User:TSO1D/archive3

4 NGO arrests

TSO1D, I see that you removed the following as not notable:

Recently, 4 members of the opposition political party "Equal Rights" were arrested by Moldovan Special Forces. Under police pressure, they were forced to sign a confession without reading it. Police them threatened to plant narcotics and remove their kidneys, to sell them the black organ market. While under arrest, they heard screams of torture from nearby cells. [1]

Will you help me apply the same standards to Transnistria articles? We have a similar case (but with fewer polical overtunes) which User:MariusM insists should be included in political articles, despite my having pointed out to him that it fails WP:NN and isn't even political. - Mauco 03:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't because of notability that I removed the text, but because of its doubtful nature. Normally I wouldn't object to sourced text, but here the source is Olvia and the nature of the allegations are just too bizare. As for the Transnistria page, I will be glad to help you, but could you please indicate what incident exactly it is you are referring to. I am trying to follow the discussions on that talk page, but it is getting more and more difficult by the minute with accusations flying all around and obscure events brought to the foreground and new accusations covering those... TSO1D 03:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok I saw the link in the Mold. pol talk page. TSO1D 03:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is only one reference for this (that I know of), and it is Olvia. However: As for Dignitas, you have an exact mirror of the situation. Roughly same number of guys, roughly same kind of situation, and (here is the kicker) just one reference, which is as biased as Olvia (in this case, a press release made by Stefan Uritu, and nothing else). I was not really trying to make a WP:POINT as much as I merely want to say that what's good for the goose is good for the gander... - Mauco 06:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco and TSO1D, please stop engaging in meatpuppetry.--MariusM 10:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is from my Wikistalker. He looks at all my contribs and follows them, usually either reverting or commenting. Are you my meatpuppet now, TSO1D? I guess that we should just forget our (mutual) attempts to seek compromise and consensus, where we both approach some commong ground from different sides of the issue. Instead, let us dig a big trench on the Dniester, or any other river of your choosing, and go overboard on the mudslinging so everyone can clearly see that we are indeed antagonists. That way, we both avoid being the target of accusations like this one... - Mauco 13:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria

Care-s motivele pentru care nu accepţi includerea informaţiei RECENTE despre şcolile moldoveneşti cu grafie latină? E vorba despre cazul de la Curtea Europeană a Drepturilor Omului şi declaraţia recentă a OSCE - ambele din luna asta. Păstrăm secţiunea cu referendumul care a fost în septembrie, dar eliminăm probleme cu drepturile omului din noiembrie? Dacă n-ai argumente, te rog să introduci iar informaţia. (nu vreau s-o pun tot eu, ca să nu mi se zică că sînt edit warrior)--MariusM 13:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Astea sînt informaţii recente, au locul în articolul principal. Cînd am cerut să scurtăm partea cu referendumul, că deja e lucru vechi şi avem un articol principal, nu m-ai susţinut. Eliminarea informaţiilor supărătoare regimului de la Tiraspol din articolul principal (să rămînă doar în articole secundare, mai puţin citite) e una din tacticile lui Mauco, cînd nu are alte argumente. Te rog repune informaţia, măcar pentru faptul că e recentă, discutăm de scoaterea ei cînd se scoate şi secţiunea despre referendum (pentru care iarăşi avem articol separat).--MariusM 14:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A pus Mark us Street informaţia înapoi. Problema şcolilor moldoveneşti nu este mai puţin importantă decît a referendumului.--MariusM 14:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Chişinău

Please see Talk:Chişinău#Population again. I hope I haven't crossed you up, but your recent edit had that "fixing blatant vandalism, but a bit distracted" look to it. If I guessed wrong, my apologies, and let's move forward from here. - Jmabel | Talk 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Se pare că pierd din motivele destul de meschine de care aţi vorbit, dar aşa-i în viaţă uneori. Oricum, vă mulţumesc frumos pentru sprijn. Biruitorul 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Germany

Thank you for your excellent work on this article! It has needed pruning and condensing for a long time. I will advertise the peer review you started at the (still new and not very active) WikiProject Germany and will try to get more people to comment and help. And of course we'd like to see you at the project page if you are interested in helping out with more than just our main article :-) Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 19:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark us Street

