User talk:Pernambuco

Toy trains, Brazil
I saw the toy trains page but would like to know if there are users who have specific information about Brazilian made toy trains? - Pernambuco 04:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

USS Edison
Do you have a source for the June 1969 friendly fire incident you added to the USS Edison article? I'd like to be able to cite it.--agr 23:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I already sent it (two days ago) directly to you. Hope you liked it. Always glad to help. - Pernambuco 03:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert
Could you please revert yourself here. I want it, Marius wants it, and neither of us can do it because of the 3RR. Check the article's talkpage. --Tzekai 16:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * DON'T DO IT YET. SEE THE TALK PAGE. MAYBE SOME OF THE OTHERS HAVE AN OPINION. WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT BELONG ONLY TO TWO PAGE. EVERYTHING SHOULD BE DISCUSSED FIRST OR ELSE THERE ARE 3RR PROBLEMS. - 88.191.12.12 16:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. A third party opinion is always a good idea. I can not give an opinion because I really don't know enough about the subject. I just didn't want to see edit warring. I will try and research it so in the future I will know more. - Pernambuco 17:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You might want to keep an eye on this page again. The same person who edit-warred yesterday has already done two reversions and has failed to answer my arguments in Talk. I am not asking you to take sides but merely mention this because you intervened in the dispute yesterday and now it looks like a repeat of the whole thing is brewing... - Mauco 16:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No reason for me to get involved again because I see on the talk page of that article that some of you know a lot more about this subject than me. When I have time I want to try to learn about it but meantime please all of you could try to work it out among yourselves. - Pernambuco 18:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I accept your position but now for the third day in a row the same person is at it again. He has already been reverted by 3 other editors, but he keeps pushing his paragraph. Someone like you, who is an outsider with a cool head, could do a lot to sort things out. Just consider it. - Mauco 15:43, 2 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? ) 00:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * what is going on with this, has it been cancelled, is there anything I can do to help or what? Pernambuco 23:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria
I didn't understand your intervention in Transnistria's talk page. You reverted relevant info. See talk page of Transnistria, info is confirmed even by official Transnistrian sources. Reverting relevant information you did also in Transnistrian referendum, 2006, where neither me or Tekleni asked your intervention. Now we are blocked in a mediation where the same POV pusher like in Transnistria article refuse to accept. Please discuss in talk page before reverting. I would apreciate if you will revert yourself in Transnistria.--MariusM 01:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not want to take sides. My edit was the same kind that I used in the other page. I just moved it all. That way, you can agree in the "talk" section. and it will not affect the main page. If you need me to help you decide then I can do it. but I try not to get involved otherwise. - Pernambuco 03:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In the other page your edit was bad also (and at the same side, you removed a paragraph that Mauco want to be removed). The problem is: did Mauco have "veto" rights in Transnistria related articles? If he simply is not agreeing with the obvious, should we accept to hide relevant info? As you know, I asked a formal mediation with him, in 2 cases  but he did not agree with it also. I don't know what to do.--MariusM 11:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, if I may give my side of the story. Regarding the paragraph which you moved: There is still no consensus, and the debate is ongoing in Talk. Someone who is a selfconfessed editwarrior (a user who calls himself "EvilAlex") is now helping MariusM add it back in, so that they can skirt 3RR ... which is a similar tactic that they have used in the past, in this and other pages. I am not asking for my version to be reinserted, but merely to keep the disputed sentence out of the page until consensus is reached. This is something which MariusM also considers to be a valid principle, in fact as recently as yesterday. I have a serious concern on the accuracy of the source which I have documented in Talk:Transnistria. - Mauco 18:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me think about it. - Pernambuco 19:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Mauco is agreeing with the principle "keep disputed paragraph out" only when it fits his interest. In the same article where I asked to keep the disputed paragraph out he reverted me --MariusM 20:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Both of you are hot heads. Chill out. Don't call each other names. - Pernambuco 06:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Mediation
Hi there, I have just taken on the Northern Ireland case as a Mediator. If you approve of me to be the mediator, reply here, and state whether you like public or private mediation. Thanks,  ¿¡Exir  Kamalabadi?! Join Esperanza! 23:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * O.K. Looking forward to working with you. - Pernambuco 00:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Europe
You made a "support" comment that sounded like you were agreeing that we should rename the template, but it was in the section asking if there was consensus for various code-formatting changes unrelated to the template's name. I moved your comment up a section so that it appears in what I think is the intended place. Please revert me if I'm wrong! Thanks. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 02:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Mediation 2
Seeing as the Northern Ireland page is pretty stable (see some of the involved user's explanation on the mediation page, most notably the last comment), I would like to ask whether you think the problem has been already solved, and should the mediation case be closed. Thanks.  ¿¡Exir  Kamalabadi?! Join Esperanza! 04:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the minority should have a chance to get their voice heard. If they insist on mediation then I support that mediation should continue. To "give them their day in court" if you know what I mean. If not, then they will have a bitter memory of Wikipedia after they leave in disgust. - Pernambuco 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the case is like this: Now, most of the parties agree to stop mediation, because they say they are pretty happy with the current situation. They think the problem has been solved. I would like to ask whether you are also happy without mediation. If you are not, Mediation continues. -- ¿¡Exir  Kamalabadi?! Join Esperanza! 00:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I am easy to please: I am happy without mediation. Just one thing: You say "most of the parties agree to stop mediation". They sticking point is the word "most". If one single person still wants mediation, it means that I will side with him or her and will prefer mediation to continue. This is only fair. However, if no one else wants it then I do not want it either. If my meaning is not clear; I can explain it better. - Pernambuco

Mors
Hi, no problem about the "one of the world's best". I've probably made several similar mistakes before I read the Wikipedia guidelines on the matter. Regards, --Pappa 10:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am glad that you take my edit correction in the spirit that I intended it. Still friends!!! We all make mistakes from time to time. I will keep correcting yours when I spot them. It is great to know that you don't mind that. - Pernambuco 22:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: WC
I was thinking the exact same thing. Note that there's currently a thread about him at WP:AN/I. Khoikhoi 21:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re Template:Countries of Europe
Hi Pernambuco,
 * ''David, there is a debate on which entities to include in the template. See talk page Template:Countries of Europe. The dispute is contentious which is why this page is currently protected. We are currently in the middle of seeking to work out consensus...

