Transnistria
editRegarding your message at Talk:Transnistria#POV_Check_on_6/17, if you are really interested in my opinion about deficiencies of the article, please go again through the talk page. I took time to read the entire talk page and it took me no more than 10 minutes. Most of the objections raised by me, for example, in my post 14 Jun 2005 (UTC), or even specific suggestions are still not included. I don't want to repeat them there now as well as to write anything at the talk:Transnistria because the main effect of my posts so far, was generation of the fervent personal attacks from Duca and buddies. I hate to leave their accusations unanswered, but on the other hand I have better uses of my time than defending myself from silly attacks. --Irpen 19:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Transnistria
editHello TSO1D! Can you unblock Transnistria? It seems that user:Mikkalai push his POV fork by blocking and editing the page in the same time. He removed large parts of the text. -- Bonaparte talk 09:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes! I believe you are right. We can develop now the article. Mikka was blocked due to his breaking of 3RR related to Anti-Romanian Moldova, Moldovan language articls. He made even there something similar like, editing then blocking the page. Bonaparte talk 19:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
aici te poti inscrie si vei fi la curent cu tot ce se intampla cu noi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedians'_notice_board -- Bonaparte talk 15:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
O sa ma uit in istoria ta sa vad ce editari ai avut -- Bonaparte talk 15:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Transnistria
editI have made a few self-evident changes to Transnistria article. I believe still more work is needed on the article to remove repetitions and have more logic there, but this up to youi, guys abakharev 02:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
|
The Military history WikiProject is currently holding elections for project coordinators. Any member of the project may nominate themselves and all are encouraged to vote here.
|
It seems you insist in listing Romanian as official language for the Republic of Moldova. This is clearly incorrect, for the Constitutional text:
- Articolul 13. Limba de stat, funcţionarea celorlalte limbi
- (1) Limba de stat a Republicii Moldova este limba moldovenească funcţionînd pe baza grafiei latine.
Before you continue reverting the article, I would appreciate you list your sources. Whatever your feelings about Moldavian, this is not a political forum but an encyclopaedia and you must respect this fact. Regards, Asterion 20:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently writing a summary of factual errors in the history section of this article, and would like you to comment on it first, before the flames fly high under the digital sky... ;-) --Illythr 23:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, just realized - it's actually almost 3 AM over here! Hope you live somewhere far to the west, because if you don't, it would mean that you have just as severe a case of Wikiholism as I do! :) --Illythr 23:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Ukraine
editplease see Talk:History of Ukraine. mikka (t) 22:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I
edit
 Issue I - March 2006 | |
|
Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in. Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months. Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator |
| |
delivered by Loopy e 05:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Multumesc TSO1D!--Iasi 20:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Romania GPD
editSalut. Da, sustin ceea ce zici, GPD-ul Romaniei nu este mai sus de 10,000$, dupa mine. Tot ce eu am facut azi a fost sa schimb rank-ul de la 71 la 65, desi personal nu cred ca Romania are 11,800 $ pe locuitor. In alte dati am schimbat GPD-ul de la 8,300$ la 10,625$, cum era inainte. Cred ca in jur de 10,000$ este cifre cea mai acurate. Mersi! Numai bine, NorbertArthur 6 Aprilie 2006
Cineva să mă ajute să extind articolul Iaşi. Vă mulţumim. Iasi.
- Te ajut si eu. Iasi 06:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi
editTry not to resort to tactics like reinserting Romanian as an official language of the Republic of Moldova without an edit summary; you've done this at least two times, and I don't believe that it's good for the cause. Lay down the case on the talk page. Cu respect, Alexander 007 23:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you help me?
editHI! I'm new in the Wiki community and I want to have my own user page just as you do. Unfortunately, I've no idea how to do this. I'm from Bulgaria so I thought it wouldn't be a bad idea to seek help from a neighbour, apart from other Bulgarians in Wikipedia, about this stuff. I hope you'll have the time to respond or at least give me instructions as to where I should search for additional information on the topic.
Romanii
editMoldovenii din Moldova se consideră Români când spun că ei sunt Moldoveni. Este acelaşi lucru ca şi Moldovenii din Moldova care recunosc că sunt Români.--Iasi 07:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Ai grija ca uite Irpen deja a schimbat inapoi. Iasi 08:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you know who is Mauco? I think I know. --Chisinau 16:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I think I know who it is. It's just like a puzzle. Put the pieces together and you'll see. Se ve divulga singur stai sa vezi. --Chisinau 16:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Huh?
