User talk:MariusM/archive 1 27 august - 17 november 2006

Transnistria 1989 population
Hi Marius! You made some good edits to the text in the Transnistria article. However, one of the other editors would like you to please cite a source for the edit which you made to the 1989 population figure. The text itself is good, and we like your work; it is only the number which is being questioned. See the article's Talk page for more info. - Mauco 00:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Moldovan schools in Transnistria
Thanks for your contributions to this article. There are some style problems which you ought to correct. First of all, spelling. Second, the fact that the contents is currently "below the fold" now. This can be solved by adding a lead-in paragraph summarizing the article, and then having the contents box right below that. Third, you have a lot of placenames redlined, which can be avoided by using their monikers as they appear in Wikipedia. In case some are still redlined after you've converted the names, just start adding stubs. If you don't know how, I'll be glad to do a couple so you can see how, or else teach you. You should also consider shortening your subtitle which is currently a whopping fifteen words. - Mauco 02:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically, today there is no cultural life in cyrillic Moldovan. - You removed the tag from that sentence...? While it probably IS correct, the claim most certainly needs a credible source to back it up. --Illythr 20:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at the history at the article. The fact tag was added at the sentence "there are no newspapers or new books published in it" (in Moldovan cyrillic). It was not my sentence. I changed that sentence, as it is not true, showing that indeed exist one newspaper, state owned by Transnistrian separatist authorities, published in few hundreds copies, and also that separatist authorities published few textbooks for schools (in fact I didn't see any, but I heard about a book of Moldavian literature for schools by a mediocre writer from Chişinău, who found the opportunity to earn some money collaborating with Tiraspol). So, fact tag was correctly put at an untrue sentence, as I corrected the sentence no more need for this tag. There are thousands of newspapers or magazines in latin script (in Romania, even some villages have their own publication) and only one newspaper in Cyrillic with few copies; there are thousands of books printed every year in Latin script and in many years zero books in cyrillic (the Moldovan literature textbook is the single exception I heard in 16 years of Transnistrian separatism), so I believe that the sentence "Basically, today there is no cultural life in cyrillic Moldovan" is correct. What we can call "cultural life in cyrillic Moldovan" is entirely a creation of Transnistrian authorities (state-owned newspaper; textbook(s?) published by the state), and is too little to deserve the name "cultural life". Moldovans from Transnistria who want cultural life in their language read or write at Chişinău latin script publications - in fact there are some good Moldovan writers and journalists from Transnistria in Chişinău.--MariusM 23:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You didn't seem to understand my point. The sentence about "no cultural life" is a sufficiently serious claim to have a reputable source behind it. You don't have to explain the stuation to me - I talked to people from several Transnistrian towns and have come to believe that the Russian cultural life has all but displaced the Moldovan Cyrillic there. But you see, we both believe that it's the truth. That's not enough for Wikipedia. --Illythr 09:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I will try to find a refference. It may take some time, as I am overloaded with more important projects. There are also a lot of other things to do in that Moldovan schools in Transnistria article, watch it as I will make significant additions, but after some time.--MariusM 12:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly. Okay, I'll add the fact tag back then for now. If you have no objections to my changes in the history section, I'll introduce them into the article as well. --Illythr 22:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria
I`ve retired from Wikipedia. That was just a neccesary intervention. I can reccomend the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. Greier 17:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria, 2
Salut şi mulţumesc pentru mesaj. Trebuie să zic că nu prea-mi place să mă bag în conflicte din astea intensive cum e cel care se petrece acum pe pagina la care m-aţi referit dvs., mai ales că nu ştiu atât despre referendumul care se va desfăşura mâine (deşi m-aţi mai pus dvs. la curent). Plus că eu susţin planul Belkovski; vreau independenţă pentru Transnistria fiindcă ea n-a făcut niciodată parte din România (decât între 1941-4); România ar trebui să extindă 'de la Nistru pân' la Tisa' şi numai atât. Ştiu că sunt români în Transnistria dar ei eventual pot emigra în România întregită. În fine, articolul în sine e protejat acum dar când e de-protejat am să văd ce pot face ca să promovez un punct de vedere mai neutru decât există acum. Biruitorul 21:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Da, uitasem că planul Belkovski e un cal troian şi de ideea de monedă de schimb, dar şi aceasta are nişte probleme–cea mai mare fiind că (din câte ştiu eu) Ucrainenii nu au exprimat niciodată vreun interes într-un asemenea plan şi nici nu prea văd de ce i-ar interesa. În ceea ce priveşte Transnistria, eu aş zice că Nistrul formează o frontieră ideală–nu numai din punct de vedere istoric, dar şi fizic. Ar arăta cam urâtă harta României cu bucăţele de peste Nistru–e mai bine să avem un teritoriu compact decât să începem să arătăm ca Uzbekistan sau ca Kârgâzstan. Eu tot zic că o retrocedere la graniţele din 1939 e posibilă (da, domnule, şi Cadrilaterul e român!), iar faptul că ar fi teritorii majoritar ne-româneşti nu e o problema majora: deja îi tratăm relativ bine pe unguri, poate mai bine decât merită; ar putea sa emigreze din România Mare (a doua) dacă nu le place; şi mai sunt români de adus înapoi în ţara mamă ca să contracareze valul străin care va veni–în Transnistria, în Kazahstan, în Spania, Canada, SUA, Australia, etc. Oricum, când dezgheaţa articolul, mai fac şi eu ce pot la el. Biruitorul 22:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria, 3
Hello and thank you for your message. I've seen that you've already taken Greier's advice about posting at the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. Unfortunately, personally I don't think I could be of too much help, as I don't like disputes, and especially I hate disputes about sensitive subjects like Moldova or Transnistria etc. who tend to get into lenghty discussions, therefore I don't blindly get into them, sorry! --Vlad|-> 07:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm lysy. Bonaparte was my Romanian friend but he god blocked by Mikkalai. I'm from Poland. Noroc.


