User talk:Moldopodo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion
If you want to leave a message,
you can just click here!

You can also send me an e-mail.

Contents

[edit] Your Userpage/AN

I'm glad I was able to help out, even if only a little bit. It did end up to be a productive discussion, I think, and I hope it proves useful in the future. As for your userpage, it appears to have been protected in December by User:Nick, citing privacy concerns (diff). I've unprotected the page, so you should have no further problems editing it. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, really. Unfortunately, so far this discussion is productive only with you, independently from the fact whether you agree or not with me - at least there is an exchange of explanations between two human beings, which is generally called communication. It's amazing to have so many other users privileged with rights of administrators who still do not have anything to say, nor to explain.--Moldopodotalk 16:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moldovan-Ukrainian relations

I think I see what happened here. You started an article at Moldavian-Ukrainian relations, which Flueras redirected to an identical article at Moldovan-Ukrainian relations, claiming that Moldovan is the correct term. I don't know which is which, so I can't speak to the name issue - but would that article (which looks substantially like the version you had before it was redirected, thus), work for your planned expansion? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Flueras was blocked as a sock of Bonaparte. FYI. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked with no justification as of 6 June 2008

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Personal attacks and disruptive comments. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "and the diff with due explanation are.... absent?"

Decline reason: "Not a request, and there is a link. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I request to have an explanation of the block with the proper justification providing a diff. I also would like to know what this weburiedoursecretsinthegarden kind of explanation is? Also why it is allowed for an administrator User:Gutza to be obviously uncivil[1] in my regard [2] and how my edits are considered uncivil when no diff is presented by the blocking admin (nor by the reviewing admin either) to justify his/her decision? Has any admin given hersel/himself 10 minutes to see what is going on really? Also, please, could you pexplain me, as per administrators' discussion board, how did the name of the section[3] "Accusation of canvassing by User:Neil disappeared? Looks like I am the only one who provides diffs and justifications here. Is this a new rule on Wikipedia?"

Decline reason: "You want a diff? You got one. The conduct and/or misconduct of other users is irrelevant to your block, especially when there's ArbCom-imposed restrictions involved. —Daniel Case (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

See also:
— Athaenara ✉ 14:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Moldopodo.2C_again ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formal notice

See Digwuren restriction and Digwuren warning. Cease making any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, especially in East European related articles or you will be subject to said restrictions. While I know you were alreayd listed there, thought I'd remind you. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rlevse' Hypocrisy

Please, User:Rlevse, how do you explain me that blocking someone (myself) for using the word wicked describing obvious bad faith editing of another user, violating 3 revert rule, and others such as civility (as per Divurgen arbitration on Wikipedia) and simply basic societal etiquette

and

on the other hand, yourself, in the quality of neutral, impartial and knowledgeable wise administrator calling other users with unfounded accusations=insults / names [4], [5] ?--Moldopodotalk 20:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Another suggestion

I want to write a new article about Bessarabia under Romanian rule (1918-1940). Maybe in next two days left of your block you could gather some material about that period's abuses.Xasha (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldavian-Spanish relations

A tag has been placed on Moldavian-Spanish relations, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. andy (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The page is never perfect, be it in my sandbox or somewhere else. There is plenty of info to add, namely on economic cooperation, for example. However, there are such notions as good faith and common sense. If you think that stating that there is no common border between Spain and Moldova means no relations, then following your reasoning you should delete all articles on bilateral relation for countries not sharing a border as well.--Moldopodotalk 16:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

By the by, the adjective form of "Moldova" is "Moldovan" (it's "Moldavian" for "Moldavia") - can we clear up this situation by having all these articles at "Moldovan"? Biruitorul Talk 16:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the adjective form of Moldova may be both Moldavian and Moldovan. That is what was cleared up, so there is no need to rename all articles, just like did the banned user, sock of Bonny, whose edits were all reverted by admin. --Moldopodotalk 18:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, of course those edits were reverted, but it could well be Bonaparte was correct. 20,000 vs 1,180; 535 vs 130, with many of the latter referring to pre-1991 entities. I'd be happy to ask a third party to look into the issue, if you like. Biruitorul Talk 18:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)