editHow come you reverted my edits here? That's the new references style. —Khoikhoi 23:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, I was careful to include mikka and Moldo's additions, so the only thing that was changed were the references. Cheers, —Khoikhoi 23:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, nice talking to you. —Khoikhoi 00:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006
editThe May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
editI have always used that "Можно!" thingy on the page, kinda didn't notice the error because of this. Still, it probably would've been more polite if you just left me a message instead... ;-)
PS: It's too bad about the Transnistria page, I hope it's really just Bonaparte acting alone... --Illythr 20:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks from Xed
editThanks for your thoughts on my block. Jimbo unblocked me. - Xed 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, I thought your ban and that of Anittas were unjust and I fought against them. The new developments among the administration of the encyclopdia and particularly Jim's increasingly authoritative behavior present a great threat to the future of Wikipedia in my view. Vox Populi (TSO) 00:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
FYI
editIt turned out that our friend "GDP" = Bonaparte. Ciao! —Khoikhoi 17:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yea, I was fairly sure it was him the moment he appeared. I talked to him on the Romanian Wiki, but of course he denied everything. In any case, I just hope he doesn't go on another rampage as intense and disrupting as that last one. TSO1D 17:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm always amazed that someone can have that many open proxies however. —Khoikhoi 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Politicide
editI do agree with you that the genocide of Moldova can be presented as a politicide. But, given that there were only (or almost only) Romanians/Moldovans that got killed, saying it was a politicide is an understatement. If you want a comparison, the genocide after the Russian Revolution of 1917 was a politicide. This one, maybe in planning (which I doubt) but not in consequences. Why I doubt it? Because most perpetrators of genocides and ethnic cleansings pretend to have some "political" reason (which does not entitle them to "politicide"). Also, the following Moldovan policy of the Soviet Union showed a complete disconsideration of the natives, which were indoctrinated to be an assisted nation.
There is a second reason why I would choose genocide over politicide. My impression is that the words "democide" and "politicide" are hiding the real issues more than exposing them. They carry less emotional sense, and people tend to overlook them when reading an encyclopedia. Genocide is the real word here. Holocaust is even better, but it's more polemic, so I would stick with genocide.
Given this, I suggest we use "genocide" in the section title, and then explain it may have been a politicide that resulted in ethnic cleansing and russification. If you agree, please change it. Dpotop 07:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't believe that the word genocide truly reflects the aim of the Soviet policies of that era towards some of the republics. The goal was to eradicate opposition to the central government, through any means. Thus many who were considered a threat to the authority of the USSR were deported, murdered, etc. There were different classes of people who were targeted, kulaks, intellectuals, and former leaders/members of the political branches or administration. Thus for example, richer farmers were deported, however no attention was paid to their ethnicity: Romanians, Ukrainians, and Russians were deported. In the case of intellectuals any who had displayed democratic tendancies were punished. Because the Romanian urban population was relatively small, a relatively few number of Romanians was affected here. Nevertheless, this might also present the main instance where Romanians were directly targeted in order to eradicate the danger of national resistence, facilitated by the creation of the artificial Moldovan language and ethnos. Numberous members of the former administration fled the country but those who stayed behind suffered a great repression. Members of the old police force, and other branches of the state were also punished. Thus my point is that the Soviet government did not directly seek to target Romanians in most cases, but simply to remove all potential threats, hence politicide.
- The term genocide could only be used by its loose definition in describing the process through which the Soviets sought to destroy the Romanian identity of the country's populace, and a sentance could be added to the end of the paragraph explaining this. TSO1D 14:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Moldovans
editWhy did you revert all the edits I made? Some of them were just minor. —Khoikhoi 22:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to revert your edits, I was simply editing the page at the same time you were. I think I fixed it now, sorry about that. TSO1D 22:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. But about the Cyrillic script, it's still used in Transnistria, where Moldovans are the majority ethnic group. Shouldn't it also be mentioned? —Khoikhoi 22:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I thought about that, however the number of Moldovans in Transnistria is what, about 200,000? Compared to the millions of Moldovans in other parts, this population sems rather small, and I don't think we should modify every part of the box and article simply for that reason. TSO1D 22:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm, well there's also the fact that Moldova switched to the Latin alphabet only about 17 years ago, and they had used Cyrillic for 45 years previous to that. Also, Transnistria isn't just a small geographic region, it's an unrecognized country. —Khoikhoi 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't really care about it too strongly either way. I removed the references because they seemed archaic, but I see that there might be a historical interest in preserving the older name, so I'm fine with it staying up.TSO1D 23:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- And what do you think about the pictures? I don't think Bonny would be too happy if he saw this. —Khoikhoi 23:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Lol, the entire article would cause him to experience a massive heart attack. As for the pictures I don't really know what to say. Personally I don't have anything against them as all of the people depicted were Moldovans by a particular definition of the word. The only controversy that might exist here is also present in the other parts of the article, namely whether Moldovans are distinct from Romanians or if they are Romanians. I mean Eminescu himself said: Suntem români şi punctum (We are Romanians, period). In any case, I am in favor of the pictures as they do indeed show prominent Moldovans, and that is the standard format on articles regarding ethnic group here on Wikipedia. TSO1D 23:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Lol, Telex started it! —Khoikhoi 23:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
To my great shame I can't name any of those people right away. Then again, I have a rather selective memory... I'll ask around tomorrow and see if someone can come up with names. Despite this, I have most certainly seen the first and last guys somewhere in the context... --Illythr 01:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
PS: Why not ask Node himself? ;) --Illythr 01:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Here, some info at last:
1.Gheorghe Ion Eşanu, singer [1] (couldn't find a good photo, though)
2.Unsure, could be Roxanna Maria Cebanu, an artist.
