion of the geographic region. But the unrecognized country has to stay at Transnistria not moved to Transnistrian Moldovan Republic (or any variation thereon). The article as it is is almost 100% a discussion of the country, not the region the country just happens to coincide with. Lexicon (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Answered on my talk. Alæxis¿question? 11:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Check the wording. Alæxis¿question? 12:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrei Ivanţoc

Update please.--134.76.126.172 08:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Moldova

OK, o să încerc să dau o mână de ajutor. --R O A M A T A A | msg  10:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

names

Yeah, I've written 9 instead of 8. I've given a source in my second edit. You are right that in times of Stalin cities were often named after living persons (Molotov, Stalingrad, etc)Alæxis¿question? 14:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Romanian hero Tudor Petrov-Popa

Another Romanian hero was released today from the criminal regime of Transnistria.--195.114.1.10 16:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already introduced that in the article (and gave as sourse International Herald Tribune). Is there anything else I am not aware about? :Dc76 16:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hai si ajuta si tu! :) stai linistit

EL C

There is a bloody commie among us. He supports Transnistria and he's upset MariusM will be free. Mauco is and remain banned.

First of all, please try not to use Talk:Transnistria as a chat room. If you know so much about WP that you know about the arbitration case for Transnistria, you must have known by now that this is attmpting to be an encyclopedia: add sentences written in neutral tone, properly soursed, read around to be sure the information you are adding is not already there... That the Transnistrian regime is supported by Russia is true not because you say, but we can trace such statements to ECHR. You (and mine) personal oppinions are irrelevant. Please, understand the level at which you are expected to contribute. Also, consider making an account and become a civilized user. Are you maybe a previously banned user?
Second, I don't think El C is any more than an idiological communist, I don't think he did anything wrong and evil in his life. So, let him believe in Martians if he wants! Who cares what you believe in! Here is something that has no relation to idiology, something that imho is a very heavy sense of bad faith. Criticize him for what he does on WP, not for his personal beliefs!
Third, what exactly do you want from me? :Dc76 20:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A "bad sense of bad faith"? I feel like I'm being thrown to the dogs. Where were you (or, for that matter, the other three arbitrators) when MariusM was attacking me? Where were you when your workpage was replicated as a soapboxing platform? El_C 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am refering to the fact that you give characterizations of arbitrators as they express their understanding of a case. These people are not devils, have more faith in them. If you don't like what they do, well, write them, tell them. I'm sure they are not some tenagers between vidiogames. I am not throwing you to dogs, I just criticize your actions. There is a big differnence imo.
I don't know when MariusM was attacking you, first time I hear about this. It must have been during my wikibreaks. As for the three arbitrators, are you implying they should have been your guarding angels against attacks from the evel Marius? I bet they have never known you existed back then. How can they be responsible for everyone's actions? Back to attacks by MariusM, can you, please, show me 1-2 differences, so that at least I'd know what you mean.
"Where were you when your workpage was replicated as a soapboxing platform?" What? I don't understand! Could you, please, explain me in plain English what happened to my workpage and when? Something happened and i don't even know ?!? What is a "soapboxing platform". I know what is a soapbox and what is a platform, but what does that mean together? And who clonned or replicated by workpage? And which workpage exactly? And who did all that? :Dc76 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, they knew I existed. As for the "soapboxing platform" the reference was to User:Dc76/Sandbox which was replicated by MariusM with soapboxing added (I closed the AfD as delete, confirmed by the DRV). As for attacks, see these comments. El_C 22:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  1. Until a couple weeks ago I, personally did not know you existed, and if you want me to help defend you when you are being attacked, could you please next time ask me. For otherwise there is a big chance that I might not even know you want help. As for the 3 arbitrators, if you know them to have watched you being mistreated and loughed under their noses, admonish them for that, not for their findings in a case.
