This is an archive of past discussions with User:Illythr. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk:Tiraspol is not read only by you. There could be some ignorant Wikipedia editors which need explanation. You are not an ignorant, however I saw you opposed the closure of Moldovan wikipedia (vote nr. 34 for opposal on metawiki [1]). Your vote really surprised me. I don't understand the hobby of (some) Russians from Moldova to defend Moldovan identity, in fact this should not be their problem.--MariusM19:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
-) Now, seriously, the althabet used in 1940-1989 is of historic relevance. But not in order to write new articles in it, for it is not a living language. It is important to give samples of texts, especially from official texts used during that period, and from literature printed at that time. It is not only about the althabet, but also what are the instances/thematics/contexts. It is non-sense to write about e-mail with that althabet, but it would be extremely valuable to provide say samples of a model birth ceritificate or a diploma, or an official text, etc. A good idea would be to start a cathegory or sub-project of the Romanian wikipedia, and make it of good quality. We should take every article that exists in Moldovan wikipedia, and everything that is useful in it, should be moved to the new sub-project. In time, it would be nice to have a similar sub-project for the middle age (slavonic) writing, and for the earlier Latin scripts (as was used in 18th and earliy 19th century in Transylvania etc).:Dc7622:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I may have a look at the standstill. Could you please brief me on the main disputes? I see that some users dispute the name of the article, others the content, etc. What exactly are the problems here?--Húsönd21:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the details. Since it'll take me a while to analyse this and I'm currently busy with Portal:Basque, I might take some time to get back to this situation (but not more than 24 hours I hope). I'll inform you when I've gone through this. Regards,--Húsönd23:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I had another look into the dispute. Regarding this section, have you tried to verify if all these accounts belong to the same banned user? You should bring the case to WP:RCU, and if the sockpuppetry is confirmed, then he's out of the dispute and everything would look much simpler.--Húsönd02:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my typos!
And you are correct about Finnish: The language doesn't differentiate indefinite and definite articles. --Whiskey00:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Sorry. I looked it in the history of this page, it wasn't there, and I cponcluded you did not. :) :Dc7622:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Anglo-saxon chauvinism
You noticed my stand against anglo-saxon chauvinism, there is no need to further comment on it. Is there any user box regarding this?--MariusM14:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my revert of the continuation war. It was accidental and what I thought was vandalism was truly not. Once again, I apologize for my lack of further investigation.Plm20920:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No, you did do the right thing, user Plm209. Your first intuition was right. User Illythr indeed is being accused of vandalism. The evidence is abundant. Suursaari20:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
In the article you told is written: almost a million newcomers arrived from all corners of the Soviet Union. This group was quite diverse and consisted of engineers, technicians and various other specialists who arrived to rebuild and develop the industry, of many retiring officers and soldiers of the Soviet army, who were given residence upon their return from Germany, but also of many unqualified workers, or people without strong family or native land ties, many with little or no education at all, and some outright criminals. I think is accurate in general (I am not sure about the number), is not saying all of them were criminals, only some of them (some Communist activists indeed were). Regarding EvilAlex's comment, is in Russian, I don't understand. Regarding Dabija's article, I heard about it, is stupid, but I think you should check also the reaction of PPCD (former Popular Front) at this article. I will check if I can find a link for you in this subject.--MariusM18:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I've noticed you reffered at an early version of the article, which was changed meantime. In Wikipedia anybody can write, but anyway, edits made in 2006 at Wikipedia are not relevant for atmosphere of 1990 in Moldova.--MariusM21:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Rusoaicele de Dabija
Check this article from Jurnal de Chisinau [2]. Quote: Situaţia s-a agravat după apariţia articolului lui N. Dabija “Rusoaicele –2”, care, pe lângă fondul corect al problemei, conţinea şi câteva afirmaţii greşite. Propaganda comunistă a declanşat un atac masiv asupra redactorului-şef al “LA”, învinuindu-l, fără nici un temei, de xenofobie. Agenţia de stat “Moldpres”, ziarele guvernamentale “Moldova suverană” şi “Nezavisimaia Moldova”, Televiziunea controlată de comunişti – acestea au fost primele instituţii mass-media care, rupând unele fraze din context, au pornit un atac furibund împotriva Uniunii scriitorilor, a partidelor de opoziţie PSL şi AMN, împotriva liderilor Oleg Serebrian şi Serafim Urechean şi, prin ricoşeu, împotriva presei independente. În acest cor dirijat de comunişti s-a făcut auzită vocea distinctă a liderilor PPCD Roşca şi Cubreacov, care au lovit cel mai tare în Dabija şi, implicit, în PSL. As you see, the criminals Rosca and Cubreacov were again against the national unity of Moldovans, giving the hardest hits to Moldovan national hero Nicolae Dabija. If you have problems with translation, I can help you. BTW, Romanian poet Adrian Paunescu told once that Cubreacov has a Russian-Lipovan (starover) ancestry, however I heard Cubreacov himself telling he is Romanian, who knows the truth?--MariusM19:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't read the full Dabija article, only comments about it. Roşca and co didn't have to criticise Dabija, as Dabija was not a member of their party. Is not a usual thing that a political party take position against an article in a newspaper. You seemed to be not aware about differences between Roşca and Dabija, and I just gave you an example that those differences exist. Criticising Dabija, Roşca attracted critics from Moldovan-language press, as you can see, while I doubt he gained many votes from Russians, this is why I doubt it was only a politicianist attack (however, personal fight with Dabija could play a role). I heard Dabija made a film in electoral campaign "Opriţi-l pe Iuda", Iuda (symbol of treason) being Roşca. Main difference is that Dabija, in 1988-1989, was adept of the idea of an united front of Moldovans, including communist party members, while Roşca was anticommunist. Literatura şi Arta gave a warm wellcome to Petru Lucinschi when he was apointed chief of MCP, I remember at front page was writen a letter from a reader: "I gave to my newborn baby the name Petru, in honour of the nomination of Petru Lucinschi as head of MCP". Dabija, and, by extension, Writers Union group, wanted to influence Communist Party leadership in favour of national movement demands, while MPF wanted to replace Communist leadership. This is not a black and white situation, Literatura şi Arta asked readers in 1990 to vote, among others like Snegur, Lucinschi, also for Roşca. In the same time, while MPF didn't had its own newspaper, they were dependent on Literatura şi Arta for publishing their positions and tensions were hidden. After MPF managed to publish its own newspaper the tensions were revealed and Roşca was accused for destroying the national unity of Moldovans. Anyhow, for the position of MPF - actual PPCD, you can see the fact that it was accepted in Christian-Democratic International organisation, while other parties which ask membership in this organisation, like Greater Romania Party of C.V. Tudor, was not accepted. Christian Demicratic International organisation don't accept sovinist parties as members.--MariusM14:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Dabija's article is not a prove that his historical research is wrong, especially when it is confirmed by Upson Clark and Magocsi.--MariusM14:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding inflamatory words, this is not a one-side story. I do remember photos published in Moldovan press of 1989 with slogans writen on walls like "Moldovan - mulî", "Moldovan - baran" (I still don't know what baran mean, I guess something bad) and comments about such type of words adressed to Moldovans in various occasions or hostile attitude against Moldovans trying to speak in their language in a meeting. I remember also photos with Moldovan-language public inscriptions destroyed or covered with paint. We can think who is more guilty, those who write on walls insulting slogans or destroyed Moldovan inscriptions, or those who publish reports about those facts (worse scenario being that the same people are doing both). Maybe we should consider all those as an inevitable aspect of the freedom of speech - you can not have freedom of speech in a multinational empire like Soviet Union without some ethnic tensions, especially when the freedom is granted after +50 years of lack of freedom, and the ethnic relations were not a result of natural development, but of forced development which included repressions, killings, deportations etc.--MariusM14:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Illythr, I'll get back to you in a bit on the "neo stalinism". Unfortunately, I have to log off now. But for now, please go to http://news.google.com/?q=Moldova&ie=UTF-8 (or just news.google.com and type in Moldova). This is obviously a time sensitive link. Look for the "MediaFax" story from Romania. I'll upload the full information and screenshots within the next 24 hours, but at least you can see this for yourself for now. Later from me: screenshots and additional background on what happened here. - Mauco00:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I replied to you on my talk page. BTW, do you know how to "archive" some old discussion? I want to archieve mine for 2006 (it's a section in my talk page). Thank you. :Dc7602:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thesis
Hi Illythr. I just sent you an email. If it doesn't get to you for some reason try contacting me at: jamason at umail d0t ucsb under the education superdomain. Cheers! jamason16:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
(PS...I forgot to update my email address, so when you reply send it to the email address above and not the one provided in the wikipedia email.)
Please see my talk. I finally uploaded the screenshots, along with running commentary. I am not paranoid. It was just funny, that's all. I am sure that some young journalist (an intern, no doubt) got chewed out by his boss that day. - Mauco23:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser
Maybe you and Whiskey can take turns being puppetmaster. Heh.
Well I didn't really consider our Art Dominique/Kven user friend's absurd claims to be truthful. But checkuser rules are very specific... if you don't present something just so-and-so, they'll decline the request. I thought that if a checkuser was run, it would be one more bit of proof that his claims are stupid nonsense. For example, if he makes a new sock account, edits a few articles normally, then tries to trick some uninvolved admin into blocking you all. Now there is no question.
Hi, IIlythr. The vote issue did occur to me - but in the end, these things are not meant to be binding. Perhaps a note could be left beside the polls explaining the situ, but either way, it shouldn't make a massive difference.
Similarly, the statement thing, or an agreed block from Transnistria and List of unrecognised countries did occur to me. First of all, the fact that neither appear to have requested unblocks makes me think that maybe they're accepting that this is a reasonable cooling off period. I don't know - hopefully once this block is over the problem will be solved and I think in the long run the page needs their edits. --Robdurbar21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Illythr. I hope I was not too hasty to do changes to the article Transnistria. I have not touched any of the things related to the issues under voting, including the introduction, Name, Geography (the text), etc. And I think we should let those in discussion for a couple of days (what do you think?) I am basically done: I think that if the 6 issues now being discussed are resolved and corresponding changes made everywhere in the article, then the article looks all right to me. Are you aware of any other problems?
About the list in Geography section that you have commented out, I agree. It was just an issue not to forget. But I will refrain from starting that article until we decide where to put that info, since we as ordinarry users can not detete stupid articles. So my question to you is: where should we put that info? You see, we can not list that at localities of Transnistria, since it's Cocieri, Cosnita, etc which are in Dubasari district, and Tighina, which anyway is a totally separate discussion (I think Tighina should be listed twice: as Moldova lists it, i.e. separately, and also in Transnistria, with mention that it's in the buffer zone.):Dc7622:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Robdurbar, that the page (and related) benefit(s) (informationally) from Mauco and Marius, so in the long run we need them very much. But now we can achieve some version without them, and see how they react to it. We should definitevely allow them to contribute with new stuff (in time there will be developements), or with some constructive proposals that would be supported by the rest of the group. But if anyone of them starts editting exactly the issues that we will now agree during the truce (we hope we will), then we will have to boldly step in.:Dc7622:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
fixed the link, shortened the battle description, added "murdered" back, as linking "died" to Ensatzgruppen kinda defeated the whole point) Sorry, did not mean about Ensatzgruppen, must been thinking about something else. Died of malnutrition or killed/murdered by ensatzgruppen is factually correct. :Dc7622:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
To quote from Steve Huey, "it was difficult for observers to tell whether ODB's wildly erratic behavior was the result of serious drug problems or genuine mental instability." XX, Khoikhoi02:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Though Im not going to make an issue on the subject,I think we should strive for more accuracy.Nadirali نادرالی
Pridnestrovie
Hi,
I am not sure about an edit I made on Transnistria. Does Pridnestrovie mean "By/near the Dniestr", or "Under the Dniestr". I'd say the first, but you are better qualified. What is the base Russian word used in composind Pridnestrovie? Dpotop19:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I'm not a linguist, either. All the Russian I know is, in fact, Bulgarian, learned by watching their TV during the last years of the Ceausescu regime. So, I somehow knew the sense of "pri-", but was not sure of it. :) Do you know of some online Russian dictionary where I could find this preposition? I intend to write a statement in "Names of Pridnestrovie" to say that "Transnistria" is from a Western perspective, whereas "Pridnestrovie" is the Eastern one. What do you think? Dpotop21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
"UN Report"
Please follow the link, open the report( is a .pdf file) and start reading...after that maybe you want to made some changes...I was to soft ... Catarcostica20:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
And I was more than neutral.. I should write this : This is one more proof that in Tiraspoltimes you can found only and only lies.
I did not ignore the other conclusions on that report. I let in the paragraph from the OSCE even over is written in bold : "A number of EU officials warn that the absence of evidence does not mean weapons smuggling does not take place."
I also let in the conclusion that is today is no evidence of guns production or selling.
Next: I am planning to change the line about transparency. You can find in report that is no cooperation and transparency from transdnistria gov. If you have a different opinion please mail me this days before the change. Thanks!!! ( As you can see from my main page I'm native speaker of Romanian language. We can used if you want.) -Catarcostica22:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep...good one...I agree with you about this. Now...about MariusM project, I don't know if I can help him, I just have a bit different opinion and I'm not there to now what exactly is happening over there. You can include your remarks if you want. Thanks!!! -Catarcostica03:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your changes in the crime section. Its look more neural than mine. Noroc!!
