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)
Concensus is always the best thing, but don't be afraid to be bold when removing linkcruft. Nikola 18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Please take care at 3RR.-- MariusM 09:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I copied the comment from my talk page to the article's talk page. - Best regards, Ev 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
All in a day's work. LittleOldMe 16:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
You're welcome for the support. The article deserved it. oobug talk/ contrib 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Why did you make this edit and include the same link twice? Just curious...-- Domitius 18:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, thank you. -- PaxEquilibrium 18:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You've been reveted http://en.wikipedia.org/?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).
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)
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)
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)
Concensus is always the best thing, but don't be afraid to be bold when removing linkcruft. Nikola 18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Please take care at 3RR.-- MariusM 09:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I copied the comment from my talk page to the article's talk page. - Best regards, Ev 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
All in a day's work. LittleOldMe 16:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
You're welcome for the support. The article deserved it. oobug talk/ contrib 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Why did you make this edit and include the same link twice? Just curious...-- Domitius 18:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, thank you. -- PaxEquilibrium 18:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You've been reveted http://en.wikipedia.org/?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).
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)
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)