User talk:Buffadren

From Alaexis

Thanks for the support. I think we should use the same words in both Abkhazia and S. Ossetia articles. Alaexis 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what 'de-facto control' is. 'Control' is afaik not a legal term (like independence) so it cannot be 'de-jure' or 'de-facto'. It either exists or not. Regards. Alaexis 09:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear from the intro that S. Ossetia is internationally recognised as part of Georgia. It's written there 2 times actually (on 3rd and 6th lines). Returning to your example there is such legal term as 'private property' but 'control' does not equal to 'ownership' neither legally nor by common sense. I think 'de-facto' is redundant and should be removed. Alaexis 11:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks there

Concensus is always the best thing, but don't be afraid to be bold when removing linkcruft. Nikola 18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Governments can not arrest?

Why you believe governments can not arrest, as you made an edit in Transnistria article? Of course, arrests are made by the police, but this issubordinated to the government. Transnistrian government did made some arrests, some of them explained in Human rights section, and not all are related with religious freedom.--MariusM 11:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MariusM has a good point. At any rate, Dpotop later changed that section of article and managed to make it both more critical and more NPOV at the same time. Despite my misgivings, it is better now than the way that both you and MariusM (and myself) left it. - Mauco 13:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Alaexis 2

Hi! Why do you insist on those changes? Imo they are relatively minor and not worth the efforts to enforce them. There are much more needed things to do. Regards. Alaexis 16:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care at 3RR.--MariusM 09:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind :) Alaexis 20:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo

Thanks yourself for being a calm and non-partisan contributor. As I said, my revert was mostly to keep the agreed version, but I think it's better now anyway. Davu.leon 12:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: River incident:
To keep the conversation coherent I replied in my talk page, as I will usually do when one is started there. - Best regards, Ev 14:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the comment from my talk page to the article's talk page. - Best regards, Ev 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure!

All in a day's work. LittleOldMe 16:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you need to understand that nobody looks at you since you don't have a clue about Transnistria.--Criterium 16:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criterium is now on a 24 hour block. LittleOldMe 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know

There's no problem if you're User:MaGioZal (and I have to say that everything indicates at that direction). You did nothing wrong. :) --PaxEquilibrium 12:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we are not the same, you have no evidence to support this claim. Buffadren 14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations semi Protection

Hi I notice you semi protected the United Nations page, Good move, you may have noticed were we discussing this on the talk page and were about to request it. How long to you intend to keep it like that. Buffa Buffadren 18:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The request for protection was made at WP:RPP, which is why I semi-protected the article. As the history notes, the semi-protection will expire 23:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC). -- tariqabjotu 18:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing in Pristina?

Not UNMIK, if that's what you're worried about. I'm researching a documentary about Kosovo. Slow but fascinating work. Davu.leon 00:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UN Protected

You're welcome for the support. The article deserved it. oobug^talk/_contrib 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uninformed edits

Why did you make this edit and include the same link twice? Just curious...--Domitius 18:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit is not mine and i question the decision to include it. I RV to what was agreed by others on the Talk Page .Buffadren 12:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do You claim that 3 Chapters of the UN Charter alone are not guaranteeing borders of internationally recognized countries? --PaxEquilibrium 15:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria

It's on my watchlist. After we'll have reached some sort of agreement about the intro I'll look at the other issues. Alaexis 13:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hy! Nice work! Even I don't agree with some of your reverts is nice to know that somebody really neutral is looking and revert our biases. Thanks !!! You keep me in line. Catarcostica 07:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Check this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/#Alaexis and this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dikarka . Regards. Alaexis 18:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care of 3RR. Kind regards.--MariusM 18:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please take care at 3RR.--MariusM 13:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Paul (Pax?)

Well, the logic lies in the fact that Serb rights in Kosovo are nowadays very low, and that they were up to recently (some say even today) equal to zero. The Kosovo Serbs consider Serbia's sovereignty (regardless if it's factually non-present) as the very last only remaining thing that could guarantee for them some hope in the future. However in an independent Kosovo, there is absolutely no last guarantee present and there is nothing that could make us think things'll improve.

Although both NATO and UN have utterly failed ("pathetically" as the Kosovo Serbs say) with some even being accomplices in atrocities (like the Swedish soldiers that could be identified as light versions of Milosevic's butchers) - note: the Kosovo Serbs have grown weary with a huge anti-western skepticism - so they think there is no reason why things would change when EU takes over protection as inclined (and frankly, their skeptical fear is somewhat justified). --PaxEquilibrium 21:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I shed some light for You.

