User talk:Dc76/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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

Assistance nedded

Article Rescue Squadron and Intensive Care Unit

Things to do:

Romanian military history task force

Things to do:

Wiki-project Moldova

Things to do:

Romanian Wikipedians

Things to do:

Requests for material to Comisia Prezidenţială pentru Analiza Dictaturii Comuniste din România: Raport Final

Requests:

Transnistria related stuff

Image:Transnistria-map.png

In the image on the lower part there are portions that are yellow enclosed in red.Is that correct or is it a error?--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Heaven vs Propaganda

Ai participat la prima discuţie pentru ştergerea sandboxului meu, poate eşti interesat să ştii că a fost iar propus pentru ştergere [1]--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.:Dc76 23:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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. --(Dc76 to El_C)

A book

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)

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.

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)

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)

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".

Tones benefit related stuff

• Moldova and NATO
• Membership Action Plan
• 2006 Riga summit
• 2008 Bucharest summit
• User:Tones benefit/Sandbox

what is a "leave a comment" now in menu? is it something new to my page?--Tones benefit 20:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia changes minor things in appearance. This is from today only, before there was a plus sign (+) instead. By clicking on it you will be creating a new section, so that you don't have to scroll down or have "edit conflicts" with others that might leave messages concomitantly with you.:Dc76 21:11, 13 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)

Articles

• Fântâna Albă massacre was an even that took place on 1 April 1941, when about 2,500-3,000 civilians tried to cross the border from the Soviet occupied Northern Bukovina into Romania. NKVD opened fire and killed about 200 on the spot, then hunted several hundred others through the woods.

Problems with other editors: 1) Downplaying the number of victims to that in the official Soviet report, i.e. to 20 dead. 2) changing "massacre" into "incident". 3) adding "were warned and hence the Soviets were right to open fire upon people trying to cross illegally the border" (fire was open seconds after shouting at the civilian column to stop). :Dc76 14:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ion Antonescu was the dictator of Romania from September 1940 till August 1944. He was a capable officer of the general stuff in WWI, later had personal grudges with the king Carol II (1930-1940), and came to power on the wave of popular revolt against Carol II's succombing to Hitler-imposed Second Vienna Award (northern Transylvania was taken from Romania and given to Horty's Hungary). In february 1941, Antonescu, in quest to establish authoritarian power, with Hitler's consent, distroyed the pro-fascist Iron Guard (something like Hitler distroying Rhom). Antonescu had no political affiliation, being a military. He became something like Romania's Franco, however unlike Franco, he met and in time became close to Hitler. After taking back in June-July 1941 the Soviet occupied (in June 1940) Bessarabia and norhtern Bukovina, Romanian army did not continue to fight the Soviets. At this point, however, Antonescu, did not as expected by the population restore democracy.

During the next month, Hitler did his best to persuade Antonescu to continue the war against the USSR, and Antonescu sent troops to help Germany's advance. Antonescu used Romanian army to occupy a region of Ukraine proper (Transnisria (WWII)), where he deported 120,000 Romanian Jews (out of 700,000) + interned about 100,000 local Jews. Most died in ghettos and labour camps, 30% survived. Antonescu has personally issued orders to kill Jews. In August 1944, Antonescu was arrested by the young king Mihai I, who turned Romania to the Allies' side, and a week later was occupied by the Soviet army. Antonescu was judged in 1946 by a court closely supervised by the Soviets, and along with 20 or 21 others was condemned to death.

In 2006, a Romanian court overturned some details from Antonescu's conviction: Attacking Soviet union in June-July 1941 in order to recover lost territories was removed from "crimes against peace". Continuing the war on proper Soviet territory from end of August 1941 on was upheld to be an invasion, and hence still a "crime against peace". The court refused even to re-consider "crimes agianst humanity", since as the court explained "having legal right to recover own territory does not give any right to deport and/or kill civilians".

Problems with other editors: Some tried in the past to portray 2006 court decision as a "Rehabilitation of Antonescu" and suggest that with this court decision Romania officially pormotes revisionism and neo-fascism. :Dc76 14:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• NKVD prisoner massacres, an article started by Xx236. Can use Romanian imput related to Tatarka common graves, and also stuff from here or the like. Can also use lot of input from the Baltic States, from Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Finland, and from other places. :Dc76 14:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

People that might be of assistance

• A Zarini, a contributor to Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact articles on Russian WP

(Neo-)Stalinism watchdog?

For what it's worth, my apologies for the "bullying and stigmatization" you'd to suffer for taking part in the discussion. If it makes you feel any better: imagine that some of us had to live through such discussions with the same users for years... makes you wonder if we should really dedicate our lives to it, sometimes, doesn't it? But I hope you don't give up with occasional contributions to related subjects - I had seen too many good editors chased off wiki by such atmosphere, and I am hoping that this ArbCom will finally stop what you have so well described.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about anon users, but yes, I have seen such modus operandi for years. That said, I have seen them fail more often then win: in the end, many neutral editors see good article for what it is, and personal attacks disguised as arguments for what they are. My biggest regret is that some editors can't stand abusive atmosphere created by personal attacks and leave Wikipedia. I don't expect that this ArbCom will solve 'all problems', but it has a potential to restrict the actions of several big trouble makers active in our area of interest, hopefully giving a signal to others that their incivility will not be tolerated - or at least showing others that there is a way to stop them from disrupting the project further.

On other note, I have to say that I have not been following articles related to Baltic states often, but I'd be happy to help if and when needed if they touch on Polish history. In such cases, don't hesitate to post at WP:PWNB. Take care, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Regrettably, the editors most sensitive to this kind of noise pollution tend to be the best editors. If the forces that drive them out are allowed free reign, it will mean continously lowering quality for Wikipedia as a whole. Digwuren 20:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I assumed you are from the north for some reason :) Romanian subjects are quite fascinating, once with Dahn we wrote the Polish-Romanian alliance. I will check the articles you mentioned; there is nothing currently I am working on that needs significant input from your area, but I hope we will stay in touch.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am from the north, actually — I claim Swedish ancestry :-)

I'm rather forced to be silent on the southern affairs, as I feel I do not know enough about their background to be able to productively contribute. I'm learning to improve the situation — but, alas, slower than I would like. Thus, for a while, expect mainly meta-comments from me, and perhaps a few corrections of particularly egregious neo-Stalinist distortions.