Sorry for the revert. I was looking at Buffadren page with the box that state him as Mauco puppet and I got mad. It was mot true. Catarcostica15:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Soviet occupation
Hi, I am sorry to ask you this, and I am sorry about having arrived at this stage of relations with Anonimu on Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, I guess you are aware of it. Do you feel like not worth trying to reconcile us, or maybe you have deep desire to waste several hours (not today, for I am gone in 30 mins) to do volunaty pacifying work? :-) I don't know how he would regard you, after all he said he objects to everyone Moldovan. But I hope he did not think much when used the word "moldovan", so maybe you can fit his "criteria". Whatever it will be, honestly sorry about arriving here and having to ask for you time.:Dc7619:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I am confused about Anonimu's intentions and goals, but his behavior is rather aggressive. Hm. I intend to post some comments on the page soon. --Illythr19:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
1. Why did you revert this? Of course, the Moldovan language page says it is only the name of the Romanian language as (often) used in Moldova. So I don't see any preference between the two. Maybe, taking into consideration the fact that this change can appear again and again in this article many times by whomever will read it, we can preemptively change to Moldovan (Romanian), effectively shutting the mouth of everyone? Moldovan legislation says both that the Moldovan language is official (constitution), and that it is a form of "Moldo-Romanian linguistic identity" (declaration of independence, and 1989 language law), so my interpretation of it is that Moldovan (Romanian) is perfectly all right, and does not infringes on anyone's political view to the Moldovan ethnic identity. I don't mean your political view, I am talking in general.
2. Taking into consideration that I have recently learned on my skin that diacritics should be preserved in English (I moved Maramureş to Maramures + changed in the texts of many articles, and had an admin to move back and help me revert what I did), I wonder what is your experience about them. And in this context, shouldn't it be "Găgăuzia"? :Dc7616:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
1. Well, my general idea with the "Ro/Mo" issue is that with things concerning the politics, like the "State language" and official names of places in Moldova (in the state language) the word "Moldovan" should be used. In purely linguistic things, like explanations of a word's meaning, "Romanian" is OK, IMO.
2."Gagauzia" seems to be an established English name that survived the (re)romanization of geographic locations of Moldova (like "Kishinev"->"Chişinău"). An interesting issue here is the city Tighina, which, according to Moldovan legislation is called "Bender", but is still called "Tighina" in many encyclopedias (see the article's talk page). --Illythr21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
1. a) My general idea is to prefer Moldovan (Romanian) in things concerning politics, and the rest like you. The reason is that (apart from the fact that I consider myself a nationalist (in the positive sense)) the most often used name for the official language in Moldova is neither Moldovan, nor Romanian, but as you also mentioned it several times today limba de stat.
1. b) For the fundamental law for Gagauzia, I would have been very surprised to see there Romanian, knowing under what governance it was adopted (end of Sangheli). I did not revert anything, nor insisted on all names, but rather started a discussion on the totality of the issue to find out what is reasonable and what is not. In that case you have a point.
2. a) Yes, so my question is, is Gagauzia a more established name in English than Maramures?
2. b) Yes, so we have to list something like Tighina (Bender). Any other way?
2. c) I do not believe "Kishinev"->"Chişinău" is Romanization or re-Romanization, because the locality was founded with that name, and it continued to have that name always, only during some periods in history some foreign powers that controlled the territory imposed for that time a different name. In the article Prague one does not even mention German Prag, and the city was in a German country for very-very long period of time, much longer than Moldova was in Russia and USSR.
2. a) Apparently so. Perhaps it was because Maramures is also a misspelling? I think there's some kind of convention on names of places in English...
2. b) Or maybe Bender (Tighina)... Dunno.
2. c) In case of Kishinev, the town had become known in the West under this name, due to the Kishinev pogrom, among other things. The Chisinau Airport still has its KIV designation. Prague is an established English name as well. So is Bucharest.
Same things can be called by different names. Maybe in Gagauzia Romanian is called Moldovan but almost everywhere else is known as Romanian and writing alternative name could create confusion in average reader. As for neo-colonialism, lack of Romanian in your babel box shows your neo-colonialist attitude. Luka Jačov06:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, such must be the attitude of the Moldovan Government, then. Different encyclopedias have different opinions, by the Constitution stays the same. Perhaps we could've discussed this further, if you were less aggressive and more polite... --Illythr18:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Rude? You've got wrong picture, but I apologise if I was. As for Moldovan government, this is free encyclopedia and isn't obligated to respect any political decision especially those that are against the real state of things. Still you didn't explained how you managed not to learn Romanian in all those years. Regards! Luka Jačov20:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this edit summary could've been anything but rude. You're supposed to assume good faith, remember? ;-) As for the cause, I still think that the current status quo is correct (Mo - official & political, Ro - linguistic). Plus, the Mo language article is there to explain the controversies and complications. As for my language - please do assume good faith. ;-) --Illythr01:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I could characterize your previous edit as such aswell. However I dont quite understand your last question. If you assumed good faith I guess you would have it in your babel and show respect to native population. Luka Jačov18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually Illythr, I've also wondered that :) You're English is flawless, yet you don't know the official language of your country (under whatever name)? How, why?!--Domitius18:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Eu mǎ mir singur de aceasta. ;) Most likely, due to the fact that the population is still mostly bilingual. I suppose I never got over the (forceful) way it was established. PS: The language's proper name is Romanian. --Illythr00:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Forcefully? What about how forcefully Bessarabia was occupied? What about forceful russification of territories occupied by Soviets? What do you c disputable when people want their own language in their own country? If you didn't like it why you just didn't left? I think you would be doing everyone a favour. Your imperialist and neo-colonialist views make everyone sick here. Luka Jačov23:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure Wikipedia is the right place for you? With this kind of rhetoric you'd be much better off inciting the crowds for another round of pogroms or writing hate speeches for the nationalists. Anyways, if you have any constructive suggestions for my work in Wikipedia, feel free to share them. Advising me to leave my own country, where I was born and lived most of my life, just because a bunch of ultra-nationalists had seized power and declared which language is legal and which isn't, is not constructive.
One other thing: you are not everyone (unless by "here" you mean your own residence). Using such generalizing tactics to intimidate an opponent is pretty low. Please don't, my talk page is not a tribune. In fact, all of Wikipedia isn't, but we keep forgetting that, unfortunately. --Illythr10:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Why I'll be wearing puttees from now on :)
Hi, and sorry for not getting back to you in so long (same crappy reasons, plus, as you have prolly seen, I kept myself busy with other stuff - whether I wanted to or not, sigh). Anyways, I was exploring commons and found this interesting thing. Could you please translate some of the text? (Btw, this probably confirms my belief that the puttee was a stereotype of Romanians in those times, which is both funny and sad when you think about it.) On the Goma issue: the scandal involving his antisemitism is even bigger than that, but it would have involved me translating large portions of text written by a large number of intellectual figures - this is an exhausting task, and involves another major controversy around the man, so I just gave you a taste of it from an authoritative source in English. I'll probably add more to the article on him in the near future, so the arguments will be clearly stated and referenced. Boogie down, Dahn22:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Puttees: well, yeah, but they were standard issue over here at the time. They make me think of the last chapter in The Golden Calf - an army of peasants. No, this is definitely not Rio de Janeiro. ;)
Thanks for taking the time, man. That was a pretty relevant text, actually. I suppose the swastika dates it to post-1937 of so, when we "welcomed" it. I actually heard that A. C. Cuza claimed to have invented the swastika (or, at least, to have been the first to use it as a symbol of "the good fight"...).
By the time he was proposed for the Commission, Goma was actually involved in a conflict over his antisemitic statements with virtually all other members of the board. Interestingly, the president of the Commission, who actually invited him, did not comment on the statements (although he is Jewish), and prioritized Goma's status as a dissident. However, Goma soon relied on rumors that he had rejected him as well, and began publicly ranting with all sorts of insults and libelous theories about the man's past etc. So I would say the two controversies are intimately connected, especially after all far right advocacy groups in this country began spewing the press and the web with all sorts of material that aims to back whatever Goma says and rant against whatever the Commission did. You gotta love this country... Dahn23:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, did you miss his sarcasm, perchance? I certainly wouldn't resist the acquisition of EU citizenship, though. It will make my eating of little Romanian (among others) children so much easier! ;-) --Illythr18:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Puttees: well, yeah, but that "Great War" look was rare by then (ours didn't wear boots, but exposed their puttees). I never knew if others wore the same underneath, but the Ro Army exposed them, as in the picture. If I'm wrong (and it's quite possible I'm wrong), I'm sorry. It's just that it was standard iconography for Romanians to appear in this dress in caricatures, pamphlets, etc. (Romanian ones included). In most contexts I can recall, it was associated with the image of soldiers as peasant brutes who wearing inferior and outdated equipment.
Swastika: it was not clear from the context whether it was related to "10 years from the foundation", or just "10 years from something" (especially since "10 years of occupation" would have meant ca.1928, 1932 at most). But that makes sense (and the swastika may refer to the first tentative moves towards official antisemitism). Thanks for clarifying.
Communism: what you forget is that some Romanians like to think that there was "pre-1957 communism" and "post-1957 communism", the latter culminating in "national communism" under Ceauşescu. Of course, it was the Soviets doing everything evil before 1957, and then we got our own guys to "clear" their legacy. Most of this is spurious, but it's infectious. Considering that Ceauşescu's associates included this guy, this guy, and this guy, as well as the fact that Ceauşescu became genuinely popular when he opposed the 1968 incursion in Czechoslovakia (and was openly anti-Soviet and anti-Hungarian), that, to a totalitarian mindset, he really did "improve Romania's status abroad" (some of his heralds actually claim that Romania was a great power at the time...), and that, in his later years, he began the process of rehabilitating Antonescu while sinking into treasured autarky, we can safely say that the two extremes blended (see a short mention of a related issue here and the section "A Willing Expatriate" here). This is basically it in a nutshell; what adds is that the Report did not follow this distorted view on communism, but simply stated facts as they were, and strive to condemn all that there is to condemn. Dahn01:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Could I please ask you comments on Talk:Valter Roman? My neutrality and ability as an editor are being questioned by POV-pushers and the article page was protected after a user simply erased reliable sources (by claiming they were "used too much"...). A lot of articles are falling under dispute for the same reasons: a tight group of users advocates, against wiki conventions, disruptive edits on Alexandru Nicolschi, Gheorghe Pintilie, and Vladimir Tismăneanu (erasing sheer biographical data). They go about libeling me, and are now joined by an editor who claims he wants to "mediate a dispute" (over vandalized content, i.e.) while questioning whether I am a reliable editor. It is outrageous and getting out of hand, and I need neutral editors to look into it. Sorry for not responding on other issues, but there is suddenly a full-fledged attack on me (see here and here). Dahn17:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Your comments on Gang from Lubyanka
Please stick to no personal attacks rule of Wikipedia. I never quoted Goldfarb citations in this article - it was done by Biophys. You should really learn about the existence of article edits history, which is quite useful in these cases. I just added information that Goldafarb makes money on selling this book and he is interested person. Small but meaning detail. Just in case you should also know that your title "praise and critisism of the book" is disinformation, since you have published praises taken from the book's marketing site. And it is quite clear for mediocre readers that this site would never publish critisism of the book. This site is made in order to advertise the book, not to kill it. Once more, please do not make false accusations and stick with WP:CIV.Vlad fedorov06:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I've already asked someone to do a check, but upon reviewing the contributions, I have no doubts that this is Bonaparte. RfC deleted per CSD G5, by the way. Khoikhoi20:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I've put down a list of heads of state on the president of transnistria page. Would you say its accurate? im not sure of the early constitution and im getting conflicting reports over who lead the supreme soviet..
how does this sound? i think there is an error:
1 Different sources list him as "Provisional" Chairman of Supreme Soviet and Igor Smirnov as Chairman at same time.
2 Was imprisioned from August 29, 1991 until October 1, 1991. Andrey Panteleyevich Manoylov was acting Chairman of Supreme Soviet.
Believe it or not, I did side with both Hizkiakh and MariusM out of conviction. In the first case, I did not know that he was a sock of Bonaparte (I gave up as soon as I learned, and the event has certainly ternished my image). I also clearly stated my reasons for this support, and for criticising User:Dahn's behavior.
As for the Transnistria-related edit conflict, I find it really weird that you side with a person I consider as an obvious political operative: William Mauco. I find that the situation there is currently unbalanced, given the unbalanced punishing of rule infringing. How can a sockpuppet user get 3 days, and a guy that fights him 3 weeks? This is not acceptable. I have recently seen Khoikhoi not getting any block after fighting a sock user.
Moreover, I do support those edits. I could live with a compromise solution, but it seemed to me that the other side profits from the situation to POV-push. This is not acceptable and I intervened.