 * Hi, lysy. You made big changes to "Transnistria" article, in which you deleted even some information I was struggling to put in. Maybe it will be better to look at the talk page before making changes (and join the disscusion in the talk page).--MariusM 21:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * try to add Romanian language/Romanians there.

You should understand very quickly who is your friend. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJayjg&diff=76290960&oldid=76181939 Telex is not. He made an allert for Jayjg. Why? They will check you. If they can they will say your Bonaparte and you'll get blocked. Maucow is pro-russian, as well as Mikka and all the others. If you don't make yourself friends in the Romanians community you'll be isolated and blocked soon. Noroc.


 * How can they say that I am Bonaparte, if I am not? If IPs are stored somewhere, they can check that my IPs are not the same as Bonaparte's.--MariusM 21:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You are not talking to Lysy, you are talking to banned user:Bonaparte. The Romanian community is at the romanian wikipedians' notice board, not at open proxy IPs. `'mikka (t) 23:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Heaven of Transnistria
I run out of ideas, u can change whatever u want. EvilAlex 22:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

trust yourself

Cromwells Legacy
I deleted his comment because he's a sockpuppet of a banned user - banned users's can't edit. &mdash; Khoikhoi 23:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was Bonaparte, although he's hardly a "legend", more like a troll. Regardless of whether his comment was valid or not, per WP:BAN, "any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves". That's why I removed it. &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Cocieri
You can create good articles. Please do so. Simple factual detailed articles will be more useful than political essays. `'mikka (t) 23:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

De facto independence
I am sorry I replied somewhat late to your invitation to take part in a discussion you were having with William Mauco. I did add something, but I'm afraid that it is somewhat buried in the deluge of discussion on Transnistria's talk page. I also wanted to thank you for directing me to the account of events in Dubăsari on AlterMedia. I am currently trying to learn Romanian better and I would be very interested in the sources you mention. Thanks! Jamason 01:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Links on Transnistria
Before re-adding any links (my links, EvilAlex's links, or any other links for that matter), please let us give others a chance to decide on that ... not me, or you, or EvilAlex. In the meantime, to follow the example of FrancisTyer who succesfully solved the last edit war with EvilAlex six months ago, I am doing the same as he did back then: Removing all links (both those which EvilAlex added, and my own, too) until this issue can be settled with a broader discussion ... well, actually, I just took at look at the page, and I see that 90%+ of my links have already been removed by EvilAlex without warning and without any prior discussion. Anyway, the last few ones can temporarily go, too, until there is consensus. Now, to repeat, we are not removing links but trying to get an edit war past us. While the links are still in the main page, they will be added, removed, re-added, and so on, until infinity. We know this, because we have been through it before with your collaborator, EvilAlex. This is his style, as a look back at the logs will show. The only way to deal with such a disruptive situation is to do what FrancisTyer did, short of locking the page down again which is in no one's interest and which we should only do as a very last resort. I am attempting to solve this situation and I am using the only proven method which we know has achieved consensus in the past. Please respect that and please do not engage in an EvilAlex-style edit war, Marius. - Mauco 23:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Multumesc MariusM :) pentru ceea ce mi-ai scris pe email :). Este atat de bine ca avem acest link din stanga email this user astfel incat am luat contact asa de usor. Am gasit material foarte important. Mai multe putem continua pe email. Multumesc :) --Loganos 16:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sa-mi scrii numai pe romana. Nu vreau sa stie si altii ce vorbim. --Loganos 16:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Am votat asa cum ti-am spus si in email. De ce nu imi scrii?--Loganos 17:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Cine eşti?--MariusM 17:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nu ti-ai pus adresa de email inca. --Loganos 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Incriminating evidence, eh? ;-) (Just in case: I'm not serious here.) --Illythr 20:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently, it is (or rather was) Bonaparte... --Illythr 09:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nu-mi amintesc să-ţi fi trimis vreun email şi nici n-am primit vreun email de la tine.--MariusM 17:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Of, ce greu merge. Pune-ti odata emailul in preferences si activeaza-l odata. Mai vorbim pe urma. Spune-mi numai cand iti e activ.--Loganos 17:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Tiraspol Times
Hi Marius

thanks for that, well spotted

Simple, over 150 international observers were asked at a conference for their report and they announced that the referendum system was fine. This organisation you mentioned is the only one I know about that had an issue, just wish they has said so to us at the time so could check it out

keep in touch

Mark MarkStreet

Hi Marius

The threats were veiled threats that I'd rather not get into.

To be honest I reckon they were just to frighten us but we have an obligation to take them seriously

Since then I think we have been excepted as been as balanced as we can. But its impossible to please everyone.