  2. User:Dc76/Sandbox is something I have created, MariusM has nothing to do with it. I wanted to have time to read that material and see if there is anything useful in the sourse, etc, and have put it into my userspace. But unfortunately I got busy and totally forgot about it until Future Perfect at Sunrise has brought it to my attention a couple weeks ago. I promissed him to read it, and after a few days have done that. I have erased all the text that I found inappropriate (70%), have added some links into another article that could have used them, and have reformulated the remainer to the current form, which is still a bad form, and will require copy editting and comprimation at the rate of 4:1 to be sometimes in the future proposed to be included somewhere. MariusM has himself asked me to erase the text because he is being admonished for having had the orriginal (unedttted) version in his userspace. But I told him that I consider the text being mine, especially b/c I have editted it by stripping out or removing elsewhere 80%, b/c I have reformulated the text to my ear, and in general b/c if he doesn't want to help me in editting it, then he should stay away from it (either help, or give me a break). He did not insist. Do you find a problem with the existence of this sandbox in its current form? I need feedback from people like you. Please, find at the top of that userpage this: "10-points Q: is this actually informative? Ok, this is what I have reduced it to. Now I need oppinions and edits by other editors. Is this worth an article? " dated 21 May. If you want to tell me "erase it, erase it", then obviously I don't like that. But if you tell me "Here is what I consider redundant/useful" and do an edit ofUser:Dc76/Sandbox yourself to show your vision, that would be very helpful and constructive. How do you know that I would disagree? Maybe I'd use your edit.
  3. About MariusM attacking you, could you please check you gave me the right link? Is "I saw El_C blocking an user for usage of the word "vandalism", as being personal attack. Is good for admins like El_C to see from former debates what personal attack realy mean in this talk page. A personal attack is when somebody..." what you refer to? Or maybe this: "Anyhow, I don't like admins discretional usage of powers, especially when they are involved themselves in editing disputes (both ElC and Sunrise started to give opinions about this article). We have noticeboards and punishing users should be done in transparent ways, discussed in noticeboards"? I don't see personal attack in this. It is complaining, and you should have simply told him the reasons for you putting the blocks and ask him that if he considers them unfair to ask someone else to review the block. Frankly speaking, I see all this as noise, for everything that is being discussed around and not directly related to content is IMO noise which must be minimized. I see one voice of reason: "I'd appreciate it very much if you all could just stop bickering over past misbehaviour of the other side, and instead focus on what content ought or ought not to be in the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)" If you have some specific sentense that MariusM used against you in an offensive way, cut-and-paste it, and ask him not to use those kind of formulations when talking with you again. Honestly, if you don't point out me to (a) specific sentence(s), I have hard time understanding what exactly MariusM's wrongdoing against you are. (If it's his intolerance of you political oppinions and yours of his, then I'm not interested in it. You are not the owner of communism and he is not the owner of anti-communism, so like/dislike of political oppinions are not personal attacks, imho):Dc76 00:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. . Likely, I was over-speculative with regards to at least some. Obviously, I don't expect you to be privy to something which you're not.
  2. . MariusM copied it at almost word-for-word, is the point. I, myself, have yet to review your version at length, so I'm unable to comment.
  3. . It's the section directly below, actually. I just want to be treated in a professional manner. I do not think that I warranted his hostility. El_C 00:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