Here's a meta-comment: regrettably, Ghirlandajo's behaviour is rather effective. As unfortunate as it is, his absurd accusations (such as the ones leading into Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Estophobia) stick — and this provides a nearly foolproof way to reframe almost every conflict on Wikipedia as "content dispute", and keeping administrative intervention away, at least until some participant becomes too obviously obnoxious, like happened to M.V.E.i. In every society, unwritten laws trump the written laws, and current Wikipedia's unwritten laws favour Ghirlandajo's behaviour to the point that one is tempted to start emulating him — after all, the road to fame and riches meanders through edit count and wild accusations, and edit count is easy to grow in edit wars ...

I do not know an easy way out of this sticky situation. I'm certainly not inclined to try to out-Ghirlandajo Ghirlandajo, nor can I suggest this approach to anybody else. I have a few ideas for improving WP:POLICY, but my suggestions at this point of time would be easily trampled by these same forces. I still believe that in the long perspective, amending the Policy can go a long way, though.

Meanwhile, I can suggest a little more coöperation. Myself, I might not be very knowledgeable about the military tactics Wehrmacht worked out for streets of Bucharest, or the architectural trends of 19th-century Polish churches, but I have a fairly good grasp on Stalinist ideology, as well as the Soviet approach to propaganda, and when given an overview of a problem, I believe I can learn enough about the particular topics to be able to debate within its scope. Similarly, Piotrus might not know the details of mineral composition of eastern Latvian soil, or the detailed history of interwar Estonian spies in Germany, but he knows Ghirlandajo's tricks, and he also knows Soviet history. Building on this shared knowledge, we could pool our resources. On Wikipedia, an actively expressed consensus is more powerful than a silent agreement, and this is a force that can be harnessed to counter WP:TE so loved by worshippes of a certain moustached Georgian.

Thus, I'm requesting that a brief overview — perhaps with links to background information — be provided to me whenever persistent "content disputes" of the above-explained kind arise, so I could assist. I'm particularly interested in cases involving the "nearby foreign lands" of Russia — and that includes both Poland and Romania as well as, for example, Slovakia. (Alas, I'm unable to continuously keep most of these articles in my watchlist; even now, the 500-edit limit rolls over faster than a day.) Together, through the magic of vocal consensus, it is possible to make sure that Anonimu and his ilk can't swamp out the facts they Just Don't Like, and replace them with propaganda, or even outright delete them. (Take a look at the way he lured Dpotop into a WP:3RR trap, by the way.)

As a return, I can promise offering similar service regarding more northern topics to anybody interested. We used to have problems with Petri Krohn, but he's been considerably politer after the RFC. Estonia-related articles are currently being manipulated primarily by RJ CG, a small-scale activist, and a few even lesser gastrollers, such as Cmapm; consequently, it's likely that my alerts will be rather infrequent in the near future. I'm hoping Vecrumba will be able to raise alarm on attacks an Latvia-related topics, and so on. I have come to find his edits particularly reliable and trustworthy, but he's kind of busy with off-Wikipedia affairs right now.

It might be worthwile to set up a Wikipedia:Neo-Stalinist Activity Watch messageboard for this purpose, or perhaps, a mailing list. For now, user talk pages will do nicely, though. So, whenever Kuban kazak is going pesky again, or Anonimu is trying to force Communist propaganda into articles; if my presence can help, leave me a message, explain the problem, and I'll try to do my best. Digwuren 02:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting proposal, Digwuren. To start with, how about we get back to basics: let's look at the very definition of Stalinism, and the associated term, Stalinist. I've had recently a rather eerie discussion on this topic, at Talk:Leninism#"Stalinism" is POV. The correct term is "Marxism Leninism", which also include Mao's thought. Maybe you guys can join in, and express your opinion on the terminology? Turgidson 04:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

While at it, how come we have Category:Marxists, Category:Communists, Category:Trotskyists, as well as Category:Marxism, Category:Communism, Category:Trotskyism, etc, but no Category:Stalinists, or, perhaps, Category:Stalinism? Turgidson 04:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism differs greatly from stalinism. I would even dare to say that stalinism has nothing to do with communism. The reason why wikipedia does not want to recognize it, is probably great number of neo-soviets around who find the definition of stalinism offensive towards their beliefs. Suva 10:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would put it this way: Marxism was an economic theory. Marxism-Leninism was a justification for a revolution, and a bunch of ideas on What To Do Afterwards. Stalinism was an ideology of governance that granted Marxism-Leninism a passing nod of "uh huh" because that was the revolution that had given Stalinism its power. Neo-Stalinism is a modern-day desire to be associated with something Big And Powerful(tm), in the Right Wing Authoritarianism sense. Digwuren 15:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Digwuren's idea is interesting. For now, I do not have any helpful suggestions of how to set this practically, and I'll abstain from proposing a modus operandi just for the sake of proposing something. But I do support to set up a place where Stalinism and neo-Stalinism related "brief overview — perhaps with links to background information — be provided whenever persistent "content disputes" of the above-explained kind arise".

Just for the curriosity of people who know Russian and could use some reading in spare time, I have a book called "Tainyi Sovetnik Vozhdya" by Vladimir Uspenskii (7MB, html format). When I got it, I remember I have found online suggestions that it is a total fiction. The author, obviously claims everything is genuine. In short, as the title says (Secret Councelor of the Leader), the book pretends to be about a formet officer in the White Army, who by personal circumstances becomes very close to Stalin in 1918 and his "secret" councilor, especially in military affairs, afterwards. The action spanns to 1953 and after, but about 60% of it is about 1941-1945. The author claims that he has met "the councelor" in 1970, who has told him the details and has provided him supporting documents (the author also says he has returned th documments back afterwards!). At any rate, the author himslef was dedicated to study Stalin for about 30 years, and has undoubtably accumulated himself some knowledge. Why did he chose to mix it with the tale of "the councelor", I don't know. The book is as sympathetic and prazing of Stalin as it can be, they simply adore Stalin. But I think it is a very intersting gate into the psichy of the Stalin's fans (not Stalinism in general, but plain personally towards Stalin). It contains some interesting information, such as: how Stalin sidelined Trotsky, how Khrushchev and Zhukov sidelined Beria, a little about Soviet spies in the west, including related to the atomic bomb, stuff about Stalin' anti-semitism and "probable" causes, a little about the last days of Stalin's life, also stuff about his family, even why Stalin chose the name Stalin. I must warn those interested that it is not a documentary, but a mixture, so you never know if different details are true or invented. Let me know if anyone is interested, I can email it. :Dc76 12:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We can set up a page containing many items like the examples here above. Feel free to continue the discussion if you have sometihng to say (I've finished cleaning and archieving) :Dc76 14:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[Here http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj/index.html] is an interesting journal, International Socialism, published in London from 1958 to 1969, 1970-74, and1975-79. It contained peer-reviewed material. Maybe, we can create also a "resourse page" for links related to Stalinism. I found this link while searching for this book by [Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov], which apparently is famous, except that in my ignorance today I heard about it for the first time. :Dc76 14:57, 13 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:FayssalF