The other matters will be discussed at editorial level to assess their merit at this time. But I see where you are coming from.

please keep me posted.

Tiraspol times has not voted for any site or link to be removed even though some clearly are full of malice towards us.. I Woild be grateful for more Pro Freedom of Expression support for all sites including TT on the wikipedia links.

Not sure if you voted to keep us or delete us, If the latter I would ask you for a reconsideration and change of vote if only on the basis we support freedom of speech to sites we disagree with and even abuse us for their own malicious reasons. and we have voted to retain these sites that abuse us in a dredful manner.

We believe evryone should have a voice and only ask the same right to speak in return

stay good

Mark

Henco
I actually think he's Bonaparte (he probably picked the username to mock William Mauco). If you'd like someone do to a check (with MarkStreet) go to WP:RFCU and follow the instructions there. Remember to mention which policy is being violated in order to get results. Cheers. &mdash; Khoikhoi 18:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that for vote fraud on ongoing vote I have to wait until vote is closed.--MariusM 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I recommend that you do it now, becuase if it turns out that there is sockpuppetry going on, the votes of the sockpuppets will be crossed out. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a report at


 * IMO, you would get better results if you posted it at Suspected sock puppets. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Done

Stuff
Hi Marius. I was wondering if you think I should be the mediator—please let me know what you think! Also, Tzekai is not the sockpuppet of Tekleni, but rather, his previous username.

Regarding Henco (who should be blocked): I'm glad you filed a checkuser. Gallenweekend may or may not be him. They way checkuser works is they compare the IPs. &mdash; Khoikhoi 05:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you participated at the dispute at that article, you reverted the disputed paragraph (you didn't revert me, but an anonimous user, but it was the same paragraph). I believe you should join the mediation as involved part, not as mediator. I didn't see your name in the list of the members of Mediation Comitee. I saw also that you registered at "Romanian Wikipedians notice board", I wonder if you have some Romanian roots or you speak Romanian. This can be considered as you are not a neutral person in this case (a Russian mediator will not be considered neutral also).--MariusM 11:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see what you mean. The anonymous user who I was reverting was in fact Bonaparte. As for my Romanian roots, my great-grandparents were Jews from Transylvania (my great-grandfather spoke fluent Romanian). I will participate in the discussion if I have the time. Ciao. &mdash; Khoikhoi 17:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)__

_____________________________________________

MARIUS

Marius,. I enjoy your observations and you clearly have somethig to offer.

Keep in touch.

I'm rarely am on this site. Just a passing interest.

Stay sharp, If you feel more comfortable please feel free to write in Romanian.

PLEASE IGNORE ABOVE COMMENTS

May I add that I have now reread the mentioned article and I cannot agree with your view as it borders on sectarianism. If have a problem with Moldova's Islamic links, that is really something that you will have to come to terms with. I cannot believe you would stoop to this.

The Islamic heirarchy presented me with a Koran a few years ago for my assistance in a hostage situation in Afghanistan. Hardly the track-record of anti islam journalist.

Most of my colleagues are award winning Muslim journalists

Also, I was also the President of a anti racism and cultural friendship association for which I was decorated at diplomatic level by the government of a prominent Islamic country..

Frankly, you are accusing me of spreading religious sectarianism.

You disgust me!

Mark

MarkStreet


 * The comment that disgusted MarkStreet so much (in his talk page):


 * MarkStreet, your online magazine pledge for 100% truth and accuracy, but it seems for me far away from this. I just look at a random article in Tiraspol Times: http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/news/kamenka_a_little_switzerland_on_the_dniester.html
 * Quote: "In contrast to Moldova, the territory on the left bank of the Dniester River was Christian". Of course, this is the propagandist line: East and West Bank of Dniester were always in contrast. Foreigners who know nothing about Moldova (target public of "Tiraspol Times") will believe that Moldova was islamic. In fact, Moldova agreed to pay taxes to Ottoman Turkey in Middle Ages, but Turks were not allowed to build any mosque in Moldovan teritory. Moldova was always Christian. Even in Wikipedia you can find those informations. What about your pledge for truth?--MariusM 15:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't understand why MarkStreet believe that I was accusing him of spreading religious sectarianism. In fact I was accusing him of not following the pledge of 100% truth and accuracy in his magazine, inventing unexistent "contrasts" between the two banks of Dniester.--MariusM 11:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie
Salut Marius. Mulţumesc că m-ai contactat. Eu ti-aş sfătui să nu începi procesul de arbitrare, fiind că este foarte birocratic şi în general ambele părţi pierd (Mauco totuşi nu a făcut nici o infracţiune gravă, şi din cauza asta cred că arbitrii nu vor să preia cazul). Încă un motiv este faptul că argumentul este despre un fapt şi nu despre conduita unui utilizator (adică, Mauco nu este acuzat de atac personal, ci de faptul că a scris ceva într-un articol ce alţi utilizatori nu acceptă). Cred că medierea este o cale bună de a rezolva problema, chiar o mediere informală. Îţi promit că eu am să fiu cu ochii pe pagină şi am să văd dacă se încalcă politica. În plus, o să încerc să văd cum se poate găsi o rezoluţie :) Dar cred că arbitrarea este o pierdere de timp şi nu va duce la rezolvarea disputei (ştiu că acum un an am avut diverse plângeri de la persoane care au fost tratate necinstit de arbitrii... nu ştiu cum sunt arbitrii aceştia noi, dar procesul este greoi). Ronline ✉ 11:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 12:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Mediation
Hello! This message is in regard to Requests for mediation/Transnistrian referendum, 2006. I'll be happy to help all of you out here, but first I've left an important message on that mediation page which requires your response. I would also appreciate it if you could watchlist that page so that we may facilitate discussion and communication. I look forward to working with you! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hey, I found this: User talk:TSO1D and took the liberty of replying to it. Hope you don't mind. :)