Sorry to bother you but I'm concerned about the user Mark us Street and his crazy editing, I just reverted his last effort: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=91646824&oldid=91641329 which seemed totally off the wall to me, like he's drunk or something. I'm writing this on your talk page because you seem fairly sensible, a lot of the others involved in the Transnistria page seem to be on someone's side or other. I don't want to be nasty to other editors but this guy seems to get worse by the day, in my opinion anyway. Personally I'm not even sure if it's ethical to have someone running the Tiraspol Times editing a page about Transnistria, even if they're sensible. It's like having someone from USA Today editing the USA page. That's it really, just wanted to write my concerns somewhere. Please tell me if there is a better place. Jonathanpops 20:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sînt de acord cu Jonathan că prezenţa lui Mark us street nu e etică, iar el a minţit de multe ori (inclusiv despre propriul ziar/website), nu e de bună credinţă. Nu trebuie să negociem cu el ca să ajungem la compromis, căci e doar un angajat plătit să facă propagandă on-line (timpul care-l pierde cu wikipedia e dovadă, dacă ar fi ziarist adevărat ar lucra la ziarul său). Sînt de părere că trebuie să scoatem şi lincul la tiraspoltimes din articol, să păstrăm doar legătura la siturile cinstite, care recunosc deschis că aparţin regimului de la Tiraspol.--MariusM 13:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Eu sunt de acord că unele din contribuţiile sale au fost de proastă calitate, şi uneori au conţinut mai multe erori, însă indiferent de originea sa, dacă el ar propune ceva logic şi constructiv eu nu aş ezita să implementez sugestiile lui. Totuşi problema e că în marea majoritate a cazurilor el acţionează într-un mod unilateral, fără a lua în consideraţie opinia altor utlizatori. Cât despre link-ul la Tiraspol Times, această afecere nu mă interesează atât de mult. Bineînţeles, eu nu consider că ziarul reprezintă zenitul obiectivităţii, însă ca o sursă transnistriană el ar putea oferi o oarecare măsură de balanţă. TSO1D 01:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the conflict of interest issue. At the same time, he is not the only editor who goes onto the page and changes it without consensus. It is a bit surreal, IMHO, to see MariusM talk about "etică." - Mauco 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The conflict of interest issue is actually something that doesn't trouble me personally. I mean it's not as if a person's status as a member of a given organization forces upon them an inherent bias that clouds that prevents them from being fair. Of course they might not be fully objective, but no one really is as we all have our own points of view that in spite of our efforts we can never fully suppress. Furthermore, being the editor of a newspaper in a region does not necessarily make you a loyal defender of that place. Having said that, though, I myself am worried about Mark's ability to collaborate with other users to build a consensus and to refrain from drastic edits that only conform to his POV. I also have to agree with you that other certain users have also gone against Wikipedia policy by making radical changes that would certainly be controversial without any prior discussion. TSO1D 01:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Am reţinut spusele tale că problema lincului la tiraspoltimes nu ţi se pare importantă. În acest caz te rog să nu mai introduci acest linc în articole, faptele să fie conforme cu vorbele. Referitor la conflict.md, în talk page Transnistria am explicat că acest sit nu aparţine guvernului moldovean, este susţinut de OSCE, deci ar trebui trecut la lincuri neutre, nu la lincuri moldoveneşti. Care sînt argumentele tale împotriva părerilor mele?--MariusM 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

MariusM is trying to equate conflict.md with the OSCE. It is not. Ask the OSCE. Or read the conflict.md page itself, becuase on every single page it clearly states that: "The opinions expressed on this web-page are those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of OSCE Moldova who takes no responsibility with regard to the content of this site." It is not made by the OSCE but by a private organization. I have friends at the OSCE and one of them has already told me that he is concerned about the prominent usage of OSCE's logo on this page. It allows people like MariusM to draw linkages which are uncalled for and to falsely present the site as objective, when it is in fact biased towards only one side in the conflict. - Mauco 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 49	4 December 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections open	The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser	Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