He isn't happy if he's not the one in control. Kingjeff 20:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi fellow fun of FC Bayern Munich. I don't care about FayssalF happyness or habbits. I am only refering to a very particular block, which imho was incorrect. If you have evidence of serious abuse from FayssalF, bring it up for discussion, but that's a totally different question, and I won't participate in such things b/c I don't have time for them.:Dc76 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

re:About 3RR

That suggestion seems fine, although I believe Eurocopter is going on a short wikibreak anyways, so it shouldn't be a big deal. I admit that I was a bit upset with Eurocopter when I made the comment at the 3RR noticeboard, but I'm well over that. Truth be told, he/she isn't really the problem with regards to reaching compromise at the article, I've worked with Euro earlier on essentially the same issue on a similar page, and we (Euro, another editor, and I) were able to reach a suitable compromise; User:Lear 21 is the one who apparently will not attempt to compromise. Thanks for your help here. Parsecboy 20:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds ok to me. I agree that there should be no animosity here. I've got no hostility towards Eurocopter, and I don't think he deserves to have a block on his record. Parsecboy 20:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about false map

If you want to see something interesting you must to look article Borders before and after Yugoslavia, PANONIAN map of Serbia in 1918 and our discussion about this map. Discussion is on discussion page of article for which I have given you link. In last week I am fighting with PANONIAN that this fantasy map in which even Pecs and Timisoara are Serbian territory be deleted on wiki. ---Rjecina 19:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the name into this one :)--Ursul pacalit de vulpe 06:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See what Anonimu is doing on the page..--Ursul pacalit de vulpe 14:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Decision of administrators on commons have been (about map): "The map is not based on own research but real document and hence it is within out Projects Scope. Whether the documents have non-NPOV, have bad motives, or whether the image"

Now I trying to find somebody which think/know that map is false and POV so that he can change name of the map (and text) so that name is "Territory under Serbian army control in 1918" or something similar. Link for discussion has been [2]. ---Rjecina 18:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Let me know if you feel I should add my oppinion on ANI/Transnistria. For the time being, I preferred not to, because I took a clear position against the group of 3 Russian admins controlling Eastern European subjects. Thus, me intervening could hamper your position. Dpotop 17:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I really don't have time now, so you won't see me in WP in the next few weeks.
2. The problem in Transnistria is blunt rerevrts, without discussing, without even reading. Look how civilizedly does Alaexis edit and talk (and despite the fact that he clearly has different political oppinions on many issues) and how Mikkalai does in the last 3-4 days. Controlling Eastern European subjects is a altogether different, much more larger story, that won't be solved in 1 day. The problem in Transnistria is very simple: the atmosphere of civilized discussion vs blunt POV reverts, which geopardize the former.:Dc76\^talk 18:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all your remarks. :) Have a nice holyday/exam session/whatever. Dpotop 18:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :Dc76\^talk 18:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Contact

Can you write me at digwuren@gmail.com for discussion of some above-mentioned problems? Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 05:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

History of Bălţi

Thank you for your updates. The page is more than 60kb, the history part taking a good part of it, so it was quite appropriate to write a separate article on it, taking in consideration false statements in it anyway. For example it was full of, in my view, inappropriate passages about Romanian army generally speaking and not relating to Bălţi as such. Hence, all the links will be re-established. In WP we trust, Moldopodo.

Neutrality of your contributions in Bălţi article

I clearly do not appreciate some of your contributions, and if you continue so I will have to take further action as far as your account is concerned. I am referring to the passages where you express nothing else but your personal political view. This is an encyclopedia and not a political forum.

• If Bălţi is a multinational city, where Russian is spoken just as Romanian, having a Ukrainian mayor with a strong Ukrainian community in plus, I do not see any interest of adding phrases and tones like "somewhat Ukrainian", or unnecessary comments "you must be a heal of party goer", or "they may speak or may not speak Russian".

• A person living in Bălţi is Bălţier in proper English and not Bălţean, which is Romanian language version. Referring to enterprises is direct translation from Romanian (intreprindere), hence inappropriate in English language (speaking of clubs for example).

• Bălţi IS located in the Bălţi steppe, and this is a world known fact, type 'Balti steppe' in Google. It is ridiculous to put a comment that there is no Bălţi steppe at all.

• I also do not understand why did you delete passages on how Russian speaking people from all over USSR helped to rebuild Bălţi from ruines and swamps into a city it is now. Another question, how is the so-called "pro-Western" opposition is different from the officially pro-Western communsit party?

• I have no clue where did you get the following info:

Since 1989 All local elections are won by the old Soviet apparatus candidates, the Russian minority being stronger politically not least because of its higher turnout rate. However the policies of the local authorities have evolved from one individual to the next, so that although extreme left by today's standards, some of them would have been considered quite liberal in Soviet times.

Currently, the municipal activity is done in Russian and Romanian, in disregard with the 1989 national language law, which states that Romanian/Moldavian is the only official language of the country.

- First of all, what do you mean by "higher turnout rate" for Russian minority? Russian speaking Moldovans are just the same as Romanian speaking Moldovans, it's not a question of minority or majority. If Russian speaking professionals get elected, it's probably because of their competence (and you truly can see huge improvements in the city at all levels, compare to first years of Moldavian independence where Romanian speaking peasant elite was pushed forward).

- Secondly there is no law violation, as there is a law that Russian is a language of intercultural communication in Moldova. Besides, in some parts of Moldova, like Transnistria and Gaguzia, Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz respectively are official languages.

• Transnistria is the name of the University branch we have in Balti. Before you delete something, it's good to know whether exists or not.