PS: If you're so sensitive about your email being discovered, follow my example - create a "spam-attractor" email address and leave it in places you consider untrustworthy (like online projects that demand email confirmation in order to participate). Use your main address only in personal correspondence with trustworthy people.

PPS: Why are you so upset at the possibility that specifically Mauco may discover your email address? He's not going to send you a logic bomb or death threats or something though it... --Illythr

Your tone
I think this is the proper place to discuss it. Anyways, using a language other than English on the en:wiki (except in the embassies) is discouraged, but usually tolerated if nobody complains (from my experience). Adding comments to the post of a person who prefers (and has always used) English can be seen as an attempt to prevent that person from understanding and responding to said comments, which is quite rude. Of course, I may have been driven paranoid by all these things - ,, (the latter part) - is which case I have to apologise for that particular issue. Still I think you should concentrate on William's message, not on himself personally, like you did here and in a plenthora of other places as well. Oh and on TTimes: from the way Mauco was presented there, it looks like that was his debut as a columnist. But even if he were proven to be a KGB agent, that would mean that only he himself is unreliable as a source, whereas his sources should be considered independently of his persona. --Illythr 14:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why Illythr added this on my talk page, after I answered to him on both Transnistria's talk page and his own talk page.--MariusM 09:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I believe that YOUR talk page is the proper place to discuss YOUR wiki activity. --Illythr 10:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems I'm not paranoid after all. Why did you do this? Surely, you know that infomation can't be deleted from Wikipedia so easily and are aware of how this looks. Imagine, what would've been your reaction if Mauco ever did something like this... Please, don't do it again. --Illythr 00:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Follow 3RR guidelines
The next time you report me for 3RR, I request that you let me know of this in advance or as you do so. This is how Wikipedia works best. I quote from WP:3RR: "If you report a 3RR violation here it is good form to inform the person you are reporting of this on their talk page and provide a link to this page WP:AN/3RR." When you omit this point, it may be seen by some as an indication of bad faith on your part. - Mauco 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Breach of WP:SOCK
This is to notify you that I consider your actions on Sheriff (company) to be in breach of WP:SOCK which is official policy of Wikipedia. Among other things, it deals with meatpuppets and states that meat puppets are treated similarly to sock puppets. They should not be solicited to circumvent things like 3RR restrictions which are in place for a reason. Quote: "It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate."

Nevertheless, you explained that you needed User:EvilAlex to delete a paragraph so that you wouldn't be caught for WP:3RR. Then, EvilAlex did as he was told with a misleading edit comment.