Apologies; my impression was that a consensus to remove any and all territories that were not standalone countries recogniz/sed by the UN was established some days ago. I'm about to create Dependent and other territories of Europe as a consequence (thence Dependent and other territories of X).


 * ''However, your edits today can appear a little "dictatorial" (if you don't mind the word) because they come in the middle of a controversial discussion and you did not participate in the discussion...

I believe I did...?


 * ''...so it does not appear that you are the only one who have a say in this particular template. You should also participate in the current, ongoing discussion in Talk.

I'm surprised that it appears to you as if I am the only one to have a say in this (or indeed the other related) template/s... Do you start reading from #This and similar templates' names...? Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ''Yes, but you left the discussion right when it was heating up. After the page got full protection, we did not see you again. It is still ongoing. Many important points have been raised since then. It has several editors involved and one of the participants (Wissahickon Creek) crossposted to another page to get third party comments, which we also got. - Pernambuco 13:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh... Well, I was under the impression that (for once!) there was some consensus over this issue. I'll post an explanation/apology to the talk page. Meanwhile, I've now created Dependent and other territories of Europe, consisting of those sections of the (former) /  that aren't fully-fledged, UN-recognized countries. Together, therefore,  and Dependent and other territories of Europe reconstitute the former template. Are you / do you think other folk will be content...?  Thanks for your thoughts, David (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I will! Just, I can not speak for the others. It is best to discuss this. - Pernambuco 13:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

''I agree with David. David made good edits since I requested that the page should be protected. We have to reach consensus and I've explained maybe too much what and is not an unrecognized country. -- Wissahickon Creek talk 14:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ''Thanks for your approval. I've revisited Template talk:Countries of Europe and wonder if a specific one-issue poll – viz. whether Countries of X and Dependent and other territories of X templates are kept separate or are combined to make (say) Countries and territories of X templates – might reveal a consensus if more folk are invited to comment via WP:RfC...? Regards, David (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't like polls David WP:Poll. But we can make one if you want. However, I tried to explain why can't be place for unrecognized regions in that template, and why via RfC, what exactly do you suggest? :) Wissahickon Creek''  talk 18:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ''I was thinking that if there's a wider consensus out there, let's try to identify it, for the sake of Pernambuco and anyone else uneasy about the status quo. If nothing conclusive were found (which is my suspicion) then that's not a cause to change to status quo (cf. category renaming/deletion/etc). With perhaps the exception of the "For dependent and other territories, see Dependent territory and List of unrecognized countries" pointer, I'm happy with the status quo, so am not gagging to set up a RfC; I'm just sympathiz/sing with the idea. Yours, David (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ping!

You just got reverted
Pernambuco, I know that you already said that you don't like to get involved in edit disputes, but you just got reverted even as part of a wholesale rvv done by MariusM. He reverted me (as usual) and in the process, he decided to get rid of your work, too, even though your edit was agreed upon by EvilAlex and not by me. See this diff. He did not discuss it on Talk:Transnistria first, but just reverted it all the way back to a version from 2 days ago. Sorry: That sort of behavior is unacceptable. I don't know if you want to defend my edit, but at least you should defend your own. - Mauco 05:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * thank you but I see that the User MariusM has already reverted himself back to my version so I am pleased with that. Now I will look at your edit and let you know if I can defend it or how it can be made better. - Pernambuco 18:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Unsourced removal
I would like to hear from you and maybe we can work together on something. We are already working together in the WP, aren't we? :-) JRSP 03:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is great!! I was meaning: On the same articles. I am from Brazil, in the north east, it is a state close to Venezuela. "Nuestro norte es el sur" and "nosso norte e o sul". - Pernambuco 04:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

AGNLDM
Sorry, the results are inconclusive for that one. Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for sourse(s)
Hi, Thank you very much for your interest in the issues related to Moldova and Romania. If you have continued interest in them, please feel free to join It is not a very active group of users, but at least you can find on this page links to articles/issues ralating to M+R. In the Talk: Transnistria you have recently written:

''I want to apologize for my delay, but it is a long report and I wanted to do a perfect job, actually it is 169 pages long and very technical so this explains why I am not finished with it yet, and I have been away from wiki-pedia for two days because of this reason. It is a very good source and there are some quotes in the report that Evilalex will like and some quotes in the report that Mauco will like, and I`ll present the findings as soon as I get it finished. -Pernambuco 11:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)''

Could you, please tell me, which report it is? From the discussion I thought you meant Mark Almond's article, but that is very short, and definitevely not a report. The article Transnistria is now in a point-by-point revision, and the first issue at hand is the credibility of different sourses. I could not wait till you come back, but ask you now just one question: what report is it you are reading? Also, it came up the issue of scholarly work of Mark Almond, i.e. his books and articles, not through BHHRG. Do you know anything about this. I could not find any good links.:Dc76 23:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Something else
Hi, when you get some time, could you please list your concerns about this article Occupation of Bessarabia by the Soviet Union in its talk page. Thank you.:Dc76 06:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have any, in fact it was only something I did where I was trying to make it more neutral, but the tag was there already and it had been placed there by someone else, so the best to do is to let the person who placed the tag or template explain what he is concerned about, right... - Pernambuco 21:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I know from the "history" it was not you. Nevetheless, I used this opportunity to contact everyone, in order to identify other types of problems with the article, even minor ones. It seemed that several users, you included, spent some time on it, and did some good-quality editting. It was therefore logical to not let this work in vain, since people tend to forget what were their points. The great improvement to the article from its original version is obvious, and apparently not that many issues remain to be fixed. Thank you for your help.:Dc76 21:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ok my friend that is cool, it is neat that you asked but I dont really know about the article in detail so I am just fine with the way that it is, and good luck, and sorry about being so late in my reply but I got a new computer in the meantime - Pernambuco 04:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Emory Smith
I'm afraid I don't know much about the guy aside from his connection with The Albany Academy so I will be of little use in expanding his article. Sorry :(