• As for the name of the city, look at the beginning of articles on Swiss (multilingual communities as well) cities, Geneva for example, in WP. Each language version is presented.

These are just some examples of meaningless personal politically colored statements that have no place at WP.

In WP we trust, Moldopodo.

Announcement

Hi Dc76, I would like to announce you that the Romanian military history task force has just been created on the Military history WikiProject. Please have a look on it, and maybe you would like to join. Any help would be very usefull! Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 20:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Balti

I have no knowledge as to who is right, nor even what the dispute is about. Corvus cornix 22:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I probably can't get to it for a few days, though. Corvus cornix 22:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. That could work. Corvus cornix 23:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

For reference: [3]. :Dc76\^talk 23:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The latest war

Înainte de toate celelalte, să rămână, frate! OK, here's the idea. Revert wars have been started on 12 articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. I can't fight a 12-front revert war, so you, Dpotop and other like-minded editors will have to help. I'm sure you know why we're doing this, but the basic argument is as follows. We have an article called Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, and Wikipedia, based on reliable sources, recognises that an occupation did in fact take place. "To cede" means "to yield or grant typically by treaty" or "to assign, to grant". It does not have innately hostile connotations like "occupation" does, and more importantly, no sources calling it a "cession" have been produced. (Of course, some cessions, like the Mexican Cession, are done under pressure, but history calls it a cession, which is why we use the term; history calls June 1940 an occupation.) If the parties on the other side wish to start a WP:RM for that article, they may, and if they succeed, we'll discuss further. Until then, though, it will continue to be called an occupation, as long as we have a say in the matter. Biruitorul 00:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the point that has to be made is that was ceded under pressure, like my silly example: if somebody put a gun to your head can the fact that you gave up the wallet be described as "agreed to cede your wallet", it's called "robbery at gunpoint", in addition thousands of Romanian soldiers were killed (Romanian Army losses: dead, wounded, and missing by July 6, 1940: 356 officers, 42.876 soldiers) and Soviets entered Romanian territory before the end of deadline they also behaved like occupiers by any acceptable definition. -- AdrianTM 00:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like also to bring into attention the international law aspect. In 1933, USSR, Finland, Poland, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, and Turkey have signed a London treaty on the definition of the agressor. By that, every side agreed that, if A attacks B, it is an agression even if A has contested B on some issue before. If you want, it was the same prnciple as later enshrined in the 1975 Helsinki Act: solution of diffirends only by peaceful means. As a consequence, in 1940, Britain, the only survining democracy in Europe (except the neutrals), called the Soviet acts in Bessarabia agression and ilegal. That is one of the main reasons why historians call it occupation. It does not negate the fact that USSR had contested the border with Romania, which is also a fact. Hence, if we have an article Soviet occupation of B & NB, and by consequence, the logical usage in other articles should be occupation, as Biruitorul mentioned, with link to it. Are we adding these arguments 12 times in every talk page? :Dc76\^talk 10:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much time I will have now, b/c I have now another list of 27 issues to work on for another article that got to edit war. And I am not so free to give much time to WP. But I will be present. :Dc76\^talk 14:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the argument needs to be repeated a dozen times, just the link. (Thank you for your comment, too, Adrian: massive military casualties don't normally accompany a "cession", so that's quite useful.) I've seen the Digwuren case but have no participated. Good luck with the Bălţi business, where I will try to lend some assistance. Some of those 12 articles have been reverted again, and so it goes... I'd like to e-mail you but first you should enable e-mail. Biruitorul 22:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

NPA

First of, please leave such names as "smart man/woman" for yourself. Secondly, I edited the talk page and you edited in the same time, that's what probably caused the accident. However, you have deliberately deleted the whole section I wrote about your controversial edits, which fact I have to consider as vandalism No 2. By the way, I can't see what do you have to edit, as you have already presented your point of view, it's not a game of persuasion. Anyway, I have enough of it for the time being and let you edit until further notice. Bye! Moldopodo 16:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

I answered you on you talk page. It is very not nice to write the whole page of your personal presentation as an atack on my arguments and of the article Bălţi. Perhaps that is exactly what defines you. :Dc76\^talk 16:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Your vandalism is characterised here[4]

Please take in consideration that your vandalism (of Bălţi article) is characterised in detail, point by point, on the Bălţi talk page, under the link provided above. Thank you. Moldopodo 16:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Română în Moldova

Cred că te referi la scrierea cu â şi î din câte am înţeles din mesajul tău. Aceasta este introducerea celui mai recent Dicţionar ortografic publicat de Academia de Ştiinţe A Moldovei (corespondentul DOOM-ului din România). Acesta anunţă că "în noua ediţie se aplică Hotărârea Adunării Generale a Academiei Române din 17 februarie 1993 privind revenirea la "â" şi "sunt" în limba română".

Totodată aici găseşti curriculumul la limba română pentru liceu (publicat în 2006). Între conţinuturile de lecţie recomandate pentru clasa a X-a (prima de liceu) se numără şi:

• Dicţionarul ortografic – operă lingvistică şi rezultat al evoluţiei unei limbi. Modificări în ortografia limbii române: DOOM – 2005. Inventarul semnelor ortografice aplicate în limba română. (v. pagina 13 jos)

Cu toate acestea în Moldova prea puţin se face caz din ortografie, o problemă mai stringentă este denumirea limbii, sau supremaţia limbii române. De aceea poţi să observi că în ciuda faptului că curriculumul vorbeşte despre modificarea ortografiei limbii române - şi recomandă la clasă ca elevilor să le fie aduse la cunoştinţă modificările, - el este scris cu grafia veche. --Danutz 18:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dicţionarul ortografic al limbii române (ortopepic, morfologic, cu norme de punctuaţie)" (cel din care este scanata introducerea pe care ţi-am trimiso în comentariul anterior) este elaborat de Academia de Ştiinţe a Moldovei şi normal toate instituţiile din Republica Moldova trebuie să ţină cont de el când scriu în limba română. Şi la noi deciziile din DOOM 2005 sunt obligatorii în învăţământ şi actele oficiale. Aşa şi în Moldova. Deci decizia de folosire a literei â este natural obligatorie în învăţământ pentru că materia în şcoală se numeşte limba română şi nu moldovenească. În legislaţie situaţia e mai complicată, întrucât limba acolo este denumită moldovenească şi foarte rar română (într-adevăr sunt unele acte oficiale în care mai scapă denumirea de limbă română). Dar moldoveneasca nu este o limbă standardizată, ci este considerată de legislaţia republicii ca doar un nume pentru acelaşi fenomen lingvistic întâlnit şi în România: citat din legea privind concepţia naţională a Rep. Moldova: "Concepţia porneşte de la adevărul statornicit istoriceşte şi confirmat de tezaurul literar comun: poporul moldovenesc şi poporul român folosesc o formă literară comună [...]. Avînd originea comună, dispunînd de un fond lexical de bază comun, limba naţională moldovenească şi limba naţională română îşi păstrează fiecare lingvonimul/glotonimul său ca însemn identificator al fiecărei naţiuni: moldovenească şi română"