no 2. Take your time. It's not a fire. My point was, it was not MariusM, but me who coppied it. Obviously, before I read and copy editted it, it was word-by-word.

no 3. you know, "hostility" and "treating in a professional manner" are not mutually exclusive, mathematically speaking. :-) Also, hostility is a very large concept. Are you feeling his hostility as personal or just that of oppinion? B/c if it's the latter, I doubt you can do anything about it. :Dc76 00:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I felt it was both. I did not realize you copied it from him. Now I am confused; but I am not at all inclined to examine it at this time. El_C 03:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

MariusM, EvilAlex

I have a feeling of failure, given the probable outcome of the arbitration request on Transnistria. I really feel ElC really pushed for a decision that put MariusM and especially EvilAlex in the same box as the real culprits. Don't like the guy. Dpotop 09:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, do you know how to extend the checkuser requests on Mauco and MarkStreet to include User:LionKing? I didn't manage to. Dpotop 09:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I take exception to that. The evidence, which treated both as disruptive SPAs was submitted by Future Perfect, the other admin involved in the case, and this is what the arbitrators place weight on, less so my talk page comments, which came later. As well, from the outset, I treated both editors with professional courtesy which was, however, met with some contempt. I made virtually no comment on Evil Alex, at any point. If you take issues with my conduct, I would appreciate if you would forward your concerns to me, directly. Thank you in advance. El_C 09:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
El C, red commie...
Bonny, how many times do I have to ask you - give me a break, please. :Dc76 16:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is **not** on your page, ElC, therefore your input is **not** expected. And I know what I wrote. Dpotop 09:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I am registering my protest at the inflamatory personal remark you directed at me, albeit indirectly. El_C 10:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point. Still, I have a feeling that admins on Moldova- and Transnistria-related articles have a nasty habit of helping "the other side". I had to deal with Khoikhoi, Bakharev, Mikkalai, and now ElC. There's also a history of being both arbiter and editor, which is often not healthy on heavily disputed articles. I suppose having more admins close to the ex-soviet space is normal -- there's more of them. Still, it's a bit frustrating, and I can understand why MariusM and EvilAlex worked at the very limits of 3RR, with many breaches. This is why I support them quite heavily in this discussion (and I saw that you put something in the balance, too). Dpotop 17:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The other option is to let vandals write stupid things about these subjects. In a sense, both editing styles (yours and EvilAlex's) are necessary. You wouldn't be able to counter Mauco alone. EvilAlex alone could be banned in a week. Having both styles is good. Dpotop 17:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The effect of Mauco's style on me was obvious - I left and editted other stuff, not Transnistria. So Alex, obviously, was more effective. The only normal way is there to be more people - including such people as you, Marius, Vercumba, Jmabel, Johnatanpops, Jamason, etc. I agree that letting vandals write inventions about whole geographic areas is not an opption. But I think the best tactic was neither Alex, nor mine, it was MariusM's - to find the "evil" behind the edit wars and expose it. All we need to do now is to ask Marius to look carefully at the grey border between people paid to edit and those that have a certain political oppinion, and no matter how difficult, try to locate this border. Arguments, sourses, etc have effect on Alaexis, Illythr, ElC. Sometimes hard, but they listen. There was absolutely no reception of arguments or sourses on the part of Mauco or MarcStreet. That is the difference, IMO. As for admins, let's think about Future Perfect, Jmabel, TSO1D (last one is non-active), hope such ones will come here, and look for the future. I don't believe they should be necesarily from Eastern Europe. I'd rather even prefer not from Eastern Europe (incl Russia). ElC has an obsetion that he is being marginalized and discreditted b/c of his political views. I believe he is affraid someone starting an anti-communist crussade. Just don't annoy him for 2 weeks, it should go away. I don't know about you, but I try (have to) to see the difference between those that believe in criminal idologies because they were misled and those that perpetuate(d) crimes. I don't intend to convince the former, simply from time to time give them infos for thinking, they should by themselves undo in their minds what they did by themselves, and that will take them many years if not the whole life. I only have issues with the latter, and I do intend to expose the deeds of the latter on WP every time I find a reliable scholarly sourse. I'm more of an edit-user than a PR-user, therefore I was completely ineffective against Mauco and MarcS. Mauco just turned me around his finger using three-way dialogs him-me-his sockpupet Pernambuco. The true contributor to saving this page from paid activists (and vandals) was MariusM. Even his political rivals (or maybe especially they) recognize that.:Dc76 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

USA asks Russia to withdraw

hey man, see this link http://www.ziua.ro/display.php?data=2007-06-09&id=222040

Camera Reprezentantilor de la Washington dezbate o rezolutie care cere retragerea armatei ruse -Transnistria fara rusi

La Camera Reprezentantilor a Congresului SUA a fost depusa o rezolutie prin care Rusiei i se cere sa-si evacueze neconditionat fortele armate si munitiile din Transnistria, transmite Rompres. Potrivit reprezentantului secretariatului Camerei, rezolutia a fost depusa de un grup de 8 parlamentari americani. Documentul urmeaza sa fie examinat si votat in Comitetul pentru afaceri externe.

Conform rezolutiei citate, prezenta fortelor militare ruse in regiunea transnistreana a Moldovei este o incalcare flagranta a suveranitatii republicii. Documentul mentioneaza ca Rusia si-a luat angajamentul de a-si evacua trupele din Transnistria pana in 2002, termen deja expirat, la summitul OSCE de la Istanbul (1999).