I can understand your frustration, though. Note the fact that I rarely intervene on this article. This is exactly due to the fact that I consider it to be a contentious article with no obvious logical solution. I therefore intervene only when the POV becomes (from my POV) too unbalanced. Dpotop21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I've long been wondering about a question on Moldova. You have a common league with Transnistria, right? How did this happen, considering all the preceding events? And when, BTW? Alaexis05:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, they just didn't change it. It all stayed the way it was in Soviet times. The matches were interrupted in the early '90s, but were later resumed. Why - dunno, but I can surmise the the guys don't have a lot of teams to play within Transnistria. --Illythr12:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining to Dpotop that you never reffered to me as a vandal [3]. It would be nice if you will refrain pretending also in other situations that I vandalize other pages [4]. It will help your credibility. For a definition of vandalism, please look at explanations admin User:Crum375 gave: "vandalism is a very carefully defined term on Wikipedia. It refers only to an act by someone intent in his/her own mind to reduce the quality of an article". Be assured that, at least in my own mind, I improved the content of the page you claimed I vandalized.--MariusM19:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems that your opinion is not shared by other users[5]. I think your edit qualifies as "insertion of bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense.", per WP:VAND. However, if you insist, I can withdraw it, as it also qualifies as harrassment, which is not vandalism. It was also impolite. --Illythr20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting how former permabanned users want to teach Wikipedia policies to other. My edit was not a joke, was serious. Is strange that you side with a person who used sockpuppetry for so long time.--MariusM21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, interesting, but Anittas does have more experience. ;) Side? Harassing other users, especially when they're helpless and can't respond is wrong. --Illythr22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I was harrased by Mauco and his sockpuppets for 6 months in Wikipedia, including threats to other users who will dare to side with me in editing disputes. Don't tell me about harassment.--MariusM12:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Instead of pretending that the timeline of events is not complete, what stopped you after such a long time to add events in this timeline?--MariusM21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Pretending? Marius, the actions of the Moldovan government are not mentioned at all! Not even the adoption of the language law, the beatings of the MPs from Transnistria, the various political statements and orders... Why, even Moldova's declaration of independence is not there. "Pretending"? Unbelievable! What have you been reading all this time? I can't believe that Grecu just "forgot" to mention all those things. Besides, many other key points are also missing, like marshal Shaposhnikov's order authorizing the transfer of the 14th army equipment located in Moldova (right bank) to Moldovan jurisdiction (MiGs and all)... Just read the source I provided there for a heap of omitted stuff.
Time. It takes time to compile and organize a list of critical events and actions of all involved parties. As I'm not being paid for this, I'll try to do it in my spare time. Why don't you start to improve the timeline yourself? I did provide one source, and am currently reading another, provided by Vecrumba (too bad it's only in Russian). --Illythr22:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
A long time ago when we had this discussion and when you added the template. As you added the template you should add the events you believe are missing, nobody stopped you (or your friends Mauco, Alaexis and others) to do it. You can not keep a template forever. I'm not going to do your job, I am not paid either and my spare time is also limited. You have the source, you know Russian, do it! Afterwards, maybe I will ask a native Russian speaker like EvilAlex to check what you added, but I will not revert any correct information that you will add. Were MPs from Transnistria beaten? I don't know, I am waiting to see the evidence. You can not keep a template about POV disputes for months claiming that in the timeline is missing the beating of MPs from Transnistria and not providing any details or source for this. BTW, only few events from the timeline are taken from Grecu's book, the main source was an other book.--MariusM12:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Not quite like that. I pointed the problems out and proposed a solution (even brought a source to get the needed data from). No activity since then doesn't mean that the problem is gone. The tag must remain as long as the section is biased due to the omitted data. The tag may only be removed together with the section, or after the problem has been adressed. Anyone may do that.
Actually, the beatings themselves were even comparatively minor to other omitted events, like the demands of Gagausian and Transnistrian MPs for autonomy from Moldova (so that they would be able to keep Russian official there etc), which were refused (that's when those guys had left the Parliament), after which the whole separatism thing began in earnest. The source is in English and it may suffice. The info from the book by Bergman may be added later, as the part in Vecrumba's link deals mainly with the war itself (March 1992-). --Illythr21:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Your questions
Why are you not in my suspect list of sockpuppets of Mauco? I felt during months of discussions we had in Wikipedia that, while you are a 100% Russian nationalist, you still have some real good faith and respect for truth, which I never saw at Mauco. I may be wrong, as I was with Pernambuco.--MariusM16:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Are similar edits of me and Evil meatpuppetry? No, but probabily we both have Transnistria-related articles in our watchlist. By defending the truth about Transnistria is normal that we have similar edits. You were never concern by similar edits of Mauco/Pernambuco and others, I wonder why? I wonder what happened with the polite Illythr I know, who start acusing me of breaking many Wikipedia rules (vandalism, meatpuppetry, harrasment). Do you hate me?--MariusM16:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe William is *my* sockpuppet! Muahahaa! No! Maybe you *both* are sockpuppets of a single sinister Overmind, who uses you to... eh, uses you, ummm... yes! To take over the world! :-D It's obvious, isn't it? Wanna have the world, start with Wikipedia, which is the world in a nutshell. Just gnaw on the nutshell a bit and you'll see...
You continue to claim that POV of Transnistria-related articles is destabilized, however you failed to tell exactly in which way. I am very curious about your opinion but I am unable to understand it. How many times I reverted correct information added by you in more than a half year of our interaction in Wikipedia?--MariusM10:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, you did endorse Bonny's vandalism at least twice already (by reverting to him), and he did remove LOTS of info. But my general concern is expressed in my last posts in the Killings section. --Illythr13:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
In fact it was Bonny who endorsed me, not me who endorsed Bonny. I am still waiting to see an example when you added correct and sourced info and I reverted you. With diffs, please. You should change your style of expressing general concerns about article, you should make concrete proposals for editing.--MariusM17:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Shrug* Delete the "according to" lists and make a general summary on the issues of crime and human rights about half as large as the current sections. As for Bonny, *shrug again*, I don't really pay attention who of you is endorsing the other, you two seem to work very well in tandem anyway. Point was, Bonny came in and did his dirty little thing, got reverted, then you reverted to him, preventing quick deletion of his edits as being done by a banned user. --Illythr23:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Ruwiki military history
As I've seen you and Whiskey doing some contributions together in the Russian Wikipedia, perhaps you can explain this ru:Финская оккупация Карелии в 1941—1944 годах? It's rather interesting that the article is only about the camps, and obviously very pro-Soviet. It's categorized in concentration camps and genocide. How occupation can be a concentration camp? Anyway, I tried to remove them but I get reverted. I find it weird that the editors in Russian Wikipedia dispute the Holodomor genocide very much, but call Finnish occupation of Karelia a genocide without any doubt. We have to be careful using these words. The reason I visited that article was because it's listed on Military history of Finland during World War II, but apparently isn't really about Finland during WW2... What I am asking here is to understand these ru-wiki policies a bit more.. --Pudeo (Talk) 15:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hm, as I see it, the article is indeed about the occupation, or rather, mostly about the killings of ethnic Russians by Finns in this period/area. The camps thing is just brought up into the intro. I think I can moderate the tone of the article a bit, but I cannot dispute the facts as I have not read the books given as sources there. I believe that the term "genocide" is applied to the article, because the article describes the targeted killings of one ethnicity (based solely on the ethnicity) committed en masse. The concentration cams thing probably refers to the presence of descriptions of the camps in the article. --Illythr17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright. About the genocide though, they weren't really targeted killings, but there wasn't simply enough food even for own people after bad harvest in 1942. The reason for the camps was different, some who could work were made to work on farming etc. Some people, including professor Jalmari Jaakkola were planning to move Russians to German controlled areas after Operation Barbarossa would have been victorious, and therefore Finnicize Karelia. This turned out a tragedy as there was simply not enough food (this turned out problematic with POWs too, my grandfather has some first-hand experience on this in an anti-partisan unit..) But unfortunately these policies were not unusual during Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union, we could talk about genocide of the Estonians/Ukrainian or so, when they were moved to Siberia. But no-one should defend these camps, not Finnish or Soviet camps, we just need to describe these tragedies in NPOV. I appreciate your efforts. --Pudeo (Talk) 18:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I lack the knowledge of the facts to dispute them with you or user:Red October. This sorta makes me neutral on the issue, but the price is that I can only try to "soften" the looks. I'm sure however, that both sides have tried to make things look their way for all this time. --Illythr18:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see what Red October is doing. Perhaps we can realize something just from his nickname.. He also states in the ru:Карелы that the number of Karelians dropped because of the genocide done by Finns. Heh, infact most Karelians were evacuated from Finnish Karelia, and almost all chose to be evacuated instead of staying. My grandfather is a Karelian, and I'm very doubtful he would agree on this fellow-karelian's soviet-ethnonationalism... Knowing many Karelians myself, I doubt they have ever heard of genocide of Karelians.. But I believe not much can be done to stop this. The Ru-Wiki atmosphere isn't really allowing him to be stopped, unlike kven-users etc. here were. And yeah, I can't speak any Russian so I don't know the usage of the word "genocide", so perhaps they can be used, still having a strong Soviet-POV. But here in English Wikipedia we've had huge disputes about "Armenian Genocide" and Holodomor classed as genocide and so on. I haven't seen very much biasing in the Finnish Wikipedia, though Kven-User was there for some time but nobody really agreed with him and he was banned.--Pudeo (Talk) 13:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The word "Геноцид" posesses exactly the same meaning (and connotations) in Russian. Again, I can take neither your words as the objective truth, nor Octobers' and I have read no serious sources on the issue and don't even know who Seppala is. So, I can only comment on the form and style of the articles (I can usually see strong POV even without knowing the facts behind it). Red October has satisfied my citation requests with Seppala's book "Finland as an occupant", and now the source itself must be examined. --Illythr00:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, also I try to keep my mouth close to the middle when contributing in ru-Wiki, and I try to find sources and reasoning which can be verified by Russians. Unfortunately that is not always possible.:-(
On the other issue, you asked about the style of writers writing in fi-Wiki and here. After following them a little bit it seems, that most of them are more critical to Finnish actions in fi-wiki than here, but there aren't great differences. For fi-Wiki only contributors, they seem to be much more critical than average fi/en-Wiki contributors. Maybe it is something about keeping the consistent line outside the country and making all quarrels in fi-only forum... --Whiskey20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, enwiki attracts all the politically motivated editors from other projects due to its much larger audience. As for your ruwiki activity - I can only ask you to keep up the good work! Feel free to ask me on any language-related interpretation issues. I'm not much of help with hard facts, unfortunately. --Illythr11:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Ляляля
Я же говорю не работает User:Agof K.P.2/p 23:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Just curious: Are you in charge with public relations of Buffadren/Dikarka/Alaexis/Helen28 as you made comments about how they feel on Transnistria's arbitration case? Or are you their mind reader? Why don't you let themselves to comment if they want? Alaexis in fact already commented the RCU which included Buffadren, Dikarka and Helen28 on the same page. If you didn't notice, I mentioned also at arbcom a RCU I asked regarding MarkStreet/Buffadren which was denied, don't miss the opportunity to comment on this request! Fiecare pasăre pre limba ei piere.
Did you ask your friend Mauco why he didn't emailed the evidence for arbitration case as he was requested [6]?--MariusM22:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you notice the "I suppose" part in my post? Of course, if you had been more specific with whose hate you are supposedly attracting...
I'll probably comment on the result of that request. I see that you cooperate with Domitius/Ploutarchos in your sock-hunt. Couldn't you somehow coordinate your actions, as Ploutarchos has just requested to check Buffadren against Mauco again?
Say, Marius, why don't you list your other mistakes, like cooperating with Bonaparte, or all those failed Checkuser requests?
Sorry, I don't coordinate my actions with Ploutarchos, this is why he asked again a check which was already done. I don't know which are my other mistakes, I am waiting Mauco to submit his evidence against me at arbcom case, in order to respond exactly at the accusations which will be brought. As long, I see nothing was brought. Don't expect from me to be like the women from the old Romanian wisdom "bate-ţi nevasta, că dacă nu ştii tu de ce, las' că ştie ea". I see the tone of your discussions with me is changing, you are heading toward the Dark Side. This is why I told you the saying with "pasărea pre limba ei". Still curious why Mauco don't submit himself evidence but is operating through proxies in this arbcom case.--MariusM23:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, nobody cared to unblock Mauco. Perhaps you can personally vouch for him? I think that'll do the trick...
Dark Side? Where exactly? Of course, I don't like it, when you're openly cooperating with known vandals, go vote shopping, try to intimidate your opposition with buckshot Checkuser requests, or pretend that the Moldovan side did absolutely nothing to fuel the fires of War of Transnistria, but hate? You are greatly overestimating your impression on me, I'm afraid.