Precizez că prin "limba naţională moldovenească" se înţelege în contextul legii limba naţională din Republica Moldova iar prin "limba naţională română" se înţelege limba naţională din România. Lingvonim/glotonim înseamnă denumirea limbii.

Deci, având în vedere că limba moldovenească este doar un nume, atunci ea are aceleaşi reguli ortografice ca limba română. Şi atunci, având în vedere dicţionarul academiei de la Chişinău, trebuie folosit â.--Danutz

Kolkhoz in Romania

What is the name of kolkhoz in Romania?Xx236 12:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess that would be "Cooperativă agricolă de producţie", short "Cooperativă" -- AdrianTM 12:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the romanian Wiki doesn't inform about Cooperativă. Moldova has a number of Colhozes, eg. PUTI LENINA. Xx236 15:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Answered at my talk. Alæxis_¿question? 20:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Bessarabian Germans

Hi Dc76 & thanks for your comment.

I don't have any info on just how extensive the emigration from Bessarabia was but if I find anything that's relevant I'll let you know. I have two books about the Volga Germans generally, one in English and one in German -- but neither is very well organized or documented.

-- Sca (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Salut

Hi Dc76! About Anittas, I regret very much what happened to him, and I maintain that he was dealt with too harshly, and I intended to protest his indefinite block. However, he informed me that he has decided to leave Wikipedia, and that even if the block can be shortened that he is not interested in returning. I find his decision unfortunate, but that is his own choice.

As for Moldova, thanks for your offer of help. The article is in a rather sorry state, and I always had it at the top of my list but never quite got around to it. Indeed, there is much work to be done. I am trying to make the article follow the guidelines listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. As my model, I have other featured articles on countries, such as Belgium, Turkey, and Germany. The problem is that now there is little structure to the Moldova article and much random (and some inaccurate) information. Of course, if there is relevant data, I don't want it lost, so if it's just too detailed for the main article, it should be moved to the sub-articles. My idea for a schedule was to first create the skeleton of the article, meaning that only the sections from the Countries projects should be kept and rest integrated or moved. Then, all the sections need to be reworked, some to be expanded, others made more compact, others need sources (and most existing sources need to be changed to standard formats). Then, various issues of style need to be changed (i.e. to make the article pretty), which means finding some nice images, making the tables look nicer, etc. And finally, the article will need to be copy-edited and checked for errors. So if you want to help, it would be great if you could work on any of those aspects, or any other. See you around! TSO1D (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

About Elizavetovca, I'm not sure that this is not the official name. Looking at the webiste of the Moldovan Parliament, I found references to Elizavetovca, but not Elizaveta. Why do you think the latter is the official name? TSO1D (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Securitate

Hi - looks like a good initiative to start that list, and I'll try to see what I can do to work on making it better. I'm not quite sure what the right format would be -- probably some of the material can go back and forth from/to the respective biographies, and the "parent" article on the Securitate (as well as related articles). Before getting into the details, let me ask a question that is bound to arise: what about the personal data about those officers and leaders of the Securitate -- how much of that is necessary and/or appropriate in such a list? Such questions have been debated at length in the respective biographies, with much heat but not much light coming out. I personally think it's more important to get to the bottom of what happened, and describing in detail the mechanisms and structures of that repressive apparatus, than to get bogged down in what are, arguably, side issues of personalities. Don't get me wrong -- I still think it's important to analyze personal stories, and pinpoint individual responsibility -- but maybe that's best done in the individual articles, where one can hash out those details. In a list like the one you initiated (or in a similarly broad article), I would concentrate on the general themes, important connections, etc, keeping in mind readability, and organization of info in an easier-to-follow format. Now, one also needs some good sources for such a project -- it would be very good to have something there in a References and/or External links section, for other people to consult. Finally, about those pics: yes, it's always a source of frustration to not have enough available pics for articles. I tried uploading pics for a while, but my experience with that has been quite poor (many have been deleted), and I kind of given up on adding pics, till I understand what it really takes to have them accepted, say, with a >90% chance of success (right now, it looks more like 20%, or so). Turgidson (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Teohari Georgescu.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Teohari Georgescu.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dahn (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Dahn (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which: you certainly do not own the copyrights to most, if not all, the images you uploaded recently. I have to let you know that this is considered disruptive. Dahn (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dc76: as the template itself clearly states, the tag you added needs to specify a single article where the image can be used (because the image is considered fair use in there, not everywhere). You have to specify that article in the tag. I am not discussing if you were right to add that particular tag or if it being your reproduction matters, but note that the image will be or, at least, will have to be removed from each and every page where you placed it - except for the article you uploaded it for. Dahn (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my point. At the bottom of the template you used, you will find this: "This tag should not be used. Instead, use either one of the more specific tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use or {{non-free fair use in|article name}}" (where "article name" should be turned into "Teohari Georgescu"). I do not know why they still hold to the template, but note that the only alternative offered is "fair use of... in the article...". So, no, you cannot use it anywhere but in one article. Unless I'm mistaken, that category of templates also requires a low resolution for all pictures it is applied to (so that they cannot be reproduced for commercial purposes using wikipedia).