Rusia incalca angajamentele fata de OSCE

In rezolutie se arata ca, in prezent, 1250 de soldati rusi se afla inca in Transnistria in pofida vointei populatiei Moldovei, iar din partea Rusiei nu exista nici un semn al vointei de continuare a procesului evacuarii, ceea ce constituie o incalcare a angajamentelor luate fata de OSCE. De asemenea, rezolutia propune inlocuirea contingentului militar amplasat in zona de securitate ce separa Transnistria de restul Moldovei cu un contingent multinational de pace, sub mandat OSCE.

Reprezentantul special al UE pentru Moldova, Kalman Mizsei, a declarat pentru publicatia europeana EUobserver, ca, la sfarsitul acestei luni, ar putea avea loc o reuniune a participantilor formatului 5 plus 2 (Republica Moldova, Transnistria, Rusia, Ucraina si OSCE, plus SUA si UE). El a explicat ca, potrivit viziunii Chisinaului de solutionare a conflictului, Rusia ar putea sa-si retraga munitia din Transnistria in 4-6 luni dupa semnarea unui acord privind viitorul Transnistriei si ca, pana in ianuarie 2009, soldatii rusi ar putea fi inlocuiti cu o misiune internationala de monitorizare.

Misiunea internationala de monitorizare ar putea fi de natura militara sau politieneasca, posibil sa includa atat forte rusesti, cat si ale UE. Mizsei a adaugat ca el nu are cunostinta decat de propunerile moldovenesti de reglementare -"destul de sensibile" - in urma negocierilor bilaterale dintre Chisinau si Tiraspol.

Acord secretChisinau-Moscova

Referitor la existenta unui acord secret intre Rusia si Moldova, despre care s-a tot vorbit in ultimul timp, un alt inalt diplomat european din grupul 5 plus 2 a declarat pentru EUobserver, sub rezerva anonimatului, ca el a vazut un "document" care prevede functii-cheie pentru oficialii transnistreni in guvernul moldovenesc dupa reglementarea conflictului, conform acelorasi surse. El a spus ca documentul ofera Rusiei posibilitatea de a-si pastra soldatii sai pe un termen nedefinit, oferind, astfel, Moscovei un control de facto al Republicii Moldova.

Un alt oficial dintr-un stat membru al UE a avertizat, potrivit acelorasi surse, ca daca o formula finala de reglementare a conflictului trasnistrean va fi prea prorusa, aceasta ar putea inflama opozitia interna din Moldova fata de presedintele Vladimir Voronin, care ar raspunde cu forta si si-ar compromite atasamentul pentru apropierea de Europa si reforme democratice. Oficialul UE a spus ca, in acest caz, ajutorul financiar pentru Republica Moldova, in valoare de 1,1 miliarde euro, prevazut pentru 2007- 2010 din partea UE si SUA, ar putea fi sistat. El a adaugat ca unele tari membre ale UE sustin ideea trimiterii militarilor UE in Transnistria, iar altii considera ca soldatii rusi stationati, de exemplu, langa soldatii polonezi, intr-o misiune mixta "ar putea sa nu functioneze bine".

Monument of Lihula

Thank you for your constructive reworking of the article. Digwuren 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fântâna Albă

why are you acting like a vandal?Anonimu 18:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg you pardon? :Dc76 18:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Dogs beg.
The above unsigned comment belongs to User:Anonimu.