Transnistria 2
Don't understand this edit which look like vandalism to me. There were paragraphs which were included long time ago in the article, removed by Mauco during few days I didn't edit Wikipedia during Christmas (with the exception of travel warnings, he even didn't bother to discuss the removal in talk page) and I just re-added the paragraphs back. Why you reverted me, while the majority of editors of Transnistria article agreed with those paragraphs? You didn't explained your position in the talk page.--MariusM 17:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * it was just because like I said in my summary "not sure if the others will agree" with all the new additions that you added to that page, for instance, in the link section, you changed the headlines completely, and removed something that the people voted on, this is strange and which is why it is best to undo changes like that, because like I said "not sure if the others will agree" Pernambuco 04:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Border issues section was added by me in 4 September . In 3 and a half months nobody told in talkpage that this section should be removed, it was silently removed by Mauco you during my wikibreak (after 3 1/2 months of being part of the article.--MariusM 10:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is an example how Mauco agreed (in 16 November) to include Yakovlev criticism about transnistrian regime (it was a general agreement of all editors - see archive 9 of Talk:Transnistria, part "Censorship at Tiraspol Times"). He removed the paragraph without discussions in talk during my Christmas wikibreak, I re-added back and then you reverted me (again without discussion). We don't have a situation that others will not agree. We have a situation that in November the paragraph was added after general agreement in Talk (including Mauco) and in December Mauco changed his mind without explanations.--MariusM 10:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont want to take sides, but oth of you are really pushing it, and I can see that you are making 'whole sale' changes that are not agreed, like removing and adding the links that you dont like, and headers, and so on. the other comment I have is this: it is that you did not revert mauco and he is not just revertng you, but both of you are undoing the work of many other people also, as part of your conflict, so please stop this. I will just have to look at your log and look at his log, and start to whole sale undo both of you from now on, as a lesson, if you continue with these sort of actions, and this is bad because normally my work on wikipedia is not undoing but adding and making corrections ............... Pernambuco 12:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In few moments you edited Transnistria-related articles and mediated in disputes between me and Mauco (while nobody asked you to mediate) you always took Mauco's side. Anyhow, I explained that both "border issues" paragraph and the paragraph about Yakovlev comments were agreed long time ago and removed without agreement. Even after my explanations you reverted me, without explaining your position in talk. You can see from the history of the article that I am not the only one who believe those paragraphs are relevant (and also a paragraph regarding U.S. Department od State position). Please take care at 3RR.--MariusM 17:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No I really dont think so but I will keep an eye on both of you from now on, I will certainly also revert Mr William Mauco, and you can send me some of the edits that you do not agree with, and I will decide. I am not a biased editor and I have learned a lot about this subject since I started to edit in the field, so I can use my own criteria, the article is in need of a lot of work, but the wars between you and him are not helping it, it is just making it worse, both of you. Pernambuco 21:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * At least in the border issues section you didn't stop an edit war but started it. This section was in the article for 3 1/2 months, nobody was against it, and suddenly you decided to remove it. You were reverted not only by me, but by an other user as well. You are the main edit warrior on removing the "border issues" section. Regarding the idea to have details in other article and only a summary in main article, you don't apply the same criteria regarding referendum section, where you added the details despite the fact we have a separate article.--MariusM 09:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not an edit warrior, and when you say things like that, you only make me oppose you, is that what you want? I did not volunteer to help with the transnistria page just in order to oppose you or anyone else, I refuse to take sides. Pernambuco 15:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Pernambuco, he keeps undoing your changes. See this diff for the latest stunt of his. He wants everyone to talk (he says) but he is not doing that himself. Besides, he is smuggling in some heavy POV of his own (for instance the link headlines changed, and he is hiding a link which he does not like). I know that in the past, you never wanted to stand up for me or take sides. But at least defend YOUR OWN edit. - Mauco 13:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In this case I agree, and I plan to do something about it, but do not expect that I will take sides, I decide on each case separately, and in this case I agree with what you say Pernambuco 15:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In adition of border issues section you should explain also why you deleted the paragraph with Yakovlev criticism (which was agreed by everybody, including Mauco, in November) and why you deleted the position of U.S. Department of State?--MariusM 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What, are you talking about? show me where I did this, well, when you call me names like 'edit warrior'' and when you acuse me of doing things that was not me, do you know what? you are only creating enemies for yourself and making a fool of yourself, I am not going to take sides, but with the way that you behave in Wikipedia against me, then it is hard for me to think that you are like me and have no hidden point of view. Pernambuco 17:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In Talk:Transnistria I gave you the diff where you removed the paragraph with Yakovlev criticism and with US Department of State position. I saw you removed again 2 minutes after you wrote above comments . However, I am still assuming good faith for you, I think you didn't check exactly what you are removing when you made the revert. Please be more atentive and take care at 3RR.--MariusM 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * when you say "Assume good faith", what are you talking about, please just see what I did, I was restoring the page from vandalism it is here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=prev&oldid=97161213 and compare. I dont really edit, I just try to save it from the people who delete things and will never make compromises. do not accuse me of removing "Yakovlev" in fact I have never heard of this person, I do not know what you are talking about. Pernambuco 18:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please scroll down the diff you just reffered to, and you will see that in your "anti-vandalism" action you deleted 4 important paragraphs from the article: Border issues, US Department of State position, Yakovlev position and Travel warnings. Some are calling this action vandalism. There are 3 editors of Transnistria article who didn't like your action, who is the one who need to compromise? As you told you don't care about Yakovlev, I really don't understand why you removed his opinions. What compromise should be made with you if you don't give any explanation of your removals (with the exception of "border issues" section, where others don't agree with you). Don't label anybody who disagree with you as vandal.--MariusM 18:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I will not take sides, and I never removed anything, it was removed by someone else, and then added by someone else, and all I do is to make sure that the page can stay neutral, if you do not like to get reverted, why do you do thinks like remove the links, and the headlines change, and other strange things that I can see from the edit logging, which others point out, I do not agree with your warrior friend Mauco either, but he has more sense in this than you do, I am sorry to say it, but you are acting badly Pernambuco 18:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As this is an encyclopedia, we should only utilize information that is certified by official or credible sources. Paragraphs like U.S. Department od State position are very credible and we need official position like that.--Diana Teodorescu 19:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am amazed that you claim "I never removed anything" immediatelly after I gave you the diff when you removed 4 (for) paragraphs. You didn't scroll down to see all the changes you made? Regarding the changes of headlines (I believe you reffer at External loinks section), it was disscussed in talk page that "Transnistrian side" is unacceptable. You should read the talk page before accusing others of making changes without discussion. Please note that User:Truli who participated in disscussion about headlines change is now permabanned, as sockpuppet of User:Mark us street, editor of Tiraspol Times. The majority of editors agreed that "Transnistrian side" headline is misleading. Mauco didn't agree, but why all others editors should ask Mauco's approval?