I ma open to the possibility that the original image is not actually copyrighted. However, we do not know this for sure (the law bluntly states that they aren't, and provides no exception), and, in all other such cases, the images uploaded were deleted or had to be taken to "fair use" instead of "uncopyrighted". Taking a photo of a copyrighted photo is also not a way to evade copyright - this may work for sculptures and buildings (and it does not apply at all in, say, Italy), but it is a very debatable tactic when it comes to images that can only look a certain way in every single photo. Had you taken of photo of the photo including a large part of the board it was on, I'm not sure it would have applied (I'm also not sure it would have qualified as a portrait of Teohari Georgescu). Dahn (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories

You can't move the categories; you can only change the text of the [category:xxx] wherever that appears in the individual articles. TSO1D (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mitropolia Chisinaului

Very good idea to use the official name. However, there is a small translation issue. In Romanian (Moldovan?) it's Mitropolia Chisinaului si a intregii Moldove. Should we put there a whole Moldova? I'll let you decide. Dpotop 20:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Moldo complaning about you, see WP:ANI

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ungurul Ungurul (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Crăciun

Un Crăciun şi un An nou fericit!--MariusM (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I wish you a very Merry Christmas for tomorrow. Hope it's a white one, with lots of sanie cu zurgălăi milling about. Turgidson (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

I wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  17:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --Ungurul (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Russian sentiment

Hi, Dc76. You made good proposals how to improve the article on Anti-Russian sentiment. Do you still consider to do this, because the article is still as bad as it was during AfD process? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.34.159 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Map of Moldova highlighting Anenii Noi district.png. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Map of Moldova highlighting Anenii Noi.png. The copy called Image:Map of Moldova highlighting Anenii Noi.png has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, bot. This sounds ok to me.:Dc76\^talk 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Just wanna say I appreciate your work, you're doing a very good job, keep it this way ! Rezistenta (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The first article of the Constitution says Moldova is independent. It's a fallacy to say that those who voted the Constitution didn't also vote the first article. Of course there was, but there was not a "complete destruction", and it's not more relevant than the opinion of the Moldovans in Romanian ruled Bessarabia which you deleted. Xasha (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Voting a Constitution whose first article you don't support puts in doubt your intelligence. It's quite difficult to define who's and who's not an "elite", so much more to put such a dire percentage. Also, it's not sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xasha (talk • contribs) 20:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try

I'll try to participate in the edits the following days. It's quite clear that Russians are now on the offensive (including on Wikipedia). So, it's going to be painful (remember Mauco and Anonimu?). Dpotop (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to say Russian editors are all bad. My concern is a small minority of editors, some of them not even Russian (like Mauco) including some guys that are paid to do this (I believe it). These are the most difficult to expose and oust, because it's their job. Dpotop (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, in what concerns the Union of Bessarabia with Romania, it's not always black and white. The guy seems to be right when saying that a Russian general sent in Romanian troops. However, the Romanian troops were there on demand from the Bessarabian government (albeit indirectly). And the assembly did vote the union with Romania, because there was no "Russia" left. There was only the Soviet Union. What I am trying to say is that the union decision is not smaller. Au contraire. The online book cited there is quite ond, but good reading. Dpotop (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources I cited (e.g. Moraru, Halipa book) say it was the MDR's foreign minister acting on behalf of the MDR's govnt. This one says the general Scherbatchev (perhaps my spelling is wrong). OK, we just mention both, but not one of them only. Also, the style "one white russian general" is a very red-communist style of writing. By the way, the same general, signed the union act, certifying the acknowledgement of Russia to the fact, if not to recongnizing it. About Soviet Union, it only was created in December 1922. Before, there was Soviet Russia with a Bolshevik (Bolshevik-Left SRs till July 1918) government. MDR voted union b/c they wanted it. Why they wanted is a longer story, there are several reasons, including the one that Russia disintegrated and plunged into civil war. But I claim it's not the main reason. At any rate, the reasons why they wanted union at most belong to Union of Bessarabia with Romania, not to Moldova or History of Moldova, which should be just very overview-ish. :Dc76\^talk 13:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		Milhist Coordinator election
		Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject election. I'm more than happy to serve the project for another six months! --Eurocopter (talk) 15:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Russian-Circassian War

Thanks for your support

Dc76/Archive 4: I wish to thank you for your support in my unsuccessful bid at becoming an Assistant Coordinator for the Military history WikiProject. Rest assured that I will still be around, probably even more than before, and I have the utmost confidence in the abilities of the current and new coordinators. I might also mention that I am already planning on running again in August. As always, if you need anything, just get in touch. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Biru

Isn't he an admin already? If not - go ahead, if you wish to condemn him to this horrible fate, I'm all for it... ;-) --Illythr (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I sorta thought he is. Well, never tried it either, but perhaps you can just use someone else's RFA as a template... --Illythr (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes made in good faith should be likewise corrected. --Illythr (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlike a real plane cockpit, Wikipedia's got this nifty "undo last change" button I so sometimes miss in real life... ;-) --Illythr (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course I still ardently support him being an admin. I have enormous respect for Biruitorul. I'll gladly join you in sponsoring him for another round of RfA. Last time, nearly all of the objections were (1) lack of experience (long since met, I'd imagine) and (2) that he said he was interested in fighting vandals but hadn't yet given many warnings (frankly, I could care less, but if I remember correctly he said at the time he'd follow up on that front). - Jmabel | Talk 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Err, shouldn't we inform Biru first of his impending doom? --Illythr (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's "vali na menya". ;-) So, uh, where do I sign? Can people vote for support when the nominee hasn't agreed yet? He accepted the last proposal, I see no reason for him to decline now. It was just a thought. --Illythr (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Did a little editing on the nomination, and added one paragraph of my own. - Jmabel | Talk 20:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, he will, now! (evil chuckle) --Illythr (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that Anonimu affair did put a stain on his standing. We really should have nominated him back in July, as I suggested (but totally forgot). I bet Ghirla will now vote "oppose" as well... As for Irpen and Mikka, they refer to this ("Moldova, Moldovan language") rally-like demarche by Dpotop. I understand his frustration, but what the hell was he thinking, providing people with reasons to believe that there's a Romanian Nationalist Cabal conspiracy on Wikipedia like that? Also, since Biru is, er, remarkably patriotic, their concerns about his impartiality are quite valid. This, however, was one of my reasons for supporting him. If Biru the admin does something that would even remotely look like nationalist POV in the mainspace, he can be desysopped pretty quickly, with "see, we told you!" from M&I. This makes adminship come with an effective killswitch for Biru so he will have to be even more impartial than before (no longer just in the mainspace). Devious, no? ;-) --Illythr (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, now that you mentioned it, I don't think what I'm doing amounts to crucifixtion. After all, crucified people tend to go to heaven and sometimes get whole religions worshipping them below. No, I have a far worse fate in store for Biru: to keep him on Earth, firmly chained to the Wall of Neutrality by the Shackles of Good Faith, slaving his life away as a cog in the Empire of Jimbo the Great. --Illythr (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why I enjoy talking with you, you never lose the sense of humor. :) Dc76\^talk 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent Moldova recategorization