Meanwhile, I found yet another one of your mistakes, a pretty grave one, too. [7] It seems that your last piece of Romanian wisdom did guide your hand this time, after all. --Illythr00:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I was the first person who agreed on Irpen's proposal for a conditional unblock for Mauco [8], and I repeated this opinion in my statement in the arbitration case: "a conditional unblock (only for editing this page, if he is caught editing other pages to be imediatelly permabanned) is a good idea"[9]. What can I do more than that? You knew this, of course, as you follow very closely my contributions, but the Dark Side I was talking about is stopping you to admit this, you still want to paint me as a malicious person who is doing incorrect things in Wikipedia. With checkuser requests I can intimidate only sockpupeteers, do you admit that my opposition is composed mainly of sockpuppeteers? Regarding the other big mistakes that I made, I answered at relevant page.--MariusM00:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Not agree, actively request, demand this! Maybe then they'll listen. :-)
I don't wan't to "paint" you as anything, the sad thing is, your actions speak for themselves. This is also why I kept reminding you to apologise to the persons you have wrongly accused in the past. I believe that your moral compass got stuck at some point of your confrontation with Mauco. At some moment, you seem to have decided that discussion and consensus are not getting you anywhere and chose to pursue other means of getting what you want. Asking you to admit your mistakes and apologise for them was my way of tapping a stuck compass to make it work again. It seems that this strategy has proven ineffective, so I'll stop it. This actually has very little to do with all those persons you've wronged. It doesn't even matter if some of them will turn out to be someone's sockpupets - the way you treat them now is the important thing.
Here, a simple analogy: You physically assault, beat up and search every bearded man in your district, because you have good reasons to believe that Osama bin Laden is hiding in the neighbourhood. If the man you've just beat up turns to be him, then congrats, you've done the world a service! But if he's just an innocent bystander, then at least a "Sorry, wrong guy..." should be uttered, don't you think? ('tis silly, I know :-) ) --Illythr01:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain why your comparison is silly: Using sockpuppets is a bad thing. Using in the way Mauco did (you didn't read the evidence in arbcom case?) is, IMHO, very bad. Having a beard is not a bad thing. Acting against sockpuppets is legitimate, acting against bearded men not. Not to mention difference between beating someone and asking sockpuppets verification of unknown persons. You got it?--MariusM01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Having a dissenting opinion is not a bad thing either. Demanding checkuser for everyone who has it, while legitimate (the demands were endorsed until recently, when the checkusers got tired of it, apparently), is bad. Violation of privacy is not good either. --Illythr01:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Translation of MariusM's message
Hi Illythr. Based on the talk page policy, I shall offer a translation of the exchange between me and MariusM:
Hi Ronline, I have question for you. I'm involved in an arbitration [case] related to the Transnistria article. One of the arbitrators which accepted the case is Kirill Lokshin, of Russian origin. I ask myself if he may not show bias in this arbitration. Do you know him? Is there a possibility of recusing an arbitrator, and if there is, do you believe this to be appropriate in the case of hand? And about the other arbitrators, please tell me if you know them and if they seem serious to you. - MariusM
Hi. Generally at Wikipedia, ethnic origin doesn't really count and cannot be used as a motive for rejecting an arbitrator. Based on the contributions of Kirill Lokshin, it can be seen that he wrote some "featured" articles which are not connected to the subject of Russia. Thus, I don't see a history of edit warring, of bias or of anything like that. I believe that all arbitrators are professional and try to be as neutral as possible, even though there have been cases in the past where the ArbCom was not totally neutral. I personally believe that arbitration is rather punitive and in general does not produce good results for any of the parts involved. Despite this, if the case has already begun, I believe the best decision is to accept it and we will see what happens. If by any chance a decision is ruled which you believe is unfair, then an appeal can be made. I will monitor the case to see what happens. All the best, Ronline
So, I think what Marius was saying was that he believes that Kirill Lokshin may not be able to deliver a fair judgement, and if there is thus a possibility of recusing him as an arbitrator in this case. In this way, I don't believe it was an example of ethnic-based prejudice per se, but rather a not particularly helpful preconception that an arbitrator's ethnic origin may impact on the fairness of the ruling. If would like to know about anything else, please let me know. Thanks, Ronline✉08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear you condemn the action in Tighina. However, I would say that one is even worse, since the troops died right there, and were interred after an Orthodox funeral, whereas in Tallinn they did not die on that spot and were placed there for propaganda purposes, without a proper burial rite. Biruitorul17:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course it was atheist, and I condemn that very fact, which is part of why it was so illegitimate to begin with. As for the "just cause": it's a double-edged sword. True, they eliminated one tyranny, and I appreciate that, but they replaced it with another that was, ceteris paribus, just as bad (though the common soldier wasn't really at fault - his superiors were to blame). Those who lie in unmarked graves, one could say, are at least remembered by God and by their families, while those in Tallinn were exploited by a ruthless régime as part of its attempts to destroy Estonia as a nation. Naturally the dead should be honoured, but, in my view, that is not the right way to do it. Biruitorul18:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
What I meant by exploitation is that their bodies were used not only to honour their sacrifice (which is fine), but also to help reinforce Soviet domination (at least symbolically) over Estonia by suggesting Estonians owed permanent allegiance to Moscow because of the liberation, ignoring the fact that it was also a second enslavement (or else I'm reading too much into this). So I think its original purpose was more than just a war memorial.
Ah, the glorious days of Mircea Druc! Would that Romanians' national aspirations for unity extending across the banks of the Prut had been fulfilled, and Russian imperialism not stopped that dynamic moment in its tracks. Some day, some day... Anyway, it's Red, for goodness' sake. And yes, I do think it too exemplifies Soviet domination, which is wrong. Better to replace it with something less provocative (Chişinău being, after all, an eminently Romanian city). Biruitorul20:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I've enjoyed the discussion. By "Russian imperialism", I was referring to Lebed's threat that he could be in Bucharest in 8 hours, which helped stall momentum for Union. And the continuing presence of the famous XIVth Army. Biruitorul21:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Pridnestrovlje
The book is available online, on amazon.com. You can "search inside" to check the reference.--Hadžija16:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right about secure chanells and I know that I have many friends "monitoring" my contributions. However I believe important to tell publicly what I think, and I will do that even if this will bring unpleasant consequences for me. This is the spirit of 1989 (do you remember this wonderfull year?).--MariusM21:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your wise advices. You seem better trained than me. Regarding the language, I have to confess that one of the evil plans of Romanian ultra-super-giga-mega-nationalists is to make Russians from Moldova to learn the language. There are reports that the plan is succesfull, the curious part of Russian-Moldovan community was already improving its Romanian language skills.--MariusM20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
A nice article from "Tiraspol Times": Băsescu win celebrated in Tiraspol and Chişinău. I can imagine people from Tiraspol going on the streets and celebrating Băsescu's victory. The sad part (for Internet Brigade) is that, as Tiraspol Times is saying, the actual Romanian leadership is not interested about Transnistria.--MariusM20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Heh, a touching unity of opinion from places with radically different POVs. :-) Hey Marius, maybe you should subscribe to that paper? --Illythr22:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I see. Perhaps they should start paying you or all the good work as well? ;-) Well, if you find any more interesting articles in there, do drop me a link. --Illythr15:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're a good teacher. ;-) On a somewhat more serious note, the "medal" is as direct a personal attack as one can possibly be without being thrown in the target's face. Perhaps Alex will realize his error and reword it in a neutral manner? --Illythr15:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Common sense rule about personal attacks
In order that an action to be taken by authorities, the victim should file a complaint. For example, in a rape case, there will be no investigation done by authorities if the alleged victim didn't complained. Same situations is in less important offences, like insults, hittings. Exceptions are few, in cases of victims considered unable to defend themselves, like kids. This is a common sense rule, nobody is allowed to make accusations against the alleged victim will (let's take rape case again: how can you know it was rape if the victim is not telling that it was rape?). I saw you looking for old personal attacks of EvilAlex in disputes where you were not involved. There can be many reasons why the alleged victim didn't complaint: maybe the victim is not so innocent and engaged himself in personal attacks, he knew that he only received an answer at his own action; maybe the entire discussion was a joke; also, in orthodox christianity, an undeniable right of a human being is to forgive (I don't know if you are familiar with this). Is difficult to know after one year the exact situation. It is legitimate for the victim to complain, but not for a third party, especially not after waiting long time and acting only when an opportunity appeared.
Hey, I'm not starting a court suit, you know. It'd be better just to post a link to the applicable Wikipedia policy. Here's mine: WP:NPA. Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. That is all. There is no need to make any accusations, only ask for an outside opinion. A peaceful resolution is always preferable. As for timing - I see no difference between back then, when I asked you and now, strategy-wise. Am I supposed to even have a strategy? Dc76 just reminded me of that thing lately. BTW, Marius, it's kinda too bad you gave Alex that "historical accuracy" barnstar a month too late. It'd look rather... descriptive being placed right under that little motto of Alex'. --Illythr20:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding witchhunt, there is no doubt that Mauco prepared a ban for both me and EvilAlex. He succeded with User:Greier. Look at evidence page "Smear campaign, hypocrisy" chapter, evidence 36 and this for EvilAlex. Selfdefence is legitimate, if is based on true facts. There is a difference between unjustified personal attacks, like inventing untrue facts about opponents, and justified personal attacks, like telling that a sockpuppeteer is a sockpuppeteer and a duck is a duck, not a flying object.--MariusM16:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
1) "Self defence"? So that was a kind of retaliation pre-emptitive attack using the "let's kill him before he kills us" tactic? Heh, now YOU tell me about forgiveness...
2) There is no difference between personal attacks. Period. Have you heard the notion "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? I know this type of reasoning very well, Marius. Frustrated by those (justly or not) attacking one's POV, a person becomes embittered and so self-assured, that he begins to believe that even the most monstrous actions are acceptable when used against the "bad guys". Please don't go that way, Marius. "Once you head down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny..." ;-) --Illythr20:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Did I made "monstruos" actions? Telling that a sockpuppeteer is a sockpuppeteer is monstruos? That's a neutral description, indeed. Regarding forgiveness, this is a RIGHT, not an OBLIGATION. I know that I am not a good christian, probabily I will burn in hell because of the report I made against Mauco. Pray for me.--MariusM20:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, with old PA I was thinking more at "Tundra" thing (one of your obsession). When you are telling repeatedlly that EvilAlex's webpage is a "hate site", this is also a personal attack. Wanting the retreat of Russian Army from Transnistria is not the same as hating Russians, is the difference too subtle for you?--MariusM20:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you do anything monstrous? Not yet, Marius. Not yet...
I'd imagine a call to "step on it" corresponds with the notion of a hate site pretty well.
Hating Russians comes from the part Alaexis has added to the "Evidence" lately. It specifically attacks Russians. --Illythr20:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't speak Russian, I can not judge the latest evidence, but I see it's from 2005 (and is a discussion with Node UE who probabily doesn't speak Russian either). Why are we talking in 2007 about an edit from 2005? Regarding "step on it", there is a picture of somebody stepping on the PMR heraldics. There are no Russians on that picture. I guess that specifically because of PMR problem and Russia's involvement on it, ethnic Russians from Chişinău faced some hostility. Mother Russia is responsible for some of your problems, you better explain this to her instead of defending blindly any Russian action. You should understand that a person like EvilAlex, who lived in Bender and saw the war, has strong feelings about this. Try to understand people before blaming them.--MariusM21:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Because, apparently, nothing has changed since 2005. There was a significant improvement in Alex' behavior for a while, but then he returned to his old ways, it seems. Oh and you got it backwards: specifically because ethnic Russiansnon-titular Moldovan citizens (including Transnistria) faced some quite a lot of hostility, the PMR (and Gagauzia) problem had appeared. You didn't notice the "Kill the Russian" remake of the old Soviet WWII poster as well, I suppose? As for not speaking Russian - as this is the third time I see you using it as an excuse to ignore that particular piece of "info", I can suggest babelfishing it. Although a large part will remain untranslated due to poor grammar and obscene language... --Illythr23:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
What "Kill the Russian" poster are you talking about? I see only a poster with "Defend your country". I told already you are dreaming too much about hate speaches against Russians, you have an obsession and see hate speaches everywhere.--MariusM08:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It's in a different section nearby. I think it was originally Hitler in that sheep skin. You asked Dc76 for a translation, so I withdraw that remark. Please refrain from personal attacks. --Illythr11:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You should follow the rule about personal attacks, as you made unjustified personal attacks against me and EvilAlex, while both of us were trying to be friendly with you. The poster with the sheep skin is featuring Igor Smirnov, it is fallacious to consider a poster against Smirnov as hate speech against Russians. Maybe you will consider to apologise to EvilAlex for repeatedly spreading mischaracterisations of his website. Regarding ethnic problems, while in Basarabia non-Moldovans suffered some hostility (but this is over, Communists are Russian-friendly, Voronin himself is using Russian as the language of his own family), in Transnistria the ethnic Moldovans are the ones who suffered most and are still suffering hostility. In youtube documentary you can find data about this.--MariusM23:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
A site that calls out to kill anyone fits the definition of a hate site quite well. Is that really Smirnov? I kinda din't recognize the mangled face. I did notice the flag on its forehead, though.