--MariusM 19:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course not, I will never ask Mauco for approval, but you are giving the links as an example so I have to say this: this was voted on, I remember, I participated in the voting, and it is great that Truli is banned, I was not aware that she was really MarkStreet, but this is fantastic, thanks for letting me know. But I will keep a close eye on all of your edits, you are removing things that all of us voted on, and without telling anyone, and this is just unacceptable, sorry if I offend you, but that is how I see it. Pernambuco 19:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sometimes facts are painful for some and satisfactory for others. I'm sorry but Romanians have the right to use Romanian name of the river.--Diana Teodorescu 19:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mind if you keep a close eye on me, as I am proud of my editing records. Regarding the 4 paragraphs you removed, their removal was never voted. With the link at "Tiraspol Times" I never agreed, I told this in talk page after the voting, "voting is evil" is a Wikipedia rule and during vote the same MarkStreet used sockpuppetry to promote his website . Considering all those things (including the disruption of Wikipedia through sockpuppetry by Mark) we should reevaluate the inclusion of the link at Tiraspol Times in Wikipedia. Why you believe only inclusion of "border issues", "travel warnings" or Yakovlev opinions can be a subject of reevaluation?--MariusM 19:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * rightnow, today, I see a lot of vandalism going on, and I am not the only one, I have explained it on the page and called it vandalism, and I have reverted this vandalism, and also jonathanpops thinks the same. He also calls it vandalism and have reverted it, just like I have done. We are not adding anything new, we are just making sure that the page stays neutral.... Pernambuco 19:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe your edits are problematic, and as of now, you may stop your participation in this article. The main reason may be because for you this is controversial topic. With things like addressing other editors as vandals purposefully writing romanianphobic edits and personal attacks at the talk page, I could still hope there is a chance the article will be workable. However, persistent removals of valid text, and even ignoring very specific suggestions makes me think that you are strongly POV editor whose commitment to making sure onesideness of the article, and you don't makes commitment to this topic. --Diana Teodorescu 19:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
I do not like what you are doing to Transnistria page, it looks like vandalism, I know that you told me in the talk page that you do not agree, but now there is another user (called "MariusM") who also reverted you, we really feel that way, I am sorry. Please propose the edits in the Talk page before you make them, or else you will just be reverted again, by me or by someone else I think, because I am not the only one who consider it vandalism, sorry for the hard words.--Diana Teodorescu 19:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you are wrong, if you see, I almost never add anything new to that article. In this month (which is December) I have done just one change, and it was to move some text to another article. I never deleted it, and I am really not very active, I am certainly not POV like you say, I never take sides. But in this case, your actions are vandalism, there is really no polite way to say it, you are not asking others what they think. You are just making the changes alone, like a bulldozer, and you have never worked on the page before. Did you register yesterday? -
 * There is a factual and stylistical bias in the article that you tried to impose it. I feel the article in its current form is a Russian POV. The Russification process was harsher then in Tzarist times. In fact if you pick up any good book on Russian history you will find that out. I suggest "A History of Russia Since 1800" by C. Evutuhov and R. Stites. you obviously do not understand the way wikipedia works man. This is not about arguments. This is about the fact that every statement here, even the smallest one has to have a source and also another important point that must be brought up, here at wikipedia you cannot bring your own work. In other words you cannot place here, stuff that otherwise is unchecked or that you cannot publish someplace else. I honestly think something has to be done, maybe you should stop editing the article for a while. --Diana Teodorescu 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I never edit the article. In all of December, I made just one change, it was on 23 december, the rest that I do is just to keep extremism from taking over, that is all, but I dont take sides and I am not POV like you say, you are wrong. Pernambuco 20:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I had to revert you. You should be more subtle. This was really obvious that you just erased them because it makes the Russians look bad. Unfortunately there is plenly of evidence for it and strong evidence that you're POV. However, I just want to say one thing. If the practice of removing the text tag will continue, I will file a request for the article to be protected   --Diana Teodorescu 20:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You ought to look for some consentuals with the other users. For instance, the one who is called MariusM, here is what he just wrote in the talk page of the transnistria article: ¨let the other paragraphs stay. Removing them without disscussion is vandalism.--MariusM 19:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)¨ ......well, as you can see, he thinks that if you remove paragraphs without discussions, then this is vandalism, and this is what you have been doing a lot today, you are removing half of the article without discussion, and adding a lot of new paragraphs without discussions, and just making a big mess. Mariusm just said that this qualifies as vandalism, so we have the right to revert you, just like I did, and also jonathanpops has done . Pernambuco 20:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it was more like he told you to change only the name but leave the rest intact. The article contains a factual disbalance now, your POV has an aggressive nature, and you don't provide any facts or sources to support this. Some users' lack of civilty and bad faith but that's temporary, I hope.--Diana Teodorescu 20:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont know who you are, you registered yesterday, but you are doing it wrong, the edits should be about consensus and not vandalism Pernambuco 20:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't revert, when users disagree about neutrality, it is normal for the article to have a POV tag until the differences are worked out as long as the differences are being worked out. The tag simply shows that there is a serious disagreement on article's neutrality and users are working on it. The discussion on the talk page shows the work in process. Here we have the work in process, neutrality is disputed in a very clear way and yet you and other users are in denial and persist in attempts to hide the dispute from Wikipedians by removing the text. My goal is not lecturize and even less so "impress" you. I call on you to respect the disagreement and stop trying to sweep it under the rug by hiding the POV text. All I said is that there's a mechanism in the policy and if this continues, I will have to use it (file report). I think you have a great knowledge and I admire your perseverance for trying to redeem the image of the otherwise quite dubious, illegal criminal Transnistrian government but you have to understand that some facts are just there to stay and that real facts are very hard to manipulate and you should give it up right now. However, if you are sincerely trying to commit to this article, then I think we can work something out. Which is why I ask you to stop pushing your POV or maybe is better not to edit this article for a while.--Diana Teodorescu 20:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This was not Diana's version. You didn't agree to change the headlines from "Transnistrian side" to "separatist side", you reverted this change also without disscusion, while I did discussed this change. I added transnistria.ru.ru as it is a website made by a native transnistrian, if we are not labeling the links as "separatist" we should show also the opinion of antiseparatist transnistrians. Check the talk page, I did disscused this link too. I agreed with you only about the name Dniester, and you reverted 4 paragraphs!--MariusM 20:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He reverted 5 times --Diana Teodorescu 20:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is vandalism, this is why it is necessary to revert Pernambuco 20:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can Mariusm please explain.... your comment that ¨Removing paragprahs without disscussion is vandalism¨ only applies when I do it (do you think that I am a vandal) but when Diana does it, then it is oK?? you are digging yourself a big hole, mariusM, you are not making any friends, not with me, with this double standard attitude. Pernambuco 20:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion?
Why did you delete my comment | here? jamason 20:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not even see that, this was strange, I never delete anything, that is not what I do Pernambuco 20:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You never delete anything *yawn* I've seen it --Diana Teodorescu 20:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No sweat. I restored it. jamason 20:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on December 29 2006 to Transnistria
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours.