BTW what precisely (regarding International Law) are You studying if I may know? --PaxEquilibrium 18:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit like yourself I have many 'balls in the air', but my area right now is Transitional Law for International Dispute Settlement' Buffadren 15:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion of mnerge

Hi Buffadren,

I’ve just suggested the merging of History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1941–1945) and Independent State of Croatia articles. If you want to contribute with the discussion, please go there… See you later.--MaGioZal 20:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for continuous edit warring on Transnistria. Although you didn't technically reach the 3RR level, you were continuing a disruptive long-term edit war. There had been previous warnings that continuing edit-warring on this page would not be further tolerated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this. Regards. Alaexis 16:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Yes, thank you. --PaxEquilibrium 18:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Just a quick note - one more edit on Transnistria in the next 12 hours or so and you'll probably end up blocked. I suggest stopping edit warring on this article now. Arbitration is a very serious process and continuing with disruptive behaviour will not help your case with ArbCom. -- Nick ^t 16:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffadren, your repeated reverts on Transnistria are troubling. You were all warned that continued edit-warring would not be tolerated. That does not mean people should cease to be WP:BOLD. Quite to the contrary. The injunction against edit-warring was exactly so that people could again "boldly" edit articles in peace. If another editor makes a large rewrite edit and you don't like it, it is your responsibility, not theirs, to initiate a constructive discussion on talk. You need to bring forward concrete objections to individual points. You cannot counter other people's with blanket reverts and demand of them to get your consent first. Much more so when you do blanket reverts including potentially uncontentious copyedit improvements, as you did last.

Since you just came off your last block and have already run up to ~~three~~ two again, in this unconstructive manner, I'm blocking you again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Correcting: two, not three. Sorry, I didn't realise one was arguably a genuine vandalism revert. Well, so, then, okay, hummmmph.... okay, I'm letting you off with a warning for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not just a edit war but a political war going on there. I have tried my best to keep things under control and calm as not to ignite things Buffadren 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, even after the warning above, you continued edit-warring and actually managed to break 3RR within just 4 hours, with misleading and confusing edit summaries to make things worse:

12:09 (edits "agreed on talk", but no evidence of such an agreement, mostly a revert to your older version [1])
13:28 (reverting intro)
14:56 "reinserted deleted intro"
16:08 (misleading edit summary "revert myself", but in fact again mostly a revert to your own older version.)

I'm probably going to block a few other participants too. Your block is three days this time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another ...

This is bordering on the ridiculous. You just come back from your second block in ten days and you have nothing better to do than immediately continue the same old stale revert-war [2]? And again referring to the other side as "vandals" ([3]), and again falsely claiming "consensus" for your edit when clearly there is no such thing? (After all, why would there be an edit-war otherwise?) - This has to stop. Blocked for another four days, together with your opponent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This block is unfair and is a wrong punishment for upholding an agreement on Wiki. Please see achive where we agreed to insert this. I believe the 'opponent' has a personal commercial interest in deleting Tiraspol Times link. This is not proper from him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transnistria/archive_6 Please reconsider this block. It does not make sense. Like you I am not edit waring but trying to keep the peace and stick by agreements make on talk.Buffadren 10:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just back from the PMR

Hi—you announced on the Transnistria talk page that you had just traveled to the PMR and invited questions on your trip. I am a University of California graduate student writing a dissertation on the collapse of the Soviet Union and the movement in the MSSR that eventually resulted in the creation of the PMSSR (now PMR). I would be very interested to hear a little bit about your trip. If you don't mind me asking, under whose auspices did you go? What was the project? Please feel free to email (though my wikiaccount) as well. Best wishes jamason 13:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! have you been only to Tiraspol or to some other places as well? It seems like the main sights are outside the capital... Have you made any photos? Alaexis 15:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bendary and Tiraspol and some other small villages. Took about 300 photos. Buffadren 10:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: admin

Thanks. ;0)

I believe I have already stated that it is not likely that you are MaGioZal's sockpuppet, as your contributions have a very large tone of calmness, civility and are generally far more constructive.

I'm pleased to hear that you would. ;) However, my RfA is already up&runnin'. --PaxEquilibrium 18:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting administrators in election is not done at their talk pages, but the corresponding RfA entry. --PaxEquilibrium 20:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong version anti-Transnistria

You've been reveted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=130838602&oldid=130825551 to a wrong version. This is a version anti-Transnistria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.238.44.49 (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Marc Street. I am sorry I confused you with Mauco. I have changed back my ~~crossings out~~ and have add notes everywhere that I was mistaken. I would appreciate if you could use your original account, or in case you use a new one - inform everyone in the talk page to avoid confusion. I would appreciate if you would not pretend to be a new user in the future. Also, please refrain from erasing other people's comments in the future, for that can change the original meaning. Thank you. By the way, as long as you are civilized in discusions and actions on WP, I don't care if in real life you are paid to edit Tiraspol Times and/or Wikipedia. The sole request that I'd have, don't try to cite your own articles from TT in WP, please. Appart from that, have a nice day. :Dc76 21:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Mauco. Only you say that and think it. If I was admin would block me as Mauco was warned. Buffadren 08:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that's why I appologized. And I did that regardless of the fact that you represent a group of interest.:Dc76 13:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your status...

Well, so we have edits by 193.120.95.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) confirmed to be Mark Street on 6 November ([4]), 7 November ([5]), 7 December ([6]), and 30 January ([7]). On 24 December, the same 193.120.95.11 address was blocked by Essjay as having been the source of illicit socking activity by User:Truli and User:Esgert (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mark us street). Now, you are apparently on the same IP. Is that correct?