Question: Does the above contribution ("Dogs beg") comply with Wikipedia rules? --KIDB 08:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a fact. However, if you want me to, i could search for a citation.
The above unsigned comment belongs to User:Anonimu.:Dc76 09:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
No, civilized people beg pardon. Dogs bark.:Dc76 18:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
If you say so. Anyway, you didn't answer...
The above unsigned comment belongs to User:Anonimu.
Answer what? And please sign your comments, I'm not your secretary.
P.S. similarly you can ask me "why did you steal my bike?", I say "I did not", and you would say "you did not answer my question"... This reminds me of Joseph Stalin's question to one of his generals in 1941: "зачем (why; with what purpose) did you distroye the Briansk Front?" [the front was in very difficult situation, but not yet destroyed, yet because Stalin arrested the commanding officers, the front was destroyed] :Dc76 18:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
So when are you going to answer? As Stevie Wonder says: "every problem has an answer, and if yours you cannot find, you can talk it over to Him, He'll give you piece of mind..."
The above unsigned comment belongs to User:Anonimu.
My answer is self-evident: I believe I am acting in a civilized manner, and I fail to understand where you see "vandalism". Moreover, disagrement with your political opinions is a completely different story. Also, the fact that your latest summary to that article does distortion what the sourses you cite say is a third thing. Blaming your political opinions or distortions of sourses on other editors and calling them "vandals" because they correct your edits is hardly constructive, and only shows hostility on your part. :Dc76 15:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Please use Moldovan, cause i understood nothing of what you've just said.Anonimu 15:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't write in dialect, I can only speak in it. I can write in Romanian. Eu şi ceilalţi editori am corectat ce-aţi scris Dumneavaostră. Noi nu suntem "vandali" cum ne numiţi Dumneavoastră. "Vandal" se referă la modalitatea de eiditare, care în cazul de faţă a fost cât se poate de civilizată. Dumneavoastră însă ne-aţi numit "vandali" fiindcă nu va plăcut conţinutul editării. Ceea ce e altă întrebare.:Dc76 16:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
There was nothing to correct, since what i've added was just a slight rephrase of the source. Everyone who deletes SOURCED statements just because these don't fit his agenda is a vandal Anonimu 16:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Your "slight rephrase" was a total denaturation of the sense of the sourse, as 3 editors pointed to you. As for "vandal", by you latest reply you have just shown to everyone, that you only use this word because you like to call people names. Know what, I'm tired to waste time reading and replying to your non-sense. Have a nice day.:Dc76 16:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can see on the FAI talk page that my rephrase neither added, nor substracted anything from the original source. Of course the source doesn't fit your POV, but hey... you must learn to accept that, unlike me, you can't be always right...Anonimu 16:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
O I see, you are always right! That explains everything!:Dc76 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Anonimu 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Notification

Thank you for the notice.

Hopefully, I'll soon be able to share my experience from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn. It -- especially the mistakes made -- may be of some use. Digwuren 07:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ion Antonescu

Please bear in mind the 3 revert rule, being convicted of war crimes, even if you feel teh original charges were trumped up, is hardly a minor matter. David Underdown 13:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, the crimes he remains convicted of, weight much more than the details of which he was aquitted. I have always tried (I'm not sure if I succeded) to avoid rv, rather I try different suggestions each time. Up to now, this strategy has worked in 100% of cases and has led to dialog. :Dc76 13:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Remember that the policy refers to partial reverts as well as merely repeating the same edits repeatedly. Your edits have steadfastly removed any mention of rehabilitation, and that is the main issue. David Underdown 13:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not know the policies that well, but you can see that I've been also suggesting path to approach a middle solution. Calling it "rehabilitation" is a POV. If you mention it in the text - it's one thing. If in the title - it suggests to be the only POV. Don't you think so? :Dc76 14:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is being continued in Talk:Ion Antonescu. :Dc76 19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Linking dates

It is my understanding that one should only link full dates, such as June 28, 2007 -- because different people have different preferences about that, see Help:Date formatting and linking, but that partial dates need not be linked. At least, that's what an experienced user once explained to me, and it seems to be the accepted rule (eg, by Dahn and others), though many editors don't seem to know about it. At any rate, that's my understanding, if you find a different interpretation of this rule, please do correct me. Turgidson 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: I checked now Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and it appears that there are some exceptions to the "partial date" rule: e.g., June 28 should be linked , I guess because some people prefer to read that as 28 June. So I guess I should go and partially reverse myself on some of those changes I made. Sigh.... OK, a bit later, please let me know how you read that rule, so as to avoid possible confusions in the future. Turgidson 18:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This article will need re-working for better quality, and we can deal with the links at that time (Unless you have spare time tonight, don't waste it on dates.) Understanding the principle is much more useful: thank you very much.