Please mark your reverts as such.

William M. Connolley 21:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have unblocked you as "Diana" was another Bonaparte sock. However, please be more careful in the future if there is any doubt in your mind. Khoikhoi 00:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Translation
I was telling that you broke the 3RR.--MariusM 21:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * but look at the time when you tell me this after, you waited a lot, and in the mean time, you reported me and got me blocked, you are not a very nice person, you need to know this Pernambuco 03:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Debbe

 * thanks for your attention. I can help you in your editorial tasks, but I am not interested in editing of any article of the whole wikipedia. I am interested to write comments on the talk pages of any article of wikipedia. It is upto the editor's evaluations, whether they like informations / comments / writtings for inclusion in the article or not. Wikipedia Editors are much more intelligent than the writers.

user:debbe, 05:15 UTC, 30 December 2006


 * I will do this work for you, I am one of the people who work on this page, it is the Classical H. page, and it is something we can both work on Pernambuco 03:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

MariusM
Pernambuco, where are you? Your block should have been lifted by now. I want to bring this to your attention: MariusM just undid your edit for the third time. If you don't want to take sides, that is fair. But at least defend your own edits. - Mauco 14:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed Pernambuco, I am amazed that you disappered. We have an open mediation in progress for Transnistrian referendum, 2006 where you didn't bother to state your position in 2 months, now we have debates on Transnistria talk page where you are expected to state your position (if you have one; if not, just refrain editing in the main space). As you agreed in this page (vandal section), anybody who delete a paragraph should explain in talk page why he did. Hope you will follow your own principles.--MariusM 14:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I got blocked, it was because of you, I can not believe that you acted that way, you could see what I did, I was saving the page from a wild man, and you did not help me, instead I saw what you did, you reported me, and you got me blocked, and this was a bad experience for me on wikipedia and a bad experience about the personality of someone like you. Pernambuco 03:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

First, Happy New Year! I've noticed your interest in Transnistria, and maybe you would like to vote in the survey on the inclusion in Tiraspol article of the images with the Soviet tank monument in Tiraspol and Transnistrian Government building in Tiraspol with statue of Lenin in front. The survey is here. Thank you, Dl.goe