Communists are not really that Russian-friendly, considering what they had promised during elections (and that they're now cuddled up with Roshka). As for ethnic problems, I know that it's over now (well, the sentiment is still there, but it subsided), but the damage is already done. The mess created by those power-hungry idiots will be extremely difficult to sort out. The most realistic prospect for Moldova seems to head for the EU and leave Transnistria behind, unfortunately. --Illythr00:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Please give me a diff of what you consider an unjustified personal attack against you. Perhaps I can further explain what was its real purpose. --Illythr00:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
So that he may "start confessing the complete list of his sockpuppets"? And promptly get himself banned for it, just like Bonny had attempted to? Besides, you presented your assumption of him having more sockpuppets as fact. Hey, didn't you tell me that you stopped assuming good faith with Mauco a long time ago (because he's such a bad guy and all)? --Illythr00:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Carbonite's law: "the more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith". Mauco was very often citing the AGF rule and unfortunately you are following the same trend. Don't forget the assume bad faith rule ;-). BTW, as it was clarified that EvilAlex's poster was featuring Smirnov (it is in the "Smirnov" section of his website, nearby is an other poster with the same face where the name is written), are you going to apologise to EvilAlex for your comments?--MariusM08:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I read those before. Wikipedia policies can be pretty self-contradictory. Then again, those are but essays... As I said, a site calling out to "step on it" or kill someone is a hate site, unless meant as a joke, but even then, a pretty lame one. The part about Russians stems from that piece Dc76 was supposed to translate for you (beside other things). Besides, note the flag. --Illythr10:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Please reread my post above. As for Voronin - I remember you guys saying this bhhrg thing is some kind of propaganda group? --Illythr17:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Just google "Voronin, fascist flag" and you will see a lot of references. I took the first in English-language, I forget about the plan to force you to learn Romanian.--MariusM22:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Found a more neutral source [12]. It would seem that Voronin's statement was rather indirect... Don't hesitate to drop me links in Romanian as well, if you consider the info in them relevant. While I am unable to effectively comprehend large texts, I can read smaller things like news reports without serious problems. Especially now that "Englishification" is spreading into the Moldovan language ( ;) ) as well. --Illythr22:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Wondering if the "fascist flag" expression was told by Voronin "repeatedly" (as the propaganda source is saying) or was only a one moment incident (as your source is suggesting). Anyhow, Voronin is a good example of homo sovieticus. Until 1989 he was Communist Party boss in Bender, I wonder what career Voronin missed because he left Bender in 1989 and was appointed Interior Minister in Chişinău? If the tensions of 1989 would have catch Voronin in Bender, how would he react? Considering his aversion against Moldovan national movement, I find very probable that in a parallel world Voronin is a leader of Transnistrian separatist movement.--MariusM09:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You know, the difference between them is not that big... both aren't really what they claim to be; both have sons named Oleg, who do more or less the same stuff... among other things. As for his aversion to nationalists - care to take a guess on who played a key role in his last reelection? There's a "New Russian" saying about situations like this (generated somewhere around the 1998 crisis): "Бабло побеждает зло". ;-) --Illythr17:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't make me to go again at DC76 (or to EvilAlex) for a translation. Or is this part of an evil plan to make me learning Russian? Regarding Oleg Voronin, Romanian press is writing sometimes about him. I don't believe that between Voronin and PPCD was ever a real alliance, but PPCD is a democratic party which respect the will of the people. As Moldovan people were stupid enough to vote Communists, as the alternative of not electing Voronin was to repeat elections with probably the same result, PPCD accepted people's will and tried to obtain best results from the given situation. It is not an extremist party which starts insurrections. What political opponents accused PPCD afterwards is an other thing. Did you noticed the travel journal that Mauco's friend, Edward Lucas, published in "The Economist"? "Wednesday" a nice observation from Tiraspol: "A short way away is the headquarters of the MGB. Across the road is a fast-food joint that, oddly, is owned by the son of a senior Moldovan politician"[13]. I am wondering who is this Moldovan politician.--MariusM18:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
As you had shared some valuable pieces of Romanian wisdom with me, I feel compelled to return the favour. ;-) I recall Roshka saying that Voronin will be president over his dead body. And whaddayaknow, they go and vote for him, along with a few "renegade" democrats, right next week. Heh. They do have one major insurrection (and a few minor ones) behind then, BTW.
The stuff on Oleg is a bit stale. I understand he had stepped on some big toes around 2005 and had to flee from Moldova. I think he's still hiding somewhere now.
Dunno who that politician is, but it's pretty obvious that there's a lot of people on the right bank and Ukraine, who don't really want the conflict to be solved.
I am not idealizing USA. I think that all civilized world should take part in that. You will ask me what is "civilized world", and I'll answer "those that take down dictatures" :-) I mentioned USA, because, like Niall Ferguson, I believe USA should live up to its status in the world and not shut inside a shell like 1939-41 & like some Democrats (the US party; and barely more than 50% of Dems) suggest now.
Status as the world's policeman, you mean? Yeah, but who watches the watchers? Self-assurendness leads to bigotry very quickly. Check out WP:TRUTH. ;-) It all tends to come down to "let's gather all the bad people in one place and shoot them!", unfortunately. --Illythr16:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No, not policeman. And not USA, all civilized countries acting together. And there is noway to get all of them together. And not by shooting them, but by removing them from power and give the later to the people. In a world that becomes more and more small every day - this is necessary. Looking at people being persecuted or diying of hunger and do nothing was hipocresy esterday, but I say it is a moral crime today.:Dc7618:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Problems arise when people begin to disagree on who's the good guy and who's the bad one. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...etc. --Illythr01:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"That it would involve participating in terrorist attacks against Russian civilians would be... unfortunate circumstance for most, a bonus for some, a disgusting crime for a select few." Against civilians - it will be terrorism. Even done by regular army. (Collateral damage which you did not expect, and took all precautions possible is a different story). I might agree with the Chechen cause, but I know very well Basayev was a terrorist, he called himself so. One of the biggest damages to Chechens' reputation was that Russians menaged to make Basayev's name appear in the media more often that Maskhadov's, Dudayev's or Zakayev's.
Well, he was the most visible figure out of them all. It's not like the Russian press made him kill all those innocents... --Illythr16:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Dudayev bus by far the most visible. But noone made Basayev kill civilians - obviously you are right.:Dc7618:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
"Пусть они перестреляют друг друга" - most of the warmongers and did not take part in the fighting at all, while many curageous people died for nothing, betrayed by politicians. Well, for nothing practical, they died for a cause, which makes them heroes and a symbol, and well frankly speaking preferable to living in disease and poverty in a God forsaken country.:Dc7615:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, c'est la vie. How did that saying go? The appearance of selfless heroes among the people means that some scoundrels sitting in the government had caused the situation that needs heroes to solve it. The more heroes, the greater the scoundrels. --Illythr16:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I heard something in the talk, but wasn't sure. 4th of june? -6 months=4 december. oh, now i see why i had no idea about it. see also [14]. If Jmabel will support as well, maybe continue this discussion at his page, so everyone can see.:Dc7619:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course I know it is vandalism, originally I wanted to rv within 2 minutes. But you know, that was late one day, and overnight I sort of thought "well, let me wait a moment". This is a guy who did not get an obvious joke and made a public declaration a la "I condemn the hallowen". In fact, in southern Romania there are a lot of expressions in common speech using the word "stake". For example "m-au tras în ţeapă" means "I was fooled" ("m-au păcălit"), not "I was tortured to death". The only rational way to react to the "event" in that park was to laugh it out. By reacting to it in any different way one draws attention that he did not understand the joke. Back to my edit, "X had a public conflict with Vlad Ţepeş about the ownership of a number of stakes" is a re-wording of "X made public that he believes he owns some stakes" = "X made public that he believes he is a fool". :-) which is exactly what he did by giving a declaration. So, my edit is factually correct, unlike the "info" in the uncyclopedia. It is of course a stretch in its presentation, a neutral one would have been "In May 2007, X did not understand an obvious in Romanian popular culture joke, mistakenly thinking that an exhibit in a park in Romania was a serious event, and made a public comment condemning "torture instruments", which ammused the public." Well, I'll leave my edit a little longer, maybe for a day or two, if it does not create any problem (who reads that page?!), and then change it with this one.
P.S. "when Vlad Dracula claimed the stakes" = "when the joke has been laughed already". The sense is that the joke remained funny the whole day. :Dc7616:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you are actually right. It is similar in Russian.
Well, you heard when Khruschev's remarks in UN were translated "he claims he had a love affair with your mother". Lost in translation... Actually many from Moldova might not understand the joke at first. Anyway, they would see right away that "condemning" would be making yourself fool, but Moldovans don't use so often the expressions (in fact, some don't even know them - the daily vocabulary of the average person is not necessarily very high):Dc7617:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
[|:::::/]. I already read this about a week ago. Did they manage to prove that the original attacks came directly from Kremlin? I guess Putin had had some free time to play with his computer a bit. :) I've come across at least one Russian hacker forum, where a call to participate had provoked an unanimous reaction. The vast majority of Russians condemn the removal with varying strength, to I bet that a lot of them would willingly participate in such an undertaking. I fail to see the point of it, though. --Illythr23:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
One practical result exist: increasing Russophobia. Not something that people who did this are caring about, but Russians who live as minorities outside Russia will feel. To quote Mr. Sure Entry, is the principle of action and reaction.--MariusM18:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Dunno. This seems to unify ethnic Russians there and it could also draw European attention to human rights problems they experience. On the other hand I've been to Estonia for only a week so I don't know how it is to be Russian there. Alæxis¿question?19:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Unifying Ethnic Russians through a conflict with the majority population seems to be a more important goal than peacefull coexistence. Any attempt to deny that Russian Army action was a "liberation" is a human right problem. Alaexis is right considering that ethnic conflicts are the best ways to unify an ethnic group.--MariusM20:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Unifying itself is not a bad thing and if you strive for the right to vote or to be educated in your language it's but impossible when you're not united imho. Alæxis¿question?06:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, his Russian is at native level... And the Russian flag is the biggest one on his page. Hm, Alaexis, are you Russian? :) --Illythr17:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
On the second thought, how would you know that the passport's owner and myself is the same person? So I'll abstain from scanning my passport. Alæxis¿question?19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Damn!
That is indeed bad news, Illythr. I sometimes count the Romanian-language contributors without whom this project would be poorer, and he was up there with the best of them; I just assumed we have not crossed paths, didn't really know that he was no longer active. Meanwhile, Bonaparte creates himself another 200 socks...
Nope, not really. We had little common interests, and usually met through sheer serendipity. I'm guessing it could be that he lost access to the internet... Dahn00:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hate speeches and insults
First time Alaexis complained about inexistent insults was here and second time in Talk:Transnistria. This has nothing to do with Evil's message from 2005, that you will keep talking about in the next 10 years. Anyhow, inventing "hate speeches" and "insults" of opponents is a good tactic. Do Russians like posing as permanent victims? Russia - the victim and Moldova or Georgia - the aggressors, like in La Fontaine fables.--MariusM16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The first is a poorly veiled baiting insult against Alaexis. The second clearly referred to EvilAlex's little passage that proves his ethnic bias beyond reasonable doubt. As several people (yourself included) attempt to portray Alex as an innocent victim of the draconic ArbComm, it may sometimes be necessary to demonstrate their error.
"Inventing"? In case of Alex, there is no need to invent anything. He, like Mark Street, did his best to undermine his own credibility with such statements. Your last sentence shows that you are not devoid of ethnic bias yourself. I shall take this into consideration. I still have my doubts, but this and this seem to point that way, alas. --Illythr19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I wonder how this can be linked with Evil's postings when Evil was not part of the discussion and he was not active in the last period. I see that you consider an insult even telling "dear" to a fellow editor. I saw you promised to apologise in case of wrong translation. Meantime, Ronline explained to you that your translation is wrong but I still didn't received your apologies.--MariusM16:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Alaexis' response is given directly to DPotop's statement "EvilAlex indeed fought many guys here, but he did it properly". I think it's best you sort out the rest with Alaexis directly.
While your remark on Kirill Lokshin's possible bias just because he's Russian was not really disruptive, you had demonstrated exactly the sort of bias you accused Mauco of here. --Illythr19:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You gave a good example of accurate info I gave about Mauco. The arbitrators didn't share your opinion that my behaviour was disruptive. I observed and supported your will to become an involved part in the arbitration case, is a pity that the arbitrators didn't.--MariusM21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
? I'm referring to this particular issue, not you general behavior. That bit about accusing of being a Romanian is your interpretation without any factual basis (at least, you didn't produce any). In fact, Mauco has worked with Romanians (TSO1D) quite well in the past. Romanians who support your POV are but a subset of Romanians as an ethnic group. --Illythr21:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations for your new mayor!