Hi there! I saw that you merged three categories into Category:Government, institutions and politics of Moldova. Unfortunately, this goes against our well-established categorization structure, which through naming conventions divides those three categories. In addition, the optimal method of merging such categories is through WP:CFD. Thus, I've reverted your recategorization. Feel free to CfD the categories and test the community's opinion there! Best wishes. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo

Is Xasha Moldopupo? --90 1 AQ (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that you Bonny? -- AdrianTM (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, I was right! -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That was elementary, my dear Adrian! :-P Now, I wonder what 90 1 AQ means... Perhaps postal code of some sort? --Illythr (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

However I wonder about Xasha, it started to smell like Anonimu... I won't say it's him because he hasn't insulted anybody yet, but the way he uses circular reasoning and the way of dismissing sources that he doesn't like looks a lot like A, but most likely is somebody who has a similar approach to life rather then him... -- AdrianTM (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It is very unlikely to be Anonimu. It would be pretty weird to hear a sweeping statement about "those Romanians" from A. :-) Besides, he seems to have been genuinely unaware of 3RR. Of course, it could all be an evil plot, but I'd rather assume good faith as long as he responds and is not disruptive. And, to answer our friend from Corsica, he doesn't behave like Moldopodo either. None of the pathos. I'd like to speak in Russian with him... I have this little theory about people who insist on using "Вы" (=Dumneavoastra) on informal projects like Wikipedia or forums. --Illythr (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thou art (most likely) right. -- AdrianTM (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Moldova categories

I apologize for the delay, RL has been time-consuming as of late. The personal philosophy I have behind flagship categories like Politics of, Government of, etc. is that they should remain separate as long as there is one article in them. Now it's true that many of our countries do not have as many articles as the United States. I don't believe, however, in building a categorization structure according to what we have. I prefer building one on what we could have. To me, just because we don't have articles relating to a topic doesn't mean they don't exist. There are many facets of Moldovan government that we do not explain as sufficiently as we do for the United States, such as the judicial system and the members of the Moldovan parliament.

In addition, I prefer the separation of Politics and Government for technical reasons. The Government category should be about the government itself: the offices, the departments and ministries, the structure, the rules and procedures, etc. The Politics category should be about the political aspects of Moldova: politicians themselves, elections, political parties, scandals, political movements and philosophies, and anything of that nature.

Now, you mentioned some specific examples. You're correct about judges and the judicial branch; they do not belong in Politics sections since their jobs are not political. MPs were one, and the practice is to include the MPs themselves in both Politics subcats and Government subcats, since they are elected government officials.

Another philosophy that comes into play here is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Each of the categories is fine on their own, so we shouldn't try to change what's working at the moment. The naming conventions balance structure with room for growth, and ensure that no category will become unmanageable. I hope I've answered a few of your questions, but if not, please feel free to ask! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Image

How did you put an image on your page? AtomAtom (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, can't you leave Biru's RFA alone? He really doesn't need any more problems with it as it were... --Illythr (talk)

Clark

Not as much wrong, as opinionated. Sometimes rather vague in his research. And to use that nationalist flame as a conclusion, ugh. --Illythr (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Will reply in the evening, but that "flame" is actually used as a source in one of the "History of" articles. --Illythr (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here it is. Used as a source (al least correctly attributed, now) on Wikipedia [5]. --Illythr (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Union

Yeah, it chose to unite on its own free will, same as the Baltic state did, about 20 years later. The presence of foreign troops was really just a cultural influence... that prompted to change the council's opinion 180 degrees within a few weeks' notice. Meh. --Illythr (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Clark himself offers some detail about the process in his book that indicate that it wasn't all nice and fluffy. As for vote change - Moldova declared itself a constituent republic of Russia at first. Then, with Romanian forces on its territory, independent, and then, two months later - joined Romania. Take a look at ru:Молдавская Демократическая Республика. Rather Soviet POV, but a lot of interesting detail. --Illythr (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina

Then I wish you best of luck, and lots of perseverance. It is a very interesting, and almost totally unknown, topic, which can become a great article (or series of articles). Keep it up! Cheers, Cplakidas (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Biruitorul

"Buying votes" is a very loaded term and may hurt unjustly. If a mayor candidate promises to create more workplaces in the city, is this vote shopping or genuine concern for well-being? If Biruitorul promises to use more edit summaries with is edits, is this vote shopping or recognition of his drawback? Is their promise to not use his admin power in Romania-Moldova wikipedian wars if it will help to avoid possible tensions and accusations in taking sides possibly false but wasting everyone's energy - will it be a demonstration of goodwill or hypocrisy? Please notice that my vote of opposition (see its beginning) is not directly related to this promise. My opposition is related to my opinion that Biruitorul does not consider it in a proper way. I would understand if he started saying that no this promise would not help to defuse possible conflicts or that impartial admins are not much interested in this remote and not very important conflict area. Instead he chose to think in terms of himself, not in terms of wikipedia.

As you may know, I very rarely enter various wikipedia controversies. (I can list exactly 4 cases.) But I am starting to believe that Mikka's proposal has more merits than "admins open to recall" - The latter one is indeed turning into a "vote shopper tool", especially when people start putting various subjective conditions for recall and when recalled start wiggling out. Mukadderat (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"That's the law: church and state are separated. We have to abide by the law, even when we don't like it."