Mark Street always identified as an editor of TT. You said the other day you go on "fact-finding missions" to Transnistria, which sounds like you have a professional paid activity there. You are both behind the same IP in Ireland, supposedly the place where the company of Des Grant, the TT founder, is located. Is that correct?

But you claim you have nothing to do with Mark Street at all, is that correct?

Man, you need to come up with a good answer soon, for you're on real thin ice here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, I already said on talk it is a shared IP. If Mark Street uses it while in Transit that's his business. Anyhow, the accounts you refer to are all closed and inactive here. I haven't done anything wrong so that is not an issue Right ? Buffadren 11:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, the IP which linked you to Mark us street was an Irish IP. Is that the IP people use in Transnistria?--Ploutarchos 11:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh troll Buffadren 11:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier on ANI, you are still engaging in abusive sockpuppetry if you are falsely pretending to be two people, even if one of the accounts is now inactive. In addition, even if you are two people, we need to know your role with respect to a conflict-of-interest problem, if indeed you have a professional affiliation with a political organisation active in Transnistrian public relation efforts. I ask you for an explanation of what that IP is, one more time. What kind of organisation is behind it that houses both you and (occasionally or regularly?) MarkStreet / Des Grant? Please be aware that I have already proposed an indef ban on both you and MarkStreet, and you'll have quite some explaining to do if you want to avert that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for abusive sock-/meatpuppetry

Since checkuser has shown you to be a likely sock-/meatpuppet of "MarkStreet", the editor of "Tiraspol Times", and as you have failed to provide a plausible explanation of how you are related to him or to his organisation, but have instead continued to deny any relation with them whatsoever, and since you have at the same time continued to lobby for the inclusion of external links to the "Tiraspol Times", I conclude that you are engaging in abusive sockpuppetry for purposes of hiding your conflict of interest with respect to that site and its political goals. Whether you are in fact MarkStreet or just a person working for the same organisation as him, you are clearly part of a concerted astroturfing campaign trying to misuse Wikipedia for a political agenda.

I am therefore blocking you. The block duration is indefinite; I'll leave it to the Arbcom case to decide its final outcome.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain to you that it is a shared IP address. Regardless, the user Mark Street closed his account and has never operated at the same time as me so it is not abusive sockpuppetry. I am not Mark Street. Mark Street is a journalist that travels and uses different IP addresses. Journalists working from hotels, airports, friends apartments, all share the same IP address for example, just because he used the same IP as me does not make him me. I am sure there are admins to whom the same thing has happened but they are not blocked. Yes I object to the Transnistria page on Wiki where it says that Transnistria is a haven for Crime, Smuggling, and that Transnistrians are selling their women as sex slaves. It presents the place as a Mafia state. That is pure lies. I have been there. Transnistria on Wiki is a very poor source of the truthful situation. It is a normal place ,very quiet and ordered. . If you check my edit history on that page my edits cover both positive and negative aspects, In equal measure. The current editors that control the page work to the agenda of only allowing negative material. Hence 50% of my edits still remain but anything that was truth but seemed 'Normal or Nice' got deleted, As for TiraspolTimes it is really important for Transnistrians to have a voice in English and it is it. That is why the Romanian?Moldovanss hate it and call it propaganda saying the Kremlin own it etc etc, As for Mark Street read his history log, he desperately tried to work with the Romanian editors and pleaded with them to stop the attack on Transnistrian editors and to work with them., they jeered him and refused him the right to a single edit. In the end the guy gave up after a few months and has the odd title of not been allowed a single edit of any kind on the Transnistria page despite being an editor there and an expert on the subject. I am not trying to insert political POV I am trying to have sections deleted where Wiki state that Transnistria sells weapons on the black market or is a threat in that area, I strongly object to the sick sections where Wiki mentions the selling of woman for the international sex industry, I also object to the Crime section. Transnistria is very peaceful. Yes some high profile incidents happen. For example this clown set of a grenade on a bus and killed some people. It was a terrible time. The editors on Wiki insisted on calling it a Terrorist Bomb and wanted a new heading called BOMBINGS IN TRANSNISTRIA, One bomb has exploded in 17 years and it was a home made device made by a crazed man acting alone....You have got to understand the Romanians hate the Transnistrians ever since WW2 when Romania sided with Germany. This was compounded by the Moldova/Romania Vs Transnistria war. For some this war continues, but not ther but here on wiki and some of us want to end the quarrels and pain from the past. You will note that Transnistrian editors do not attack Romania on their page, The rest of us have moved on and want to leave history behind and live a peace with good neighbours. You can ban me, fine, but others will follow and like me read the Romanian hate filled propaganda rubbish and someone will step and say this is wrong and it is causing more hurt, pain and fear between these peoples and put a stop to the hate propaganda campaign that serves neither side, humanity, or Wiki.Buffadren 12:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]