Congratulations for the new mayor of your city. You may be interested to see images from his meeting with Romanian president here (also an interview at Romanian television, his former workplace). I read an article that your new mayor started a speech with the words "Ladies and Gentlemen, Romanians, Russians, Ukrainians, Gagauzs" - a way of showing that he is the mayor of all citizens, independent of ethnicity, but at the same time showing that he don't consider that Moldovan ethnicity exist. You should trust your new mayor, he has a good education (finished in Romania) and is coming from a good family - Gheorghe Ghimpu, the brother of his uncle and current party chief was in the Soviet gulag for advocating Moldovan union with Romania (Ceausescu's Romanian government betrayed him giving all necesary data to KGB; in his trial Mircea Druc was a witness of accusation, allegedly refusing to tell in court what KGB asked, however Ghimpu was still convicted). Future looks bright.--MariusM22:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've heard that the nationalists have managed to push through their candidate (I'm currently outside of Moldova). As this was mainly a choice between communists and nationalists, it's not like there was a good choice there. Still, there does indeed seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel for Moldova: The Communists are definitely going down, and they're taking the nationalists with them (I originally thought that the purchase of Roshca by the Communists had killed him politically, but it seems he won't sink so easily), giving the otherwise weak centrist groups a chance of putting someone without weird ideas or strong "private interests" at the wheel. A slim chance at best, but it's all we have for now. --Illythr23:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about Roşca, his party had 20 mayors after 2003 elections and now is having 62 mayors. In Chişinău the results were a disaster for him, but in the countryside he's done an excellent job, stealing votes from Communists. I'm wondering about your definition of nationalism in Moldovan context: somebody who refuse to accept the existence of a separate Moldovan ethnicity? somebody who studied in Romania? somebody who had members of his family in Soviet Gulag? Don't worry about your absence from Moldova, anyhow you couldn't have change anything. When you will return you will find a better place. Meantime, in Transnistria, the pensions of former KGB agents (and only those pensions) will be increased. Probably, this is the democratic will of Transnistrian people.--MariusM01:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Mainly to those who had created ethnic strife and incited hatred where there was none before to get to power. Yes the word "nationalism" is not really applicable for them, but it got stuck, I suppose. As for Gulag, heh, did you know that Smirnov's father was also sent on a forced trip to Siberia?
Of course I wouldn't be able to change anything: the choice between communists vs nationalists was a lose/lose one anyway. I doubt that Moldova will become a better place before my return. The change, if the chance for it will be realized, will take years... I think there is nothing to gloat about the situation with Transnistria. --Illythr17:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe there is a difference between being sent in prison for economic issues (abusing position in the Communist Party nomenclature, like Smirnov's father) and being sent in prison for political reasons.--MariusM20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
If you have some time, please help preserve info in this article, and protect it from vandalism. :Dc7618:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no vandalism on that page, just a regular POV conflict. I have very little time to work in Wikipedia now and will have even less this month (exams), but on that particular issue I give my full support to Dahn. --Illythr23:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Dahn's POV is that the article needs better soursing, writting, expanding based on existing literature, and I fully support him on that as well. But the issue is too big for me to read all books/articles/etc and, if alone, it will take me 10 years. So, I improve it bit by bit, as I get a little time to find/read another bit, etc. Obvioulsy, until a certain point, no pretention of a quality article... that is way-way-way ahead. It is only an introduction to the issue, just mentioning the key points, without proper treating all of them, not even a quoter ,in fact. :Dc7614:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There had been no reaction to my proposals to change the intro. I suppose I can go ahead and make them myself. --Illythr17:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have forgotten them. I was under the impression that it was taken into account, but maybe that was something else that was taken into account. Would you be so kind to point them to me, please.:Dc7618:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Antonescu
My qualification of Antonescu's deeds after July 1941 is different from yours I guess only in the small fact that I do not call him fascist (he did not share that idiology). (some of the pre July 1941 also, but for easiness of this argument, let's leave them aside) I can understand sending troops to support USA in Iraq to build democracy in the Middle East, I even promote that, but I will never understand sending troops to support Germany installing fascism. In my personal oppinion, the only possible next thing for him in 1941 was Hungarian occupied Northern Transylvania, and total refusal to send not even a single solder, even volonteer to support invasion of Russia. And he had a big item to bargain with - oil. If Germany wanted to see any drop of oil, hands out. That's why it wasn't until 30 November 1941 that UK asked Romania whether they should be in a situation of war or Romania would abstain from that moment on to participate in invasion. Antonescu missed the chance: he chose to return the British "favour" from June 1940, when UK pretended to be busy to answer. So he just reminded them of their previous arogance. Whatever selfish bastards and colonialists and arogant were Brits, they were a democracy, 1000 times better than any Hitler or Mussolini. But, being a dictature under Antonescu, Romania missed (albeit a very small) chance.:Dc7614:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, your original concern was the phrase "Fascist Romania", which, I suppose, implies Antonescu. Now if you look here, you'll see that definitions of Fascism are many, different and often vague. I generally avoid hanging the label, but in this case, look what we have:
nationalism, authoritarianism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism. Check. The Holocaust also continued under Antonescu.
corporatism, populism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism - not sure, maybe? --Illythr17:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, :-) for nationalism and anti-communism I am "guilty", too, as many others will be. Anyway, the point is different: Romania did have a very strong fascist-like current, one of the main (but not the only) exponent of which was the Legionary Movement. Romanian fascism wa different from German and Italian in the fact that it had a very strong christian orthodox pillar (as opposed to atheist or paganist nazism). Something like "Nashi" is Russia today: devote cristian orthodox combined with hatred of anything that is foreign or of a differnt ethnic group. Antonescu did not share any of its ideology and was not member of their party. But he had to co-habitate with them from 09.1940 till 02.1941, when he proviked and destroyed them. That however does not make him in any way good, since it was just an episode in the fight for power: he did not destroy them because of having anti-legionary ideas, but because he wanted to remove them from power, he did not care about ideology. Next, he had to recover the territories lost by Carol. So, when this was done in Bessarabia and Bukovina in July 1941, every one expected an end to the dictature and return to democracy, declaration of neutrality, etc, etc. However, at that point comes the inner nature of people: they think that if they personally were persecuted or unjustly treated for 20-30 years, then they have the right to do the same with the country for 2-3 years. They forget how insignificant is their personal fate and well-being compared to that of 20 million. But I cannot call fascism or communist someone who is not fascist or communist. I can call him what he is - personal dictator. And Romania had 2: Carol (1938-1940), Antonescu (1941-44). From Sept 1940 till Feb 1941 was the "national legioinary state" which was no better than the dictatures, maybe even worse. About Holocaust: most of it happened during Antonescu's rule, not during Iron Guard-Antonescu cohabitation. You see, you don't have to be fascist to kill jews, you don't have to be communist to kill people that are proud of their nation or people that can earn more with their personal work, you don't have to be military dictator to cut the freedom of speech. Unfortualtely there are more options... My logic is: Antonescu, leginaries, fascist, etc are bad because of the things they did, not the things they did must be bad because they were done by Antonescu or Iron Guard. Holocaust is evil because it's evil, not because Hitler or someone else promotted it. On the contrary, Hitler is bad because he did many bad things, on top of the list being holocaust. But the Soviet ideology had to do the other logic: people had to hate things that were associated with fascism because they were associated, not because they were bad things. This way, the communist system could make people hate mild forms of nationalism, mild forms of private initiative, mild forms of democracy, because it could make people associate them with fascism. So suddenly, when the Soviet system broke, it became ok to hate jews but not ok to have svasticas at home. That's hipocresy: better have 1000 svastics and understand that this was once a symbol for great evil, then forbid the symbol and allow the evil an escape corner. :Dc7612:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for barging in, especially after such a long pause, but this caught my eye. Both Carol and Antonescu were indeed fascists, at least on a declarative level. So was the Iron Guard, and let me remind Dc76 that Antonescu was the leader of the National Legionary State. Yes, it is absolutely true that one does not have to be fascist in order to be antisemitic, but that argument is relevant for Mussolini or Franco or Peron (neither of whom were antisemites). to a certain degree, it also applies to Carol.
It is true, there has been a noted tendency in Marxist rhetoric (Romanian included) to use the word "fascist" in order to dismiss Antonescu based on a grid, and that definition of "fascist" is, at times, puerile. However, Antonescu's state before and after the Iron Guard held his hand was overtly corporatist and statist, proclaimed its agenda to be akin to that of all other Axis states, and produced propaganda featuring the fascist view of the world. In Carol's day, paradoxically, the association was even clearer - since all the state's institutions abode by a fascist doctrine as it was defined from the source.
Sure, it may not have meant much, and many historians agree that it was circumstance, but it was the case, and the people who applied fascism sure didn't think "fascist" was a loaded term. Let's call a spade a spade. Dahn04:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Dahn, The facts you refer to I do not contest, including Carol's plans to lead the iron guard, and Antonescu as chief of the legionary state. But the view of the world from Romania contrasted very much with that from Berlin. Noone was considering creation of an arian rase, return to paganism, plans for exile or elimnations of whole nations (e.g. lithuanians were supposed to be eventually eliminated, while latvians and estonians could create their homalnd somewher in siberia; the most romanians could ever pretend from hungarians were "up to tisza", never anyone imagined moving them out) - so this detail, about similarity, is (by me) not a fact. The rest are incontestable.
The problem with labeling Antonescu fascist is that it is not the charactrization he gave himself, at least not the first one (if he used that adjective to himself, which, although i have not seen myself, i believe you). On the contrary, the romanian society at that time was not dumb - people were afraid of fascism and communism, but they did not fear to call things so when there was the case. And they did not use it towards Antonescu. Antonescu's regime was similar in character with Franco's with the exception that Franco was (much) smarter: 1) he did not fight alongside germans outside spanish national territory 2) he did not persecute jews. I'm afraid that antonescu was even worse in the case of jews: i suspect he did not completely made up his mind, and he led 110,000 to transnistria (+killing the jews from there) as a try. At least nazies did not do it as a try. One can be a better-than-average military, but a very dumb politician (refering to 1), and as a man without a steadfast moral (coming to power without knowing beforehand you are morally stable) - easy become a mass criminal (ref to 2).
But there is one very good word, that is historically correct and faithful, describes exactly what was, and never was a positive word: dictature. Carol, national legionary state, Antonescu. You can call it a fascist-like dictature, and him a fascist-like dictator, a mass-killing dictator, but calling him with the first noun as fascist undermines the real thing he was and that caused everything: dictator. :Dc76\talk13:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I have said, there is no connection other than conjectural between fascism and antisemitism, and there isn't even one between fascism and racism (though, in my view, the fascist brand of nationalism gets pretty close). Some researchers have argued that there is no link other than conjectural between nazism and fascism, and their version seems to have taken hold of some parts of wiki (personally, I do not dispute or applaud that particular conclusion - I just deplore the fact that it is currently presented as the only working theory on some pages).
This was just to outline the terminology. Going further in detail, you will note that the definitions of fascism rarely rely on self-definition - otherwise, one would never bring into discussion Codreanu (who liked fascism, modeled his movement on it from the earliest stages, but fell short of defining his as a "fascist" movement), Hitler (who was always keen on declaring himself "better" than the Italians), Franco (whose Falange stopped referencing fascism the moment fascism lost the war), etc. This is not to say that these regimes were necessarily fascist: just that the definition, right or wrong, relies on checking a series of traits. To balance this, using "fascist-like" as a term to replace "fascist" may actually turn the very term on its head, since all regimes except Mussolini's were not purely fascist, but "fascist and something else", "something modeled on fascism but declaring itself something better than fascism", and, importantly, "the claim that nationalism implies adaptation to a nation's requirements, including in the ideological and mythical area, which results in fascism being a respectable model but nothing more (because adopting a model wholesale would necessarily imply corrupting nationalism itself)".
Moving on, what one cannot help but note is that both regimes in question did borrow heavily from fascism, and never envisaged hiding that this was the case (especially Carol). Antonescu's definition as a fascist would simply be proven by the fact that he led a regime formed around what you yourself called a fascist movement (and scores of historians will validate that notion, as one would expect). It seems to me that, for both Antonescu and Codreanu, respectable and responsible researchers state their case as "fascists, but..." (this assessment is notably present on page 115 of the Final Report on Holocaust in Romania in this version, and I could easily go through tens of other sources that say the same). Considering that the "fascists, but..." argument is also the common denominator of discussions on Hitler, Franco, Salazar, Peron, Metaxas etc, I have to conclude that one can reasonably describe each of those regimes as "fascist", and the rest is a footnote in some article.