 * I will look at it now, but to tell you the truth, my interest in transnistria is passing, and I do not like the people who are in that subject, one of them even got me blocked from wikipedia and I was not doing anything wrong, I was saving the page from a mad-man, that was all, you can see my list of logs and see this, it is a fact but this was how they paid me back............. Pernambuco 03:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from personal attacks. Using words like "mad man" can bring new blocks for you. See WP:NPA. I saw you still refuse to participate in Talk:Transnistria to explain your position. Also you refuse to explain your position in the open mediation about Transnistrian referendum (your position about the article, not about me or Mauco). Removing information from a controversial article without explaining in talk page the reasons is a wrong thing, sorry that you don't understand.--MariusM 11:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * well, he was mad, he made a lot of changes and he did not ask for consentual agreements first, so that was wild, and I keep calling him wild and mad, and as you can see also, he received a block that is permanent now, because of this action, and he is gone forever. If you want, you can take his side, that is your right, but I am against people who act like this,and I will keep calling it mad and wild, it is the best description for what it is....... Pernambuco 14:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not forever - he's a recurring phenomenon. As for his mental health - well, he's doing the same thing over and over for nearly a year. He gets reverted, banned, but he returns, never changing tactics, never reconsidering... This is just creepy. --Illythr 15:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Getulina pictures
Hi, Pernambuco. I've wrote a message in Getulina talk. Gcoliveira 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * this is excellent, I appreciate it a lot, and I will answer it there, tambem podemos falar em Portugues se voce quer, mais talvez seria melhor ingles ja que estamos no wikipedia em ingles, pois Pernambuco 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, Pernambuco. Quando vc tiver as fotos, é só avisar! Acho q nao tem problema escrever em português na pagina de conversa... Se vc preferir, pode escrever na minha pagina na pt wikipedia (pt:Usuário_Discussão:Gcoliveira). Gcoliveira 16:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Otimo! Gostei, pois estando aqui na pagina de conversa, seria portugues entao........ Pernambuco 02:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Cokelogic
You're not the first person (or even the 1000th) to end up a victim on this sort of thing. Common pattern: Person with no knowledge or experience with Wikipedia thinks it would be great to promote his/her (pick one): website, band, unpublished book, youtube video, unreleased amateur film, etc. The article gets deleted for obvious reasons. Person gets ticked off and starts vandalizing.

I'm still getting my user page vandalized regularly by a 14-year-old who made a 15-minute VHS movie about Communist Ninja orphan factory workers in 1840. Don't believe me? See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factory: The Musical. Fan-1967 20:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * this is very hard to believe, what did you say, "Communist Ninja orphan factory workers in 1840" now I have heard it all, I would like if Paul Dempsey could be blocked out because he keeps deleting my userpage, he has done it three times now Pernambuco 20:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He's been issued a final warning. Seems to have quieted down now for over ten minutes. If he does it again, he'll be reported for blocking. Fan-1967 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, if it had been a Notable film about Communist Ninja orphan factory workers in 1840 it could have stayed, but obviously it had not been seen by anyone except a few other 14-year-olds (and possibly some unfortunate parents forced to view it). Fan-1967 20:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think, but I am not even sure that Communism existed in 1840, I am glad that it was deleted. I have proposed two pages for Deletion review since I have joined Wikipedia and they have both been deleted, in none of these two cases was it personal, it was just because I saw the pages and did not think that they were worthy of the criteria of Wikipedia and the rules that we have for the content Pernambuco 20:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848. The author was rather offended when I brought that point up. Fan-1967 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:STALK?
Are you Wikistalking me ?--MariusM 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * no, I am not doing this, why do you think it. I looked at the link for WP:STALK and here it what it says:

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors.


 * well, as you can see, that is not me, I do not want to cause annoyance or distress another contributor, I want to clear the errors, that is what I do, and I said this in my log message already, Pernambuco 22:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

History of Transnistria
Hi, Pernambuco, I hope you read meantime Upson Clark's book. Please share your thoughts about the History of Transnistria. See also the section comparing Pal Kolstoe and Upson Clark.--MariusM 04:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * i have answered this in the talk page for the article, it is a good book but it is very old, Pernambuco 16:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, Pernambuco. You wrote: "thank you for the links on Public holidays in Brazil. ... do you want to make an account?" I already have an account, but I'm not signed in right now. Thanks for asking! -- 201.51.211.130 15:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * o.k. that is fine, and again i want to say: it was excellent work you made. I also have made something on the article, the reason is I am from Brazil, so I have it in my watchlist and I liked the idea of wikilinking that you did Pernambuco 18:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria external link
The content of external links provided at Transnistria article was decided after long discussions; we should not change it. I will move your link to Transnistrian referendum, 2006 and restore the old one. Another link was also rejected from Transnistria article and placed at Ukraine-Transnistria border customs conflict as refference Dl.goe 09:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont know what this is other link is, but the change which i made is an improvement to the article, if you check the two links, they come from the same source. the difference is that one of them only talks about some websites, and the other linnk has a lot more information, it gives background information, historical information, pictures, and so on, etc. you compare and you can see one that is best, and it is the one that I put there, so do not revert it, it is an improvement Pernambuco 17:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was too bold; I just felt that if I put the link at Transnistrian referendum, 2006 it would be Ok . I still believe the article about Transnistria in Cyberspace is relevant. I will discuss on talk page.Dl.goe 18:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * that is good, i like this approach, I am just trying to improve and I found a better link, and I upgraded it, that was all... Pernambuco 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Prague Spring
The only problem is that the specific page references were lost, but that doesn't seem to matter on wikipedia. - TheMightyQuill 18:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * if someone complains about it or ask about it in the "Talk" I have them, and I can add them back in, I dont know if you have them but I stored them to be safe, so you can tell me if it is a problem in the future Pernambuco 22:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to store them. They're safely stored in the history of the article. - TheMightyQuill 02:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for interest
If you like to know much more about the Electrotridoshagraphy, you can login to the following website:

http://elctrotridoshagram.bravehost.com

In this website, you will find the 2 years old version of the matter.You can also go to the Talk:Ayurveda page of wikipedia and find there Electrotridosagram in the content-box. You will find the Hindi translation of the published matter in english language. You can also go to the Talk:Research and innovations in Ayurveda page, where you will find the Translation of the ETG technology in Archive-1 section. I am also an expert of the Ayurveda, the Indian system of Medicine and write my views in talk page. You will find here my views also in connection to Ayurveda.user:debbe, 23 January 2007, 05:10 UTC