3.Unknown, probably one of the modern rock band members...
4.Evgenii (Eugen) Doga, composer (an early photo, apparently) [2] --Illythr 12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, should've paid attention to the talk page... I'm pretty certain on Doga, though. --Illythr 12:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Merger
editHi. I have replied a bit on the message board. As to the History of Moldova thing, I propose that the article ought to cover a history of the lands that are now in Moldova (if special info is relevant: for example "the territory of present-day Moldova was part of the Principality Tara de Sus down to whatever point and part of Tara de Jos down to etc." stuff like a coverage of the territory's situation during the Russo-Turkish Wars etc.), as details of the larger Moldavia article (with the Main article:Moldaviaorwhatever at the top of the early section), and, after 1812, info about more specific things relating to Bessarabia (but perhaps more succint than in there - with a Main article:Bessarabia), then the union and history inside the union (relevant things, such as the Tatar Bunar incident perhaps - stuff related to Romania, but perhaps with details about things related to Bessarabia, and mention of the creation of the Moldavian ASSR, then to inside the Soviet Union (with Main:Moldovan SSR), etc. etc. Is this a good template? Dahn 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Anittas has (via email) expressed concerns to me over where this merge is going; he thinks that some important material is getting lost. He'd appreciate if you would get in touch with him by email (which you can do via his user page, or you can email me and I'll pass on his email address; since you haven't made your email accessible, he can't do vice versa). As you probably know, he has been blocked over ad hominem remarks, etc., but as far as I know no concerns have been raised about his good faith in contributing to articles, nor about his scholarship; I recommend that you may want to get hold of him, because far as the articles themselves go I believe that his contributions have been generally positive, and since you are working on this, his thoughts on it are likely to be useful. - Jmabel | Talk 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks Jmabel for relaying that message. I'll get in touch with him and see what concerns he has. TSO1D 21:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Islam in the Soviet Union
editJust noticed the raf changes you made to Islam in the Soviet Union - I didn't know you could do that! Thank you! --Irishpunktom\talk 21:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. TSO1D 21:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Question
editI'm sure you've heard of a city called Ceadîr-Lunga. Do know of anything I can add to my newly-created masterpiece? —Khoikhoi 04:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, sorry not of the top of my head. I will, however, look up some information and try to add to it. TSO1D 13:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The reference you provided here is no longer operational. I intend to replace it with a {{fact}}tag in a few days.
I'm interested to see it, because it supported an important point in the article. AFAIK, it was general Lebed's threat to involve the 14th Army in the conflict that stopped the war... --Illythr 22:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Kosovo
editDear TSO1D, thank you for your contributions to Kosovo. Since the Kosovo article is a frequent source of dispute, it is always best to discuss matters first. On the talk page I also supplied a source stating that Albanian and Serbian are the official languages. I suggest we leave it at that (the article stated those two languages for a very long time earlier) unless we find multiple, neutral sources stating that it has no official languages. I would be happy to discuss this further on Talk:Kosovo, however. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006
editThe June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block
edit |
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. |
- I am confused, if you look at my edit history, you will notice that I have not violated 3RR as the first and last edit are separated by more than 24 hours. The rule clearly states in a 24 hour period. I was very careful not to break 3RR, otherwise I would not have reported the case in the first place. TSO1D 21:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm... you are correct. What to do about it? Leave you blocked, on the correct grounds that you were edit-warring anyway? Perhaps a bit unfair, since you left it an hour and I've done that myself in the past... OK, unblocking, but please try a bit harder to avoid edit warring in future William M. Connolley 21:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yea sorry about that, I'll try sticking to 1RR in the future, I just got a little annoyed with the other user. TSO1D 21:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm... you are correct. What to do about it? Leave you blocked, on the correct grounds that you were edit-warring anyway? Perhaps a bit unfair, since you left it an hour and I've done that myself in the past... OK, unblocking, but please try a bit harder to avoid edit warring in future William M. Connolley 21:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)