If you have a content dispute, please follow the steps in WP:DR and do not instead try to "solve" it by engaging in sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, or otherwise circumventing and disrupting Wikipedia. We are happy to have you as an editor, but whenever you try to game the system, you are really only making it worse for yourself and losing your goodwill with some of the rest of us here. - Mauco 02:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Mauco, you enjoy playing with meatpuppets . Don't pretend you are virgin. You are one of my teachers about how to work on Wikipedia, as I have little experience here.--MariusM 08:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The link which you provided is hardly evidence of any "meat puppetry" by any stretch whatsoever. It would take a truly creative mind to think so. Pleeeeese....  - Mauco 15:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Politician moderat :)
În primul rând, n-aş avea de ce să fiu moderat pentru a atrage voturi, fiind că eşti ales administrator pe viaţă... adică, deja ales admin, nu mai trebuie să mai trec prin alte alegeri în viitor. De multe ori mi-sa cerut din partea utilizatorilor români diverse acţiuni administrative, în general legate de pedepse precum "blochează-l pe ăla, ceartă-l pe ăla" etc. Numai pentru că eu sunt român nu îmi dă dreptul să încalc politica sau să aplic tratament preferenţial. Cererea ta de 3RR nu poate fi aplicată fiind că Mauco nu a violat politica. Nu a făcut un "revert" de trei ori, doar a readăguat paragraful care l-ai şters tu, şi l-a schimbat de fiecare dată. Efectiv nu aş avea ce să îi fac. Mai ales în contextul în care tu l-ai rugat pe Alex să facă revert fiind că tu nu mai aveai voie, este necinstit să îl blochez pe Mauco. În sfârşit, nu cred că aceste cereri, sau critici precum "este vandal rus propagandist KGB-ist" vor ajuta cauza ta, fiind că imediat sunt văzute ca o strategie straw man. Ronline ✉ 09:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Rugămintea către Alex era după ce făcusem raportul 3RR, pentru a repara ceea ce Mauco stricase încălcînd 3RR. N-am folosit la adresa lui Mauco expresia "vandal rus propagandist KGB" ci doar "Vandal care refuză medierea", ceea ce e corect dat fiind că refuză medierea la Transnistrian referendum, 2006 (şi la acest articol am folosit expresia).--MariusM 09:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Faptul că l-ai rugat pe Alex să facă revert este o formă de "meatpuppetry". În principiu n-am nimic cu aceste acţiuni, este OK să ceri ajutor de la alţii, dar şi "varianta ta" a paginii a fost revertată tot de patru ori în acest fel. OK, scuze cu chestia despre "propagandist rus", dar chiar şi acuzaţia de vandal nu este acurată. Este doar un utilizator normal, cu o altă viziune decât a ta. N-am văzut până acum nici un semn de "incivility" sau de proastă purtare din partea lui, şi din această cauză nu cred că merită tonul în care îl descrii. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 09:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Tu nu prea ai avut treabă cu el, mai mult eu am vut astfel de dispute. Aş putea găsi exemple de metode incorecte ale lui Mauco, inclusiv de strategie straw man, dar ar dura timp şi mă întreb dacă merită. La urma urmei nu vorbim de comportamentul general a lui Mauco ci de 3RR violation. Dacă eu aş fi în situaţia lui, m-ai apăra?--MariusM 10:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Da. Dacă cazul ar fi fost exact invers, şi Mauco ar fi făcut un raport împotriva ta pentru 3RR, aş fi avut aceaişi opinie. Dar nu ştiu dacă este corect termenul de "apărare", eu nu îl "apăr", doar că nu îl tratez necinstit. Uite aici este părerea lui Bobo192: . Se pare că este un caz dificil. Am mai întrebat încă doi administratori. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 10:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Transnistria
Ah, well I see you and Mauco are discussing it right now, so I guess I should leave it to the experts. ;-) BTW, do you want me to protect Grigore Mărăcuţă? I'd love to try out my new admin powers... &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please define "consensus"
In this deep rollback your log statement claims that "there is a consensus about this paragraph, only 2 editors against". Please define consensus for me. I am one of those two, and I don't see dozens of others piling up to support the other side either. In terms of who is vocal, it looks more like 2 against 2, of course provided you don't start shopping for votes. Please use language responsibly. - Mauco 22:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Noul 3RR
Nu îţi reproşez pentru 3RR-ul nou, deşi nu cred că este exact la fel ca şi primul caz Mauco. Mai problematică, totuşi, este colaborarea ta cu EvilAlex (mesaje secrete care sunt apoi şterse, încurajându-l să facă şi el revert, etc) şi tonul tău relativ ofensiv faţă de Mauco. Ştiu că ai încercat să rezolvi cazul diplomatic, dar totuşi el niciodată nu a făcut asemenea de lucruri. N-am blocat pe nimeni, dar cred că sistemul 3RR nu este eficace pentru a rezolva problema, fiind că este prea tehnic şi punitiv - efectiv, mi-se pare că încercaţi fiecare să vă raportaţi şi să vă blocaţi, fără să existe dialog şi consens. Sunt şanse că amândoi, tu şi Mauco, să fiţi blocaţi de alt admin. Eu n-am să recomand, în orice caz, blocarea, dar punctul meu de vedere personal - îl scriu aici în română, deci nu are cum să fie "politicianist" - este că Mauco avea motive mai valide pentru a cerea blocarea ta sub 3RR. Ronline ✉ 10:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dacă nu ţi-ai dat seama, avertismentul pentru tine şi EvilAlex nu a fost pentru încălcarea 3RR ci pentru conduita voastră. Am spus foarte clar că în cazul 3RR, ambele părţi ar trebui blocate dacă vorbim despre blocare - adică, şi Mauco este vinovat în felul lui. Deci nu îmi încalc atribuţiunile - de fapt, aş avea dreptul să aplic o blocare pentru 3RR, dar nu am blocat pe nimeni. Lui EvilAlex nu i-am dat warning pentru 3RR ci pentru conduită. Iar Mauco până acum nu a făcut nici un atac personal şi nu a avut un ton ofensiv. Pe de altă parte, voi l-aţi criticat mult mai tare şi aţi făcut planuri "strategice" pentru a "câştiga lupta". Eu nu îl vreau pe EvilAlex blocat - pe nimeni nu vreau blocat - dar conduita sa nu este satisfăcătoare. Cât cu limba română - da, sunt de acord cu tine că ai dreptul să scrii în această limbă. Doar şi eu îţi scriu înapoi în română. Problema este că ai scris mesaje în română care după aceea le-ai şters şi le-ai înlocuit cu alte mesaje, ori în engleză ori în română, ca să nu fie atât de uşor de văzut că colaboraţi (tu şi EvilAlex). Dacă eraţi deschişi, atunci dece aţi înlocuit mesajele? Bineînţeles, pe mine nu mă interesează ce faceţi cu pagina voastră de user, şi nu te trag la răspundere în niciun fel pentru că ai şters mesajele, dar nu cred că atitudinea voastră chiar a contribuit la rezolvarea disputei. Ştiam foarte bine despre mesajele dintre tine şi Alex, dar nu am vrut să le menţionez (nu cred că sunt un lucru bun pentru voi). [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 12:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comentarii politicianiste ale lui Ronline. I-a dat warning lui EvilAlex dar acesta probabil habar n-are de asta (nimeni nu l-a informat şi nici nu s-a făcut raport contra lui, ce să mai zic de drept la apărare). Colaborarea constructivă pentru o bună editare a articolelor şi anularea efectelor încălcării 3RR de către Mauco (în condiţiile în care administratorii refuză să ia atitudine) e considerată infracţiune.--MariusM 23:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Moldavia/Romania on the Dniester Left Bank
It's clear from Magocsi's work (and it appears Mauco agress with it as an authoritative source), that Romanians predominated on the Dniester left bank as "late" as 1900. (We'll leave the debate on whether Moldovans are Romanians for another time, they are after all, and as far as I can tell the only differentiation was part of some Soviet plot.) However, so far, I have not come across corroboration of historical Moldavian administration in the Trans-Dnjester. I don't doubt the veracity of your source, but it's not been a topic of wide scholarship. If we're going to discuss historical claims in the territory of the PMR, then: (1) Kievan Rus is definitely out (so "Russian back to ancient times" is totally bogus), and (2) it should be done on the basis of historical ethnicity for which there is an excellent case. On a related topic, sadly, because of Moldova's extremely poor economic condition, any reunification with Romania seems unlikely for the forseeable future. That would be a move into mainstream Europe which would be far more attractive than Russia to those currently stuck in the PMR.—Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