I personally don't see how acknowledging this would undermine his position. Sure, Antonescu was doing almost everything out of his own head and was the sole person able to override his (own) decisions, but that doesn't mean that his ideology lacked a position and a system of reference, or that it was irrelevant. Thank God that he did not have the possibility to show us what he was going to do once the emergency situation was over, but he was clearly a man with political projects. Dahn17:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I would also be very interested to know in what way was Romanian society "afraid of fascism", with the Iron Guard having arguably been the fastest-growing party of the interwar, with about all but perhaps five of the legal or illegal parties claiming fascism as their ideology after 1937, and with fascist or, if it please you, quasi-fascist governments ruling the country between 1937 and 1944. In fact, from what I gather, many Romanians were not even afraid of Germany, not even after it smacked us upside the head with the 1939-1940 Realpolitik clubs (Molotov, Vienna...). It would otherwise be very hard to explain why Romanians were quick to join in Barbarossa. They might have been afraid of the Iron Guard, but that was only after 1940-1941, and not because they were fascist (rather because it turned out they were into robbing and killing Romanians, and not just Jews). Sure, there were people who opposed the Guard from beginning to end (their end or the Guard's); but: Iorga was an antisemite himself (it has to be said), Armand was the second in command of a corporatist regime, and no stranger to politically-motivated murder; people on the left of them, uch as those standing for the Poporanist tradition, were generally quick to rally with Carol's Ruritarian experiment because the Guard had assigned them positions on the death lists. When one discusses the latter category, btw, it becomes apparent that Romanians (other than Codreanu and his gang) were not "afraid of communism" either. They were afraid of the Soviet Union, they were afraid of Russia, and many were perplexed by but not entirely unfamiliar with the communist experiment. This intellectual grouping, which, as said, was drawn into cooperation with Carol, also provides us with a comprehensive list of people who later collaborated with Romanian communists (Călinescu, Galaction, Ralea, Gusti, etc.). Once the shock of losing Bessarabia was absorbed, the paradigm shifted, and communism was the object of suspicion rather than the object of fear. In any case, the PCR exploded in size after 1945, proving that docility was the earliest and most overwhelming reaction to communism in Romania. Dahn18:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I follow your rationale. Just a few details, in reverse order:
there are a lot of political projects by people without a fixed moral standing (in fact, i'd vouch it's the majority). As long as we agree these are two different things, agree with you.
i'd be currious to know what his political project "once the emergency cituation was ove" was. Just for my curriousity. (you don't have to do this tonight, since i'll be leaving wp soon)
far from me the thought to care about his position. my worry is that by saying "antonescu was the romanian fascist leader" one implicitely suggests to the consum-oriented public "romania was fascist" or even worse "romanians were fascist"
I called it "fascist movement" for the same reason you just so scientifically explained, except that i did not give it a deep thought, but checked a few basics: it comes close to what a fascist movement, or a movement partially based on fascist ideology is. I'd use sentences like "whose ideology/actions contained (mostly) fascism" or "which inspired from/had characteristics of a fascist movement/ideology", leaving the notion fascism, fascist somewhere in the scientific domain, but also "who failed short of calling himself so", suggesting there is also a second notion of fascism = how one calls him/itself, or is called by the public. (implicitely one suggests that there could be people who cover the character of their actions, or that the public could often care less about negative deeds)
A bit rough example here is Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who is ideologically fascist by all criteria. Yet, he calls himself liberal-democrat. Of course, Codreanu and Antonescu were not that hypocritical. I'd use "a dictator of romania, whose ideology/actions/rule was fascist/had a fascist character" (I understand the shortcomings of "-like") so that even a child would understand that it is the person or the movement that is being given that qualification, not the society, the country, or the population. Antonescu had a democratic opposition, which was totally power-less, but it existed, was emblematic, was never persecuted (on the contrary, was asked for help), Hitler, Mussolini - is a totally different story.
I wonder when on the road to fascism one becomes fascist? Early ideologues of miscarea legionara? From what point you consider them fascist? from the very origin? or maybe only when they gather momentum and become an important trend (regardless of ideology)? What do you think of Nashi and other simmilar organizations in Russia, which have most of the determining characteristics of legionaries in 1920s - the ideology of asserving the induvidual for the nation, the relationship with respect to the church, a degree (not so big yet) of anti-semitism, but instead of persecution, support by the state. of maybe it is closer to LANC (cuza)? [actually why don't you write an article about lanc?]:Dc76\talk18:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course there is a notable degree of opportunism in what Antonescu and (to nobody's surprise) Carol did. But, mutatis mutandis, one can say the same about any fascist dictator, any dictator, and, what the hey, any politician. I would agree to stop referring to ideologies in their case only if we agree to stop using referencing ideologies in all cases we deal with. Personally, I tend to use "fascist-inspired" where I want to gloss over the controversy and give way to both sides of the dispute on both the Guard and Antonescu (for the former, I used this syntagm in the article on Mircea Eliade, but it sparked some controversy). However, in all cases, I find it is better to clarify the ideological nature of such regimes, and not just pretend that they had no ideology.
Well, for starters, his mix of statism and economical conservatism was arguably identical to that of Hitler, and they both enforced the same measures in the economic sphere (and to the same degree, let alone with the same people - a Mr. Goering was running a sizable part of Romania's industry). If Hitler's "pragmatism" is still considered revolutionary, then we can safely say that the Romanian regime was itself a tool for revolution. And his justification for the Holocaust in Romania was also a sign of an agenda that he was following to get somewhere (and not just conjectural, like it was in Italy). Plus: I'm not sure I want to speculate about Antonescu preserving his role in case Germany had been victorious, but we can safely say he was not going to go anywhere unless forced.
I'm sorry, but that is absurd. What should matter is not "what people think", but whether the statement is true for the regime and the state, as representative as they were or weren't. For starters, Romania having a fascist regime does not necessarily say anything about its people (and, if it would, so what?). Secondly, there are worse things than being a fascist (one is murdering hundreds of thousands of Jews, which Romania, the Romanian state, did). Thirdly, a lot of Romanians were fascist, and the National Legionary State had come about without much opposition. If I remember correctly, by the time it came to power, the Italian PNF had no chance of winning fair elections, whereas the Iron Guard did (in your terms, this should make Romanians more fascist than Italians). Not only that, but the center stage was being visited by many competing fascist movements of more or less sizable appeal before this country stopped having elections due to a fascist regime...
As I have pointed out, those objections apply to virtually any fascist movement.
I'm not familiar with Zhirinovsky's ideals, but I doubt he was ever a supporter of corporatism, which would make it unlikely that he was ever a fascist. And, again: I do not want to even start speculating about how insincere people are in calling themselves x, when one is required to determine what was (not what wasn't), and especially when calling oneself x is not the main criterion in establishing that one is x. In the phrase "a dictator of Romania, whose ideology/actions/rule was fascist/had a fascist character", all you have to do is change "Romania" to "Italy" and you get Mussolini himself! Why bother with the euphemism? The "democratic opposition" in Antonescu's Romania was illegal, Dc76: Antonescu tolerated the two traditional parties to a certain degree, without ever formalizing their existence. Meanwhile, Vapniarka was filled with not just communists, but also social-democrats... And, to give you one example: Italy had opposition parties for various intervals after it became a fascist regime (ahem, Matteotti).
Are you asking me, them, or people in general? My answer is "from some point", and it will do. I know the Codrenist side itself insists on revising the thesis to make it seem like Sima hijacked the movement, but I consider that, within certain limits, fascism is a diverse phenomenon (as diverse as to Codreanu and more things in heaven and earth than were dreamt of in Codreanu's philosophy). Even if we could determine the exact moment at which they "became" pedigree fascists, as opposed to something else (if they were ever something else), it would not matter more than determining at which point the Falange and Peron or the Grand Council of Fascism or Balli Kombëtar stopped being fascist... And let me draw a parallel in the opposite camp: I don't consider Souphanouvong or Mengistu very communist either, but one starts by asserting the similarities in order to find the differences ("communists, but..." for our "fascists, but..."). I have no fully-formed opinion on the Nashi, but they seem to me like a skinhead version of the Komsomol; "skinhead" not in the sense that they are fascist (I just don't know about that), but in the sense that they are hooligans. Dahn01:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I should add this. The discussion surrounding Carol's fascism need not refer to his (quite plausible) plan to lead the Iron Guard, but to his leadership of this little club. Dahn12:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Dahn, obviously, you are more competent in a field that, I am guessing, is your bread. So, it is pointless for me to try to debate you at a level at which I am not. (I have other profession, and there I would dare to say I would know better than you.) I am judging it at the level of an ordinary member of the society, to the extent an average person can. I am conveying to you what an average person reads from your edits.
The usage of the words "fascist-inspired" is ok (and it is a good choice, better than both the versions I suggested above). But they can be used to express something that happened or an editted vertion of what happened, albeit perhaps a small edit. (and one does not have to be above average to understand that) Instead of NRF was a fascist-inspired Romanian political party created by King Carol II in 1938 as the single monopoly party of government following his decision to ban all other political parties and suspend ..., one should have said NRF was a Romanian political party created by King Carol II in 1938 as the single fascist-inspired monopoly party of government following his decision to ban all other political parties and suspend ... Exactly the same words. There were members of NRF who had no idea they were joining a fascist-inspired party, they thought it was as it says national renaissance [supposidly from corruption], obviously etatist. (I have no hidden agenda here, all members of my family have never been members of any political party for all generations we remember.)
And my second observation is that you misteriously fail to state in your arguments that the Legionary State so easily came to power, because the country just lost 1/3 of its territory. They came to power when it was mayhem, they were not votted by the people as in Germany or Italy. This is a BIG difference. In all the articles, you fail to mention from the start that they (all three) came to power by force, right away as a dictatorship, not a democratically elected dictatorship. (democratically = to the extent of the time, 1930s-1940s, in the world; obviously there was always some small instances of fraud)
The facts are facts, and can not be changed. The characterization of the facts, however, is the domain of history / politology /etc, and whatever terms are scientifically accepted in that domain, are obviously the terms to be used. My objection is that in non-exact sciencies, one bases a conclusion not on the correctness of the entire previous body of knowledge, but only on the correctness of a part of it, which the scientist considers relevant for the question. Because in non-exact sciences X can imply y, but can also imply z. All I am saying is that the way Romanian fascist-inspired parties came to power (without elections) should be among the "previous body of knowledge" on which you draw conclusion. And I am suggesting that one of the effects of that is that fascist-inspired moves several words in the sentence(s).:Dc76\talk19:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
If it is "exactly the same words", I fail to see its merits, other than your version borders on the ungrammatical (it certainly wasn't "the single fascist-inspired party in Romania" - that would mean that there were no other fascist parties in Romania... and that is simply absurd). And the assumption that people didn't know there party's doctrine is irrelevant to any discussion - even if it were so (and I sincerely doubt it), the membership was compulsory for state employees (meaning that it mattered naught what the adherents thought about its policies, and later developments show that simple members did not care much about their party; just as the PCR did not rely on a communist majority of committed communists, but on a majority of members), its ideology did not shy away from referring to fascism as its parallel and source of inspiration, the vast majority of its leaders were fascist, and, dare I say it, fascism was certainly a popular thing in Romania (and in Europe). Furthermore, arguing that a regime formed around Carol was perceived as standing for anti-corruption is bewildering.
And just when did Italians vote for the PNF in free elections, Dc76? (I'm leaving aside comments on the problems of German electoral law that helped the Nazis gain power, but you may want to inform yourself about these. I'm also not going to discuss the other fascist and fascist-like regimes and how they came to be, even though they make the case of "fascism through elections" seem like the most exotic one out there.) What you fail to explain is why the Iron Guard came to power even when promising an alliance with Romania's aggressors - there is an explanation, surely, but it cannot possibly work if you start from that assumption... The Iron Guard came in third in the Romania's last free elections of the interwar (i.e. just before Carol decided he could take no more); the other major fascist antisemitic party came in fourth. The results were close enough not to allow any party or coalition of parties to form a cabinet.
I cannot help but wonder about this persistence of yours to whitewash the popularity fascism enjoyed with the Romanian public, especially considering that you admit Romania did things which put fascism to shame (since, again, the relation between fascism in its original and broadest form and racial-motivated mass murders is not always one of cause-consequence). If I'm allowed this pun, I'd say that it is fascists of the Mussolinian kind who should object to being thrown in the same class as Romanian politicians of that period, not the other way which you seem to imply (considering that, as Francisco Veiga says, the Fascist International decided not to invest its time and funds in Romania as early as the late 1930s, they probably did :P).
The fact is that the articles you cite clearly indicate the presence of, and usual recourse to, fascism in Romanian politics and society. I frankly view your proposal to move words around as an attempt to obscure Polichinelle's secret, based on your interpretation of facts and on what I have shown are flawed arguments. Dahn19:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I feel compelled to add something really intelligent to this discussion, but duhhhh... Do feel yourselves at home, guys. :-)--Illythr19:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Belated thanks!
I completely missed that bit of promptly addressed vandalism on my user page at the end of March. Many thanks for your vigilance! — Pēters J. Vecrumba01:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. just a technical request: Maybe we shouldn't touch the article for a while. Moving sections (I actually agree with that one) makes it more difficult to check differences with past versions, which is i am sure something many editors except 2-3 main ones would want to do. :Dc76\talk21:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, they'll probably want to compare the edit war diffs and those are not affected by later changes. I do not intend to make any edits that may cause any kind of objections from anyone (for now). The etymology-goes-first thing is really a non-issue. --Illythr21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
there are a couple more that should be done: balti by night should go down, education go before culture, etc. :
Also, given this from Moldopodo's keypad: Dc76 this is a wrong answer, the question was about valid, actual, effectively entered into force legislation, and not about history of previous short-term laws that are no longer apllied and are officially abolished, please. By the way, Dc76, you keep "forgetting" stating your sources and links. Maybe we should explain him, that the 1989 language law and the 1991 declaration of independence were not canceled by the constitution. In fact one of the subpoints of art. 13 of the constitution makes reference to the organic law, which is the 1989 one. Also, he keep telling this is a wrong answer. I am not answering anything in front of anyone, never tried to, i am presenting an argument in front of who wants to read it. So much agressiveness! At issue 17, he says people like me sent others to Russia!!! It simply leaves me speech-less. :Dc76\talk21:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I kinda wondered about this myself - why do the Constitution and the language law contradict each other? Stupidity of politicians? As for accusations - well, it's mutual: "Labeling ethnic Moldavians, as a community, with extremism." - that's your, rather free interpretation of his "A couple of demonstrations are organised from Chişinău by representatives of the extreme right organisation National Front".