My understanding is the following text from there: "Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article." So, I should linke28 June as it is something important that happened on that date. But I should not link 29 June where it barely means the second day of occupation. It might make sense to link August 2 (formation of MSSR), or July 2 (final withdrawl of Romanian administrsation), or the dates the deportations occured. (Now I realize that I was abusing, and almost linking all dates.)

As for the years, my personal preference is to link every year when it appears for the first time, and sometimes again if no year is mentioned in the text for quite some portion. My personal reason for doing it, is that to me personally it is easy to look at a page and see 5-6 blue years, it helps me find quickly information as opposed to read through black-and-white text (searching by year is always much easier and faster, takes miliseconds, than by words). Also I like the color blue :-) Ok, the latter is not actually the reason, but it helps tipping the ballance when I'm 50-50 to link or not. :Dc76 19:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress is a guide to deal with vandalisations, that I was told about. :Dc76 19:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

note

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

The above unsigned comment was by User:Anonimu.:Dc76 19:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have:

  • corrected some factual errors that you have introduced (e.g. Bessarabia and Bukovina, after electing democratic parliaments, elected to form union with Romania, not invaded by Romanian army as you invent.)
  • have reintroduced part of the material from June 9, containing factual info, that you erased and other editors did not bother to read
  • moved one paragraph to "see also"
  • introduced many see also's
  • corrected some small error of language

However you have only reverted my changes! You do not come forward with counter-propositions! I respectfully must give you a warning (see your page). :Dc76 19:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually:

  1. you've deleted facts supported by WP:RS (just because they didn't support your pov)
  2. you've put a back a fragment that was rightfully deleted because it didn't fit WP:NOPV
  3. you've moved facts important for the understanding of the circumstances to the end of the article, deleting the context
  4. you've introduced "see also's" to articles linked from the article body several times
  5. you've corrected no error, since "Gulag", not "GULag" is the standard english form

So you've just pushed your nationalistic POV.Anonimu 20:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1.2. is your personal interpretation. Every editor in that article but you (there are 6-7 people!) consider your edit POV, not mine!

3. please, be specific

4. I've introduced in see also things I see as good futher reading. Only some of them are mentioned in the body of the article. But if want to discuss this aspect, I am open for discussion. rv only that part so we can isolate the problems one by one.

5. "GULag" meant "Glavloe Upravlenie LAGerei". It has been always abreviate GULag during Soviet Union. WP is IMHO supposed to reflect the truth, not to create one of its own.

I would appreciate if you could please grow up a little and stop characterizing your opponents of oppnion. Talk about issues, as everyone else except you is doing. Why do you like so much saying soemthing evel to people personallly? Disagree or not, is it so difficult to talk wbout issues only?:Dc76 20:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


1. That was exactly what the WP:RSs said. no interpretation.

2. none considered my edit pov. except two (one who considered my edit rightful, and one who initially reverted me, but then left), all other editors don't intervene because your pov is more convenient to them.

3.you know

4.except maybe one (that is however the main article of a category), all other are already linked

5. wiki is not about truth, but about usage. and Gulag is used in almost all english-language books.

So you've just pushed your nationalistic POV.Anonimu 20:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

3. I do NOT know what you mean. And it is not the first time you assume others read your mind!

4. ok, how do you suggest to change? Honestly, if you have something constructive, I won't oppose.

1.2.5. you refuse to even listen what others have to say.

With your last comment you are just being mean. Seriously. Only a kid would do that.:Dc76 21:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll try my best, but as usual, one of the participants here is being very unproductive. Biruitorul 21:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This has to stop at some point. From now on, I'll be slowlly giving him warnings every time he distrupts. Until they will accumilate to weigh. And if he won't stop, I'll be seeking a community ban for him in all articles he has been doing this. :Dc76 21:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Dc, what I wrote on the Antonescu page also applies to that article: I would like to attempt rewriting parts of it, finding references, copyediting and expanding it in the future. As we stand, it is too complicated for me to look into everything that goes in and out (though, I have to say prima facie, I don't view removing uncited words such as "dramatic" and "tragic" as a loss). I believe that article can become stable, relevant, and compelling by simply finding proper sources for it and using them. In case I will get to try my hand, with active participation from other users, I will make sure I'll check past versions, to see if anything relevant got lost. Dahn 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If everyone would talk like that, WP would be heaven, and never people would misunderstand each other... I must confess: my following of changes to the article is partially due to the fact that I'd don't have now time to proper edit WP articles. And for this one, I have several books to read before going into deeper. Anyway, I appreciate your feedback on both articles. :Dc76 22:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Request move