First PMR Supreme Soviet and first PMR government
Do you have a complete list of first PMR Supreme Soviet and first PMR government, with biographical data of the members? I want to make a study regarding how many natives were part of PMR leadership. After last elections, based on http://www.vspmr.org/?Part=6, the situation is: 15 out of 43 are natives (12 from Transnistria and 3 from Bender-Chiţcani area), 3 don't have the birth place mentioned, the rest came from other places of Soviet Union. I would like to check if this situation - the majority of Transnistrian leadership is not native from Transnistria - was the same or even more clear at the begining of PMR. You mentioned in your thesis the speech against "newcomers" of an anti-PMR political leader, I wonder if this remark is not factually correct.--MariusM 19:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Marius. I do have a complete list of the deputies to the first PMSSR Supreme Soviet, but unfortunately not the biographical data in which you are interested. I am hoping, however, to get a research fellowship that would allow me to travel to Moldova/PMR this summer. I will be trying to gather exactly this sort of biographical data. If we are still in contact I will share results with you at that time. Of course, I clearly don't agree with you that large numbers of non-natives would necessarily make the PMR itself illegitimate (not that I necessarily think it is legitimate, either, though). Here are their names:
 * N. Shestakov; A. Efanov; V. Sheremetenko; G. Pologov; Iu. Svishchev; I. Mil’man; O. Zapol’skii; V. Kogut; Iu. Levitskii; V. Kharchenko; F. Dobrov; O. Orlov; V. Finagin; V. Diukarev; S. Pokotilo; A. Belitchenko; N. Chegurko; B. Akulov; V. Voevodin; N. Bogdanov; V. Arestov; V. Emelianov; A. Morozov; An. Bol’shakov; V. Volkova; A. Saidakov; S. Moroz; V. Ordin; V. Zagriadskii; A. Manoilov; V. Potashev; Al. Bol’shakov; V. Iakovlev; V. Charyev; V. Ryliakov; P. Zalozhkov; I. Smirnov; A. Donnik; S. Leont’ev; B. Bodnar; I. Tsynnik; V. Peretiatko; V. Kozhukhar’; S. Sokolov; G. Marakutsa; V. Khlystal; G. Evstratii; G. Podgorodetskii; V. Gonchar; M. Malai; Iu. Zatyka; A. Salamandik; V. Baboi; N. Ostapenko; V. Balyka; M. Kirichenko; A. Bulychev; V. Labunskii; V. Karamanutsa; A. Karaman; N. Mitish; V. Efimets; V. Zadir. (Viktor Emel’ianov, Za rodinu i prava cheloveka: desiat’ let bor’by pridnestrovtsev za svobodu pod znamenem OSTK, 1989-1999 gg. (Tiraspol’: Tipar, 1999), 10.
 * Best wishes, Jamason 00:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Raspuns
Pai tot sunt separati, in paranteza. Insa cetatenii trebuie clasati pe state (Rusia, Ucraina, Belarus, ..., Moldova). Iar (deocamdata) Transnistria nu e o tara separata de Moldova. Iar daca tu voiai sa arati ca sunt mai multi alogeni, tot sunt mai multi (9+8+2+1+1=21). :) Dpotop 05:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

article Transnistria
Vrei sa-mi spui ceva? Spune-mi exact care-i problema in articol, caci:
 * 1) articolul e lung si sunt o sumedenie de modificari mici de facut (vrigule, sintaxa, etc)
 * 2) ma doare capul sa citesc toate neghiobiile de pe talk:page-uri
 * 3) articolul este in disputa
 * Iata o lista de probleme pe care le gasesc eu:


 * Its de facto independence has not been recognized and the sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention.
 * It was never the issue to give transnistria sovereignity and not give independence. One side requieste both, the other - refused both. It would be better to say:

''Transnistia de facto independence is not recognized by any country. Its status is an issue of contention.''


 * In addition to Moldovan: Република Молдовеняскэ Нистрянэ, there must also Romanian: Republica Moldoveneasca Nistreana, since it IS used in this form with the prefix "the unrecognized", or "the self-proclamed" in the Republic of Moldova.