The only good way to avoid this is to stay cool, and discuss the text of the article, not its editors and their presumed political allegiance. This way, people who keep attacking you instead of your message will look stupid themselves. Ideally, every statement should be referenceable, so that the discussion may move from "Apples are better than oranges, everybody knows that! No, you idiot, oranges are way better, that's an established scientific fact!" to the (somewhat more constructive) "Mr. Vasiliy Pupkin, a respectable witch doctor writes in his recent peer-reviewed paper "On the organoleptic qualities of edible plant life" that apples were found to be more enjoyable by a clear 75% majority of his 4-person-wide poll. Well, good for him, but our local Death Eater community has issued a brochure clearly stating that consuming oranges brings far more pleasure to the average human." --Illythr22:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
:) Don't worry about my coolness. I enjoy being cool, it is so much better to let your brain rather than your blood decide your actions. Better direct the blood to the brain than to the typing fingers. I also offered to find references, but I'd like to be geven a [citation needed] and thenI can do that. Sometimes a [citation needed] is put in a place where I do not agree: e.g. sure the mention that in 1812 Russia annexed Bessarabia along with the city (1 sentence, not 10) should be in the article but I don't see the point for a [citation needed] of that fact - one can find those sources in other existing wp articles. So, I'd like first to have a list of places where we need citations.
"A couple of demonstrations are organised from Chişinău by representatives of the extreme right organisation National Front" is though a mean thing. I am saying this absolutely coolly. It is unwondering why one contests Gulag when one contests even events of a much recent date. In Chisinau, in 1988-1989 there were demonstrations every week, mass demonstrations, not 2,000-5,000 people as in Balti (the max we had was 10,000, perhaps even that the max estimate), and those were not extremist demonstrations, but pro-democracy and anti-soviet. National Popular Front of Moldova was until 1992 THE only organization 3 million inhabitants of Moldova trusted, and many ethnic Russians and Ukrainians were there (true, mostly children of those that lived in Moldova before 1940, and true they did not go to be among the leadership - which is a bad thing b/c it allowed the soviets to interpret PFM as a national organization). What became afterwords from PFM is a different story, very sad story.
About the language laws, they actually do not contradict themselves at all. :) They all say the same thing, that Moldavian/Romanian is the state (official) language. They disagree on how that language is called, which I don't see why laws should determine. (it would be like laws to tell when to write "a spune" and when to write "a zice") The same thing about Moldopodo: it does not matter if he prefers calling the language Moldavian, if he speeks it. At least Voronin and Stati speak it.
For the history section, we can try a compromize: a minimal amount of information, with more detail to be given in the history of balti article for those who want to read more. Let me explain what I mean on the most difficult issue of all. We could say that from 1950s till 1980s the city saw a significant imigration from other republics of the soviet union, and give the 1989 ethnic composition data (50-50). Full stop /period. We don't say who these people are, but we don't say who these people also are. We don't say to do what they came here (rebuild), but we don't say why that was necessary (Stalin's scorshed earth - there was no military action INSIDE the city), and how come there are not enough locals (deporations till 1954-1956, giving work repartitions to the end of the world after 1954). We can explain these things in the history of balti article, using "there is a point of view that .... there is another point of view that ..." (that kind of text wouldn't be ok for the main article, but for history of balti should be fine.) There remains the question of "Soviet-sponsored", which I believe should be there. But maybe we can find something else to ballance it with and move both to history of balti article, with "one view, other view" formula.
I know it could be counterproductive to start with the most hard issues (history section), but also it is most honest. :Dc76\talk13:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just found your talk page. Please see my comments on the language laws and Constitution of Moldova on the Balti talk page. The texts are clear to me. Thanks. Moldopodo02:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
Yeah, apparently a WP:POINT-type retaliation for this. Pfeh, these "Anti-X sentiment" articles are all the same - a collection of grudges one nation has to throw against the others. Me, I'd delete them all. --Illythr20:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You say you are from Moldova. If Moldovans of Vlach/Romanian ethncity are bilingual in Romanian and Russian, how come you don't speak Romanian? Is it some kind of form of protest? --Thus Spake Anittas17:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a good question. Objectively, there was no need, as most people in my personal circles were Russian-speaking. Subjectively, I have no idea. I hate neither the language, nor the people who speak it (except for those who had used it to sow hate in my country, and they often speak Russian much better than Romanian). Actually I have an 8 for Romanian in my school attest. I also have a knack for languages. Some kind of subconscious block, perhaps? I can read it, though. --Illythr17:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I read that some Russians refuse to communicate in Ro, probably as a way to express their own kind of nationalism and resist whatever they wanted to resist. But I don't think that's fair play. If Moldovans of Ro origin learn Russian and are devoted to learn it and put it to use, then the Russians should do the same. After all, it isn't Russian that is the original language of that country. If you understand some Romanian, then you should add a language box corresponding with your level of skill. --Thus Spake Anittas17:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Dahn's addressing the part of your post where you tell me what I should do, methinks. Not that I mind, as long as you stay reasonable and responsive. Compare. --Illythr23:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
That is true, although it's not quite nationalism, because I have noticed that trait in non-Russian residents as well. I do not consider my knowledge of Romanian worthy of ro-1 and I don't like lang-0 boxes. --Illythr19:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Anittas, why do you appear to be defending someone who is clearly an evil demon enjoying eating Christian children for breakfast? --Illythr19:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, me too, but I kinda didn't expect that from you. Moreso as your statement is the only one NOT of the he's-an-evil-Commie-so-let's-ban him type. --Illythr23:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Hello Illythr, I think that Dc76 stands behind Moldorubo, I am almost sure. First of, the dispute I had was with Dc76, and lately with Anittas. They are the only ones interested to avoid 3-revert rule, and that's what Moldorubo served for (although it was already fourth edit by Anittas). Moldorubo used the same language, exact same edits in exact same places, and basicly spent all his energy on me right after it was created, using the same threats (NPA, etc) as Dc76. All of that happened as Dc76 was silent and then suddenly reappeared as he/she saw me suspecting him/her and pretended having a dialog with Moldorubo... I also think that Dc76 plays with IP addresses. Another sign that it is Dc76, Moldorubo placed an image (created by Bogdaniusca) on my page and you know that Dc76 makes all that kinds of images on his/her user page. Moldorubo had exactly the same mania to enquire who am I, what do I speak, etc, exactly the same phraseology as the one used by Dc76. Moldorubo, just as Dc76 followed me on every page where I posted or edited something, be it an article or a user's page.
As for a little offtopic notice, as you and Anonimu seem to be attentive to my comments, I do speak Moldavian fluently, as it is my mother tongue. And I do agree that Moldavian is identical to Romanian, BUT the law puts it in a different way. So the name should be what it is. However, the identity with Romanian, which is obvious and is not contested, should be explained on the page on Moldavian language, it seems quite logical to me. Also, article Moldova needs correction, in the section on languages, only Moldavian is present, no mention of Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz (as their situation in Moldova is concerned). It's strange isn't it? I hope you have read my articles (copies of laws and Constitution) on Wikisource in Russian. G. NightMoldopodo22:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
Hi! Don't wanna be disruptive by answering in Illythr's space -- sorry --, but while WP isn't about truth, but verifiability, it seems we have 2 contradicting verifiable theses [17] (pay no attention to paratext). One political, the other one scientific. I'm not in the mood to propose solutions, but I think the aim should be properly balancing these two views, not necessarily weighting them equally. The aim would be to choose one criterion over the other as being more reliable and more logical. And one article should be consistent with the others. (Hm, I'm already proposing something, so I stop). adriatikus|22:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for participation Adriatikus, but how did you know all about this, somebody told you? Wikipedia, as any encyclopedia, is about facts, dry, neutral facts, without any opinions, thoughts and personal imagination input. The dispute in presence is simply legal and is quite clear to me. Adriatikus, if you don't read Russian, you can read all the four laws I cited previously in Romanian on the lex.justice.md site, just click on the "Limba de stat" version, once you are on the Russian version. Moldopodo22:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
to be more clear, I have answered to Edokter in Dutch a while ago. Edokter, upon Dc76 or without request applied NPA policy to my statements. However, when I asked him at least to analyse (I copied him all insults by Dc76 in my regard) what said Dc76 concerning my person, Edokter simply said he can't do this. Why, the question still remains? He could have at least said "this statement is ok, this one violated NPA policy"... Anyway, this was done a long time ago, in the middle of the "crisis" with Dc76. So now, here we have Moldorubo, who comes out of the blue and reminds me that I supposedly speak Dutch and that's a hint for him (Moldorubo, Bonaparte, Dc76, and two anonymous users with IPs I have reported (Tanzanian and Polish) or may be even Anittas)Moldopodo22:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
Moldorubo was a single-purpose account, whose purpose was to annoy you. The tactics he used made him an obvious sock of Bonaparte (or one of his "followers"). While it is theoretically possible, that Dc76 is the "legit" account of Bonaparte - they do share the same POV - I find such a possibility extremely unlikely, seeing as how their tactics and behavior vastly differ. Oh and I never saw Dc76 vandalizing userpages.
Moldopodo, your entire activity in Wikipedia can be easily traced. I find it quite likely that whoever created an attack account against you would take some time to examine your work here. --Illythr23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Nice to talk to you again! Yes, I did in fact leave for a few months. I had a lot of work in that period and was also a little worn out by some of the debates here. Anyway, now that I've had my little rest I am back and ready to go back to work. TSO1D14:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I have deleted the vandalism and am constantly trying to improve my user page (when I have time). Thanks for the reminder, anyway --Moldopodo (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
Huh
I have no idea, it's strange indeed, I wonder if it's a bug or a feature in Mediawiki DB, or maybe it's somehow related that I use a superbrowser, Opera... :D AdrianTM (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I hope you're keeping warm if you're still in Moldova - I've drunk some very fine wines from Moldova.
I have had to undo your ever so slightly premature excision of (just one set of) off-topic/impolite remarks. It's generally better if folks excise their own remarks (always better to get a choice and do things voluntarily) or at least don't object within a period of notice to them being removed by others. There's less than 2 hours to go and then both occurrences will be removed by me - better for you not to get involved and stick to your positive text contributions.
All the best! Alice.S 14:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, saw my error already, sorry again. The proposal hung there for a while without any objections, so I thought I'd just go ahead and delete it myself. I didn't notice that the last section was just referring to the actual stuff.
Thank you for being so mature and understanding about things - it's always a difficult compromise between giving sufficient time for objections to be raised (not everybody logs on every day) and giving the impression that things have been forgotten or overlooked. On Talk:National Defence Commission of North Korea there was an objection to re-naming seven whole weeks after the proposal.
Unfortunately we, Wikipedians, are not omniscient, so it often takes a while (or a coincidence) to stumble upon some decision we'd like to object to. Fortunately, most of the edits made are reversible, so, should the objection carry enough weight to overturn the decision, reverting back should pose no problem in most cases.
Singaporeans dream of snow. Are you far from Göteborg? Alice.S 15:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, Singaporeans can get a sun tan take a swim in the sea om Christmas. I'm approximately 1000km away from Göteborg, why, you live there? --Illythr20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems I have to run away and gird up my loins now and prepare for battle Sorry! Alice.S 21:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I wish it were that easy - my understanding of the process is that a majority of the arbitrators active have to reject it. It all wastes so much time, if only he would actually examine properly the edits people make or try and understand their point of view on talk pages. Alice.S 21:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Google hits
It's almost double the number of Google hits for Nistru as compared with Dnister. It's more used with "N" since it's easier as "Dn"Suchwings1 (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
:D Well, yes, it was in reply to Illythr's "Oh well, it was nice practice (of WP:AGF)." (Not meant to imply that his AGF isn't already perfect - fact is he puts me to shame in this area. It's just that... well... it sounded like something cool to say.) Dahn (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Help
Hello there, just a quick question please, do you know where can I find scripts or whatever you call it for inserting reference boxes on my user page, for ex. 'Moldopodo is using (or registered with) Wikicommons', Wikisource, German Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, etc.. kinda like the Babel boxes for languages, you know? Also, what is the code for the box that counts my edits on Wikipedia? Thanks in advance. --Moldopodo (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
Illythr, sorry if i edited over some of your older edits. It was just too much to compare. it was not intentional. :Dc76\talk21:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[18] Are you saying that this is the general rule, i.e. not write the name in the original/official language if that's identical to the English one? I think we already reverted one-twice each other on this in other articles as well, so it's high time to get it cleared. If you have a "offcial" recommendation to follow this way, I'd appreciate a link (not urgent). Until then, let Tiraspol stay "your" way, i have not prob with that. Even if it turns out that both are equally ok, I'd agree to keep this one "your" way.:Dc76\talk17:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, could you find more? The article was a battleground for a French/German name wikiwar, that could be a leftover... Hmm, maybe I'll just ask there... --Illythr (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
