TSO1D, I see that you removed the following as not notable:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/?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)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 49 | 4 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
TSO1D, I see that you removed the following as not notable:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/?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)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 49 | 4 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)