 * Pridnestrovie does not mean "beyond the (river) Dniester", but "Near Dniester" e.g. in a geographic sense Lviv in Ukraine is also Pridnestrovie, because of the water basin.


 * Transnistria is internationally considered to be part of the Republic of Moldova, and previously part of the Moldavian SSR, but has declared independence as the Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublika or Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR), with Tiraspol as its capital. transnistria is considered previously part of ... - this is non-sense in English. It is very well known what it was in the past, noone has to consider it.


 * Despite the Istanbul Agreement of 1999, Russia failed to fully withdraw its troops from Transnistria, although the Russian contingent has been reduced to approximately 1,500 troops, with 360 of them being part of the peacekeeping efforts of the Joint Control Commission created jointly with Moldovan participation. must have troops and weapons - that is what Istanbul agreement states, and what Moldova requires.

this is only the begining. I don't have time to do this for the whole article. And anyway, every word of mine would generate polemics from Makkalai just because it is from me. So, unless someone from outside eastern europe edits it, it will be eternal edit war for this article. We must ask for someone from outside to actually take time and edit it, and ask questions on the talk page when he/she needs info:Dc76 20:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

About Transnistria article
Hi, I would like to comment about how Transnistria article are going. I don’t know about your opinion yet, but for me it seems like the article (as the same way as is happening in other Transnistrian-related articles) is being almost fully controlled by two pro-Putin users that are behaving like “mini-dictators”. Don’t you think they should be reported to Wikipedia/Wikimedia higher authorities about this?--MaGioZal 22:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am a relatively new user. Please, tell me who these two bad users are, so I can avoid them on other articles. I disgust confrontations, and the last I want is to argue with people who will never ever give up an inch even if God himself will show them wrong.:Dc76 00:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dc76, take a look at Transnistria’s page and see with your eyes. I think I don’t even need to say the names.


 * MariusM, I’ve been reading and editing Wikipedia articles for some time, but I thnink I still don’t understand all the mais processes of arbirtration here. What I do more often is really just edit and eventually discuss something at talk pages. But anyway, I’ve browsed through Wikipedia and found the following pages:


 * Village pump
 * Help desk
 * Association of Members' Advocates
 * User talk:The Thadman
 * Category:AMA Requests for Assistance


 * Maybe one (or more) of them could get some light on theses current problems. Anyway, another alternative was to directly make a question to the talk page of someone from Wikimedia Board of Trustees (Florence Nibart-Devouard, for exemple), but I don’t know if is this a right way to do so.


 * Anyway, I hope I had help you somehow! Any news, contact me. Best regards.--MaGioZal 01:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see only William Mauco as biased, who is the second?


 * I support your quest for more arbitration. Maybe we can find more users from other parts of the world and help each other? For example, we can arbitrtate in their issues, and they in ours. Or if not to arbitrate, to get support from such users. They are more likely to suggest constructively if something is POV, and then we can be more strict and principial when biased users like William Mauco rufuse to listen to the other side.:Dc76 01:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation in Transnistrian referendum
Hi, Jamason. I know you have some influence on Mauco. Can you please convince him to accept mediation for the article Transnistrian referendum, 2006? A RFM was filed in 4 October, Mediation Comitee accepted to hear the case, Mauco is the only one who shows a disruptive behaviour refusing mediation. Thanks in advance.--MariusM 12:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Marius. Thanks for the invite. However, I have to decline. First, I looked over the dispute and I don't know the issue well enough to make any meaningful contribution. Second, it would take me hours to read all of the discussion that has already gone back and forth. Finally, I usually try to stay away from anything that didn't take place in 1989-1992. Edit what you know is my motto. Good luck. Jamason 15:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Bolohoveni
If you look, you'll see that the nominator brings up the issue that the article was unsourced and might include false information. Not a single one of the users wanting to keep the article made any attempt to rebut that argument, while several of those wanting deletion agreed with it. These are discussions, not votes. Mango juice talk 00:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Răspuns la Probleme cu 3RR
Salut Marius! Iarăşi mă pui în situaţii dificile! Da, într-adevăr Mauco a încălcat legea 3RR în cazurile unde ai făcut raportul. Dar trebuie să înţelegi un lucru: editwar-ul între voi este unul care se întâmplă între ambele părţi, şi sincer să fiu, n-aş putea să spun că o parte se comportă mai bine decât cealaltă. Din această cauză, nu am cum să îl blochez pe Mauco, mai ales că evenimentul deja a trecut, şi 3RR-ul este o acţiune preventativă nu o pedeapsă. În continuare, eu tot cred că acţiuni de tip "mediation", cum se întâmplă la Sheriff (company) sunt cea mai bună şansă de a realiza ceva. Ţelul aici nu este să câştigi în lupta cu Mauco, dar să avem o enciclopedie mai bună. Adică, când eşti într-un conflict cu Mauco, în loc să încerci să îl pedepseşti (prin blocare) încearcă să rezolvi problema (prin discuţie). Încăodată, nu vrea să crezi că eu cumva ţin cu Mauco, sau îl "apăr", dar - sincer - înţelege că ar trebui tare mult să mă justific pentru a aplica un block unilateral. Un motiv este faptul că iarăşi EvilAlex la "provocat" pe Mauco să încalce 3RR-ul (este iarăşi un caz de "2 to 1", care nu este complet cinstit). Vorbeşti de un "dublu standard", dar atunci dece niciun administrator nu l-a blocat? OK, hai să zicem că "ruşii" nu l-au blocat, că e "de-al lor" (deşi administratorii care au comentat la 3RR sunt toţi foarte competenţi în acest domeniu). Dar chiar nimeni nu a recomandat un block... Încă un lucru: n-ai frică că nu o să primeşti ban pentru încălcarea 3RR-ului, cât timp Mauco nu a primit. Fiind că este o dispută destul de activă, niciun admin cred că nu va bloca o parte fără să nu o blocheze şi pe cealaltă. Bineînţeles, ar fi foarte bine dacă nu s-ar mai întâmpla aceste probleme de 3RR. Şi încă un lucru - văd că cineva a răspuns la comentariul tău de pe Romanian noticeboard în genul "daca ne lasam oamenii blocati de ei". Nu ştiu dacă şi tu împărtăşeşti aceleaşi puncte de vedere, dar aş vrea să subliniez că Wikipedia nu este scena politică! Aici nu sunt "oamenii noştri" şi "oamenii lor", sau "ăsta e omul meu"; nu este un război sau o bătălie care trebuie câştigată, ci o enciclopedie care încercăm să o scriem într-un mod neutru şi cât se poate de informativ, şi dacă putem să promovăm România în acest fel, tot mai bine (deşi nu ştiu cum articole despre Transnistria sunt bune pentru imaginea României). Ronline ✉ 23:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Lasa, lasa, du-te la gayii tai mai bine, n-avem nevoie de admini tradatori. Bonaparte