Hi there, can you move Moldovan alphabet to Moldovan cyrillic alphabet? --Tones benefit 19:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, it is possible to move and put a redirect. But I'd advise to do it not in a rush, because it can lead to edit waring with some other editors. Go to Talk:Moldovan alphabet, write there that you want to move it, and explain your arguments. Within a few days people will reply and you will see if they support your move or not. Personally, I will support your proposal, because "Moldovan alphabet" can be understood vaguely (some can understand to use "î" instead of "â"), so adding "cyrillic" will clarify this. :Dc76 19:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I made it, nice suggestion.--Tones benefit 20:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you do it? I don't know how to do it.--Tones benefit 05:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you know about Occupation of Budapest?--Tones benefit 18:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

NKVD

Thank your for your answer. I'm interested mostly in Summer 1941 crimes, after the German invasion, described in NKVD prisoner massacres. There is no Tatarka common graves article.Xx236 07:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Eastern block articles

Soviet system in Eastern block is here described (if it is described at all) in articles related to individual countries. I have started two articles synthetizing Sovietisation in many countries, one of them was quickly removed by a small group Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet university. I find it very sad, that the former Eastern block nations aren't able to cooperate in describing their Soviet past. Xx236 06:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Control C

Hi -- no I don't know about that editing trick. What does it do? Actually, I'm a loss as to when editing conflicts occur or not, I still haven't figured out the pattern. And, I could use a better editor window than the rudimentary one provided by default -- eg, one that has a search function ! -- but nothing that I tried works. Oh, well.. Turgidson 19:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Molotov-Ribbentrop-German.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Molotov-Ribbentrop-German.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Dear friend! I have placed the copies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop-German.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop-Russian.jpg I think that all must be o'key with the license.--A Zarini 16:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


I started this paper Moldova and NATO and you know who cut it off. --Tones benefit 18:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you to read:
and several other articles linked there. Every article shouild read as an encyclopedia, not as a political argument. Imagine you come from Mars and explain all this to someone from Saturn. Start and edit User:Tones benefit/Sandbox here. Copy this, and edit it well. I can try to help in the following days. After a few days, you can introduce a better written text into the article itslef. There was never an article Moldova and NATO, it has been years. A couple days will not change anything. But a badly written text, even if factually correct, can - it provokes edit warring. It is very hard to help you if you write "It is a certain fact that during the 19th – 20th centuries, Russia has decided Moldova’s fate with the accord of one Western Great Power or another." You can alwats write "In the past, Russia's influence in Moldova has not been balanced by the west." And so on. Good luck.:Dc76 18:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, now it's very good for me. I have my own sandbox.--Tones benefit 18:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC) How did you do it to have this difference http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova_and_NATO&oldid=142080718 ? --Tones benefit 18:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your answer proves that you do not realize the tools at your disposal. It is like you cry battle with a wooden lance when you have fire weapons.

  • To see differences and previous version, click "History" (example).
    • You can select any versions and compare them.
    • You can also click on the date and hour and see any particular version.
  • you can create as many pages as you want in your user space. Just create a red link like this name, then click on it, then click on edit as a new page.
    • Advice: keep links to them in some place in your user space, b/c one letter differnce, one extra space, one misspelling - and it's a differnt page, it won't recognize it.
  • look at other users pages, there is a lot new tools you can learn by looking how they did it. Also, don't be afraid to ask. All of us here at some point asked the same questions. :Dc76 19:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
That was very helpful, mulţumesc, now I have to go. See you, --Tones benefit 19:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

List of sovereign states

No apologies necessary Thanks, though. I will post on that talk, but as of now have nothing to say; my edit summary really said it all, and I don't anticipate any kind of dispute about that. I watch the page, though. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dc76/Archive_3&oldid=1248645294"