 * Ayurveda is something that I dont know too much about, this is why I prefer Classical homeopathy but maybe in the future I can find out more, who knows, than you for the link and I can see the relation to Classical homeopathy, it is interesting Pernambuco 04:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Thanks for the invite to try and make the classical homeopathy better, but I'm too busy and my efforts would be wasted as I disagree profoundly with mmost of the changes people have made to it recently and especially the person you mention who has written some of the most unbelievable garbage I have read about this subject...with such totally misinformed people contributing avidly it would be pointless to join in. People who know so little about a subject and who ramble on at great length and push their opinions so arrogantly at others should be banned from wikipedia as they make it a scrapheap of garbage and make the work of serious well informed people very tough indeed. Take a look at the original homeopathy article to see how bad that is. I have no desire to go down that road ever again. Thanks anyway but I have no intention of 'laying pearls before swine' again.Peter morrell 06:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * yes, maybe these people need to be banned, but what can we do, we have to start somewhere, I dont think that our work is "laying pearls before swine", I hope youll reconsider Pernambuco 18:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * your reply to me should have been placed in MY discussion page...but no matter, the answer is still the same. thank you Peter morrell 13:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your revert in Transnistria
Hi Pernambuco. We had a poll regarding word officially in Transnistria article. The result was clear - the majority want this word to be removed (6 removed, 3 neutral, only 2 want to keep this word). Why are you disrupting the edit against the consensus of the majority of editors?--MariusM 03:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I do not agree, and this is common sense, and you can not solve this by a vote, also, you can wait for William Mauco to come back, because I know that the word was part of the compromise with him and with Mr Vecrumbas Pernambuco 03:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * He can vote against and you can vote against but anyhow the majority is for removal. Neither you or Mauco have veto rights in Transnistria related articles. Remember that I was not part in Vecrumba-Mauco "compromise". If you look in archive talk, there was an other introduction which was part for long time in the article, Mauco wanted to change this introduction, a poll was made and Mauco's request was rejected 7 against 1, after that Mauco engaged in some "negociations" with Vecrumba, however those 2 guys have no right to disregard the opinion of other editors. Vecrumba himself stated that he preffer without the word "official". Why you say this issue can not be solved by a vote, but in other issues (like keeping "Tiraspol Times" link, the webpage where Mauco himself contributed) you claimed the "consensus" achieved through vote? BTW, it was proved that TT editor MarkStreet used sockpuppets to influence the vote regarding TT.--MariusM 03:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop your senseless edit warring, you do not solve things in Wiki-pedia by majority voting, you do it by using common sense Pernambuco 03:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are the one who don't use common sense. As PMR is not officially recognized, usage of word "officiallly" is not apropiate - this was explained by several other editors.--MariusM 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the text, it is in context, it clearly says "officially according to their constitution" and it was not a problem before, we had ten very nice and peaceful days, and very few reverts, everyone tried to add things to the article, and now you show up, and all of a sudden you want to repeat something that has already been done, and you accuse me of not having common sense, enough of that, goodbye Pernambuco 03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Abkhazia
Hi. Thanks for your message. I appreciate your interest in improving the article. The subject is indeed very controversial and requires a deeper insight. Feel free to contact me if I can be of any assistance. Best regards, KoberTalk 08:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Well, I haven't edited that article before, so... I don't know, but given that he has written 2 books and has several websites, it wouldn't be that hard to find a source. But I'm not particularly interested... :p as for Transnistria, I was just reading Flux (a Moldovan newspaper) the other day, and it condemned the article "Moldovan language" on the Moldavian Wikipedia because it supposedly "recognizes the statality of Transnistria". The sentence in question just says taht "The Cyrillic script is official in the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic", so that is a lesson in how sensitive people are to how we word things. Apparently, the usage of the name "PMR", and the word "official", without using quotation marks to imply that they are somehow illegitimate or the use of qualifying words like "nerecunoscut" (unrecognized) or "regionul separatist moldovenesti" (Moldavian separatist region) implies that Wikipedia recognizes the independence of PMR. I mean, seriously, it is an article written /in Moldavian/, anyone who reads in that language already knows the status of PMR, and if they ever wanted to find out more they could click the blue link to PMR (which incidentally, due to vandalism, supports the statehood of PMR more explicitly, but...). But I think that serves to show just how delicate our work here is. --Node 00:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * i am tired of trying to help with Moldavian things, there is a man there who is uncivil and two more, and they are edit warring, and the people who made their proposals are Mauco and Vecrumbas and now they dont even defend their edits, they want me to do it for them, I dont think I will keep doing that for them. this was not why I came to wiki-pedia. today I was even insulted: one user, User:MariusM said that I was a "person who has difficulty in understanding" so I am almost at the point now where Ive had enough.  But will you fix Aaron Lawrence or do you want me to do it? At least on that article (Aaron Lawrence) there are no romanians who edit war and insult me Pernambuco 13:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyprus
No not all are self proclaimed, please i understand you are doing standarization but this unilateral changes were not agreed to. Please use the talk page before such major edits. The turkish community in Cyprus is not independent even de facto, because it is heavily dependent on Turkey in all aspects. Standarization is nice but you can not force models or definition to different situationsAristovoul0s 14:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * o.k. that makes sense, in fact i dont know the situation really, you know more than me, but I have answered on your talks page Pernambuco 16:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Friend, i have not reverted, i edited the article feel free to check. The intro to the article has been exhausted in discussion at the talk page for long time now. Today two editors show up that have not been part to the discussions to change the intro to something that was factually wrong and definately a POV, not to mentioned not agreed upon. One of them is you. Once again i understand you are trying to standarize articles and it is a good thing. However try to read a bit through the talk and the archives and then change the intro. In fact i quarantee that the intro will be changed again by other editors than myself during the day. just wait and see. Aristovoul0s 16:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * thats a good suggestion, I will become more familiar with the talk, it is something that i need to learn more about Pernambuco 16:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No aristov, his edit was perfectly justified. Dont accuse him of making edits without discussion when you are more than prepared to to do the same, the only difference being he is trying to neutralise the article, and you are pushing the usual pov! If you have any questions Pernambuco dont hesitate to ask. --A.Garnet 19:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