 * 1) Ce are asta cu "gay-ii"? 2) Colaborarea la articole pe teme LGBT şi la articole româneşti/promovarea României sunt mutual-exclusive? Case closed. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 10:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Acţiunea lui Alex nu a fost pentru a strica legăturile, ci pentru a arăta versiunile revertate, fără diferenţe. Deci, sunt două feluri în care poţi să arăţi istoria unei pagini: "difference between versions" view, care au fost legături tale, şi "version view", în care vezi o versiune a paginii. Prin adăugarea ";" în diff-uri, nu se mai vede schimbările, ci doar starea versiunii la care a revertat Mauco. Este deseori mai uşor să compari versiuni în acest fel, fiind că le încarci pe toate cele patru versiuni în browser şi te uiţi la ele pentru diferenţe (view-ul de "differences" este destul de complicat). În orice caz, n-aş zice să acest lucru a fost neapărat bun, dar nu aş crede că Alex a făcut această acţiune pentru a strica link-urile (fiind că efectiv link-urile nu au fost rupte, doar s-a schimbat view-ul). [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 01:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Renewal
Hey Marius. By the time I saw your comment, it appeared to have already been protected. BTW, regarding this, please try to say cool. :-) I've been in similar situations (and I understand your frustration!), but remaining civil is always the best thing to do. La revedere, Khoikhoi 05:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Question
Please let me know if you are still involved in the article Sheriff (company) or you quit the attempt to solve the dispute. Thanks.--MariusM 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know what to tell you, Marius. The dispute comes down to a single paragraph. You said yourself that you don't dispute three of the sentences, and the fourth sentence is well-supported with links. Yet you want a revert back to the version you reverted to immediately before the page was protected. I'm not sure you know what a compromise is, and it is difficult to mediate a dispute in such a case. Firsfron of Ronchester  01:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Marius
Marius, at times you remind me of an angry cat chasing his tail. Sometimes like the cat you stop for a rest and then you start again, You are getting nowhere, I have an idea, perhaps you need to work more closely with us in a positive and constuctive way to make the edits more factual and helpful ? what do you think?. Mark us street Nov 13 2006

Concerning Sheriff
I just wanted to briefly apologize to you if my immediate comments concerning your comments on my compromise piece seemed rude. That was not my intention. I was merely somewhat frustrated that you simply struck out everything I had done, which was well sourced.

My intention was not to ignore your sources, I merely went through and grabbed a bunch of sources and rewrote the article pretty much from scratch. I apologize for somehow missing the sources which support your view. They do seem to be overwhelmed. But that does not mean that your sources (which do include the BBC, a rather reliable source) are wrong. This viewpoint should be mentioned as well as the others.

I have rewritten my compromise piece, to include your sources as well. Please, have a look, and let us know what you think on the talk page over there. But, please, do not strike out entire paragraphs simply because you disagree with them. If it's a minor wording issue, by all means reword it within the constraints the cited sources allow. If there is a source or two you find to be unreliable, feel free to comment on that and strike out the lines which are sourced only by said unreliable source. But, I spent a lot of time finding multiple sources where I could to cite every sentence in the article. There should be no reason to strike out any line which cites more than one source.

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, but please, be civil, and do not maintain this silly edit war. Let's all compromise here to make the best, most factually accurate article we can on this topic. -- Pepsi2786 06:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sheriff
Hi Marius,

Thanks for your nice explanatory note on my talk page. This was exactly the sort of thing I was requesting from the beginning. I will take a closer look tonight, and respond; please be patient. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  20:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. I've left some comments on the talk page. I understand that you wanted the paragraph removed entirely. I have proposed a compromise sentence. If this is still unacceptable, let me know. Firsfron of Ronchester  16:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)