You're a good Wikipedian. We don't always agree, but you're the voice of reason more often than many of the rest of us. - Mauco 01:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I just hope things will quite down on the Transnistria page so that we can actually make constructive edits again. It seems that for the months nothing but POV controversies have taken up all changes to that article and its quality has actually deteriorated in some respects. I mean I can understand that this is a controversial subject, but this is becoming ridiculous. It seems that some users on both sides are so intent on introducing their hardline points that they have no regard to the quality of the article. TSO1D 01:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the past few months since we got the very active participation of a new editor with his own POV has been a series of ridiculous back-and-forths that have, in the main, been wholly unproductive and have dragged the article down. - Mauco 15:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mă bucur să văd că te înţelegi cu Mauco, totdeauna te-ai înţeles bine cu el. Paragraful despre reacţia USA în articolul Transnistria nici nu a fost introdus iniţial de mine ci de dl. Goe, deci ai revenit peste doi editori.--MariusM 02:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nu mă interesează cine a introdus acest pasaj, ceea ce importă e că calitatea textului e proastă şi că el nu merită sa fie adăugat la articol. Formatarea lui e destul de bizară, însă încă mai important, el e plasat absolut în aer. Eu sunt sigur că mai multe state au avut un oarecare comentariu în legătură cu acest incident, însă aceasta nu înseamnă că toate trebuie să fie indicate pe articolul principal depsre Transnistria. Ai putea cel puţin spune: "As a result of this incident the U.S. state department recommended that..." fără a adăuga întregul text. Însă chiar aşa eu nu cred că această informaţie e necesară, şi în orice caz ea trebuie discutată întâi pe pagina de discuţii a articolului. TSO1D 02:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ce zici despre asta? Românii - mai răi ca naziştii nemţi. Eu ştiam că în România au supravieţuit cel mai mare procentaj de evrei dintre ţările din Estul Europei, dar se pare că de fapt România e cea mai rea ţară de pe pămînt.--MariusM 02:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Da, aceasta e straniu. Eu nu cunosc acest subiect foarte bine, însă nu cred că ipoteza prezentată acolo are mare merit. Voi face unele cercetări şi voi răspunde. Tu mai ai materialele de de la Yam? Dacă nu mă greşesc ai avut o mică discuţie acolo pe această temă cu Aurelian. TSO1D 02:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I have recently proposed that th article become the main one on the Holocaust as carried out in Romania, since its usage is intimately connected with the Holocaust and since it is one of the few William Mauco's edits are problematic in that framework: I think we should eventually the bulk of info on other pages to this one (which should make his goal of providing that particular information redundant), and his style in editing is below wikipedia guidelines. Don't get me wrong, the article as it is stands as some sort of excuse, and its tone is anything but encyclopedic (somebody though it was a good idea to emit theories about where Romania was supposed to stop, and that Eminescu quote is highly irrelevant). Given the sheer scale of restructuring I would recommend, it is ultimately irrelevant what the article looks like with or without William's edits; however,since I was asked to state my opinion on this: the tone was certainly too colloquial, but the "more brutal than the Germans" is accurate, I'm afraid. One could easily source the fact that Eichmann complained to his superior that Romanians had chosen to massacre Jews in an uncivilized manner, as well as other such assessments. Dahn 14:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We can fix the phrasing, but there is no point in starting any holocaust denial. Germany has come a long way already because they were willing to face up to the past, and everyone of course know that the Germans of today's Europe have nothing to do with the Nazis of the past. Likewise, for Romania. Different times, different people, different attitudes. - Mauco 15:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is that there is already abundant and reasonably-sourced text in other articles, and I have called for them to be moved there (making your text, which was superfluous to begin with, irrelevant to end with). I would also urge my fellow Romanians, if they have to start an invention of the wheel, not to start it with clichés and half-truths such as "the largest number of Jews to have survived in Eastern Europe" (because: 1. all could and should have survived, as happened in Bulgaria; 2. a large number survived out of an initial large number - meaning that people killed were also a large number; 3. the question of barbarity exercised by the Romanian authorities, which is what the original topic was, is not necessarily related to total numbers, it is related to, well... their barbarity). Btw, I find it surreal that you have not yet heard of this. Dahn 20:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting

File:In-the-dark.jpg

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 19:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD vote

Your vote here is rather meaningless without some explanation of your rationale. I realize the nomination is invalid, but there are valid concerns about notability there. We also have boilerplate text, {{newvoter}} that explains this at length and more kindly, but I think you've been around long enough (and participated in enough AfDs) to know what's up. Thanks.--Kchase T 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)