We have to abide, but we have right to protest and try to repel it. "Church and state are separated" may go to absurd level: shall French demand that a woman take off her hijab when she comes to the court of law to protest against forced marriage? ( Court is even more state establishment than a school) Mukadderat (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Biruitorul's RfA

For not owing a car? Dc76\talk 00:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the user should have made a judgement call and thought,"if I owned a car what would I do?" As an admin, do you want a user saying, "I don't know so then I will run away?" It may be harsh, but this question is one of the best to determine leadership and managerial skills. The answer given was the one of the worst I ever heard. I would not hire this user if this was a job interview, and therefore this user will not be given my support. Sorry if this is strong, but I believe it is inthe best interest of wiki.Thright (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)thright

Stick to what you know

Don't mess with topics you have no idea about. If you ever lived in Moldova, it's clear you missed a lot of geography classes. Nobody uses the outdated concept of "Northern Bessarabian Plateau" nowadays, and there's no "Northern Moldovan Plain" in Romania.Xasha (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And I suppose I also draw all maps that show those names. Dc76\^talk 05:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maps who use those concept were either made during Romanian occupation or by modern Romanian irredentists. Go ask a Moldovan 9grader, and you'll get a more correct idea of Moldova's geography than by reading the Wikipedia articles you wrote.Xasha (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what's your country, but it's certainly not the Republic of Moldova with the capital at Chisinau. If it would have been, you would have had a basic idea of its geography, but it's clear you don't. I don't support any ideology. All I want is to help building a reliable encyclopedia, not one based on some editor's nationalist dreams.Xasha (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

:muhahaha. If you had a real argument. .--Shook2008 (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC) perhaps Bonny

Here's to that

Awright! I'll sound the horn. I mean, unless it's like these guys used to do it :).

Dahn (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bălţi Plain

I have nominated Bălţi Plain, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bălţi Plain. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.--Moldopodo (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it :) - but i don't know much about the subject Dapiks (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ce s-a intamplat cu biruitorul? Si eu am avut ceva probleme cu Dahn pe un subiect legat de Moldova/Moldoveni/Limba Moldoveneasca - tot tacamul :) Dapiks (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Dc76, this is for your special efforts on behalf of Biru during his RfA. Though unsuccessful, your efforts on behalf of your friend were laudable and won my respect and admiration. For this I award you this Special Barnstar, which you very much deserve. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

600000

While I rather doubt that what amounts to nearly the entire population of the capital managed to stuff itself into a single street back then, it is quite naive to call them all "frontists". I wonder if even 1/100 of the participants really knew what the gathering was about. --Illythr (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, at that point I was indeed outside of Moldova for about two months. But you misunderstand slightly. Sure the people came "to defend their culture", "fight for the future", language etc, but I doubt that most saw beyond the pretty words. But yes, that action was a remarkable success, indeed. --Illythr (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I know you didn't. This makes you (and them) innocent and even likable. :-)

I'd say, the 10 commandments thing is pretty far beyond the line. At least, the line I draw.

As for harsh words - it's really my fault to say things without sufficient sourcing. It would be also very nice to find that collection by Lukianchenkova that Kolstoe mentions. --Illythr (talk)

Alas (or perhaps fortunately?), only mentions of them remain (google finds several, all I could find was the exact paper issue - the one published on 04.02.1992). I was able to find a similar masterpiece by a certain mr. Dabija following the same lines, though, focusing one the damage Russian (and Ukrainian) women have done to the purity of minds of their Moldovan husbands. He also builds an interesting table - which implies that Vasile Stati, for example, is such a bad, bad guy because his mother was Russian. --Illythr (talk)

Reply

I did not reverted your edit on that page. Moreover, I left you a relevant note on the discussion page. I am supposed to edit only articles I have edited before. If I were to believe you, I shouldn't have edited any article on Wikipedia, because I did not contribute until a month ago. This is a free Encyclopedia. When you create an article in my area of interest you have no right to prevent me from editing it. If you don't want others to edit it, write in in your personal blog. It was not a random tag, and it was fully explained on the discussion page.Xasha (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Mission Institute" and "propaganda department" are the same concept. Is just calling a spade a spade.

How should I call those immams who say muslims should destroy America and the Western civilization, "peaceloving"? What kind of scientist are we speaking of, those who say women where created from a man's rib?

The article is written from a personal point of view. No matter how mainstream a religion is, this is a scientific (i.e. laical) encyclopedia, and we should say clearly state whose opinions are those (Romanian Orthodox Church in this case), and not take those opinions as facts.Xasha (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And to show you how things should be done, here's[6] an edit by an user who says on the page of his username he is a patriot Romanian member of the Orthodox Church.Xasha (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Xasha is correct in that the article is very POV. Should someone report it to AFD it'd probably get speedied. As it does cover a relatively important topic, I would suggest a heavy dePOV, starting with "martyrs of the faith" in the title. Using exclusively Romanian sources doesn't hdlp the POV, too. --Illythr (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment: if the article would say "he is a martyr of the faith" that would be POV, it's not POV if the article says "According to Orthodox Church" that's correct attribution. Just like if you talk about Jesus it would be POV to say "he resurrected on the third day" but if you say "According to the Gospels, Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion" that's OK. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, that's what I'm talking about. Right now it's the "they're martyrs of the faith" version. I doubt those "researchers" mentioned are Buddhist nuclear physicists, either. --Illythr (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Batle of Cătlăbuga

Hi, i've just created this article and I saw it can be found on your to-do-list also. Unfortunately, my source (Giurescu) gives very little information regarding it. Take a look and maybe you'd be able to do some additions! Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

History of Maramures

Hi!

I love the idea of a page on this topic!

I just have a few questions, first of all, what are your sources? I notice there was no reference given. InFairness (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wondering

salut, just wondering, de unde esti? --serhio ^talk 09:28, 31 March 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 22:36, 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.

Tighina article

Hi there, I notice you were involved in the Tighina article, but haven't edited recently. Well there's a bit of a civilised discussion and vote going on, so take a look at the discussion page if you are still interested! Rapido (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll work this Moldova's map...

...dupa sfaturile tale. In cateva zile o voi plasa pe Commons si te voi instiinta. Spor la treaba ! Relativ la basarabenii de seama , ai cartea lui Iurie Colesnic ? Cu bine, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

De nada

Always a pleasure to help out. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Iurie Colesnic (Basarabia necunoscuta)

This book was edited in 1992, I had finded it in an antiques library in Chisinau.

S-ar putea sa se gaseasca si in Romania sau pe internet. In cel mai rau caz o pot xerocopia si ti-o pot trimite.

Ai observat ca am modificat harta voevodatului Moldovei asa cum m-ai sfatuit ? Am plasat-o in articolul detaliat History (fiindca în articolul principal Xasha nu m-a lasat s-o adaug (e cumplit de peremptorie aceasta persoana, iar eu nu doresc sa initiez un "razboi editorial").

Am vazut ca lucrezi bine. Ai fost la Memorialul de la Sighet ?

Best wishes, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)