3rr
Please take more care over WP:3RR and consider yourself lucky to avoid a block William M. Connolley 20:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Official"
I think Jonathanpops has a point there. --Illythr 19:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

De jure
Show me where in your version of the article de jure status of Abkhazia is mentioned? Where does the reader get the idea that Abkhazia is de jure part of Georgia? Nowhere! I just added relevant information in a concise and clear manner. Why do you try to hide it from the reader? (PaC 05:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

Blocked for WP:3RR on List of sovereign states
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Abkhazia
Thanks for your apologies and sorry if I was hard on you. My friend's parents were tortured to death in Abkhazia. It was a reall campaign of ethnic cleansing. However, I understand your position too. I'll try to work out a compromised version based on legitimate and third-party sources. Best, --KoberTalk 19:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hahnemann
Thanks for ruining the Samuel Hahnemann article with your 'friends' who clearly know nothing about the subject they are so keen to edit. It has been completely hacked to pieces. Wikipedia really could do without people like you. Please don't ask me again to make contributions when this is exactly what has happened repeatedly to these articles...as I said before 'laying pearls before swine.' Exactly right. Peter morrell 19:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, I'd probably ignore this attack -- this fellow has been a semi-troll on a lot of evolution-centric articles too. Adam Cuerden talk 12:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Classical homeopathy (repost from AfD)
I don't think anyone's arguing that an article on it might not be appropriate at some point, just that this one has no merit because there's no NPOV material in it not covered at Homeopathy. I mean, is there anything in the present article usable as a basis for the new one that couldn't just be copied from Homeopathy with better result? Let's save the talk page, by all means, but probably best just to restart from scratch. Adam Cuerden talk 12:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it probably is a good idea to delete this article, it's so messed up. BTW I am not a troll or indeed a semi-troll but a good editor of many valuable articles. Get your facts right young man before you go round calling people trolls. Peter morrell 18:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology

 * I am sorry if my comments above caused offence to you personally it was not really directed at you, an innocent, but at the person who deleted 4/5ths of the article which I felt was a totally unhelpful and unjustified removal of FACTUAL, totally NPOV material that tells the story of Hahnemann's achievements as a medical & scientific translator about which nobody could reasonably take offence. However, the stuff about his scientific achievements is a bit purple in places, but when it is read against the prejudicial garbage online about him then maybe it gives a balance to the rantings of skeptics who have never become faithfully "immersed in the texts" and the literature of homeopathy, that being a requirement for any neutral study of the subject. So I'm sorry for any offence taken. best regards Peter morrell 08:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Map of Transnistria
You said a couple weeks ago that you could do the map of Transnistria. I am wondering what you need for that? Could you, please, look one more time through the links I provided in that talk at that time, and see what else you need. I don't mean to rush, do whenever you can, just if I forget to ask now what you need, we will both forget, and it will never be done :-) My understanding was that people (Jonathanpops, Illythr, etc) want a small map of Europe with a small rectangle showing Transnistria and part of the rest of Moldova. Then they want that rectangle expanded, and as far as I could get, in 4 colors: 1) territorry under Transnistrian control, 2) under Moldovan control, 3) under the Joint Control Commission and any of the sides' control, and 4) other countries (Ukraine if this case). I am thinking, maybe it is possible from the latter map to do 2 more insets: the two smaller regions (around Dubasari, and around Tighina). For the latter there is a safe (and the only possible) boundary: the administrative boundary of the localities, which has not been changed for many-many years, maybe at all during 20th century. This is the boundary shown on official maps. I know exactly which villages should be in which color. So the point I guess remains to find a detailed map of those two regions, showing the boundary of the lands of the villages. When you get some time, could you, please, see what is still needed? Again, thank you very much for helping with it - it is an ingratious task:Dc76 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:President Macia.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:President Macia.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Vriullop 20:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ok, I have a better now if you still need it Pernambuco 23:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your revert in Transnistria
Instead of blindly reverting, like you did here, please discuss in talk anything you want to revert. I did discuss my changes, which were restoring old info taken out without discussion (link of conflict.md is a good example), and I did provide source for new info - human right abuses that happened in March 2007. You took out from the article recent human right abuses of March 2007, when you will accept those - after one year? Then you will say those are already old news not anymore relevant.--MariusM 19:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * you made your changes without waiting for anyone to give their opinion in the talk page, that is not smart, people who do that can expect to get reversion, again and again, not only by me, but from other responsible people in the wiki-pedia too. It is not a blindly reverting, i know I am doing, i am safeguarding the work of a dozen other people, well, I take that back, at least twenty editors and you overwrote their changes, dont do that or you will get rv by me again Pernambuco 20:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you from editing Wikipedia for 3 days for your use of the sockpuppet Kertu3 to edit war at Transnistria, as confirmed by Checkuser at Requests for checkuser/Case/Pernambuco. Your sockpuppet has been blocked indefinitely. Please contribute positively once your block expires and discuss any contentious changes you wish to make to article on the relevant talkpage first. WjBscribe 18:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies regarding Meditation
You may not remember me, but I was your meditator in the meditation case regarding [Northern Ireland]. I, however, was affected by China's ban on Wikipedia. I apoligize for my sudden inactivity and disappearance from Wikipedia, causing the meditation case to end prematurely.

Again, I apologize.

 ¿Exir? ¡Kamalabadi!  10:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Pernambuco! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Terence John Marsh -

Nomination of Terence John Marsh for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Terence John Marsh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Terence John Marsh until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SL93 (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)