I saw the toy trains page but would like to know if there are users who have specific information about Brazilian made toy trains? - Pernambuco 04:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source for the June 1969 friendly fire incident you added to the USS Edison article? I'd like to be able to cite it.-- agr 23:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you please revert yourself here. I want it, Marius wants it, and neither of us can do it because of the 3RR. Check the article's talkpage. -- Tzekai 16:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello! This message is in regard to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transnistrian referendum, 2006. I'll be happy to help all of you out here, but first I've left an important message on that mediation page which requires your response. I would also appreciate it if you could watchlist that page so that we may facilitate discussion and communication. I look forward to working with you! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 00:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't understand your intervention in Transnistria's talk page. You reverted relevant info. See talk page of Transnistria, info is confirmed even by official Transnistrian sources. Reverting relevant information you did also in Transnistrian referendum, 2006, where neither me or Tekleni asked your intervention. Now we are blocked in a mediation where the same POV pusher like in Transnistria article refuse to accept. Please discuss in talk page before reverting. I would apreciate if you will revert yourself in Transnistria.-- MariusM 01:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I have just taken on the Northern Ireland case as a Mediator. If you approve of me to be the mediator, reply here, and state whether you like public or private mediation. Thanks, ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?! Join Esperanza! 23:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You made a "support" comment that sounded like you were agreeing that we should rename the template, but it was in the section asking if there was consensus for various code-formatting changes unrelated to the template's name. I moved your comment up a section so that it appears in what I think is the intended place. Please revert me if I'm wrong! Thanks. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as the Northern Ireland page is pretty stable (see some of the involved user's explanation on the mediation page, most notably the last comment), I would like to ask whether you think the problem has been already solved, and should the mediation case be closed. Thanks. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?! Join Esperanza! 04:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, no problem about the "one of the world's best". I've probably made several similar mistakes before I read the Wikipedia guidelines on the matter. Regards, -- Pappa 10:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking the exact same thing. Note that there's currently a thread about him at WP:AN/I. Khoi khoi 21:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Pernambuco,
Apologies; my impression was that a consensus to remove any and all territories that were not standalone countries recogniz/sed by the UN was established some days ago. I'm about to create {{ Dependent and other territories of Europe}} as a consequence (thence {{ Dependent and other territories of X}}).
I believe I did...?
I'm surprised that it appears to you as if I am the only one to have a say in this (or indeed the other related) template/s... Do you start reading from #This and similar templates' names...? Best wishes, David Kernow ( talk) 13:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with David. David made good edits since I requested that the page should be protected. We have to reach consensus and I've explained maybe too much what and is not an unrecognized country. -- Wissahickon Creek talk 14:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Pernambuco, I know that you already said that you don't like to get involved in edit disputes, but you just got reverted even as part of a wholesale rvv done by MariusM. He reverted me (as usual) and in the process, he decided to get rid of your work, too, even though your edit was agreed upon by EvilAlex and not by me. See this diff [5]. He did not discuss it on Talk:Transnistria first, but just reverted it all the way back to a version from 2 days ago. Sorry: That sort of behavior is unacceptable. I don't know if you want to defend my edit, but at least you should defend your own. - Mauco 05:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to hear from you and maybe we can work together on something. We are already working together in the WP, aren't we? :-) JRSP 03:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, the results are inconclusive for that one. Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Thank you very much for your interest in the issues related to Moldova and Romania. If you have continued interest in them, please feel free to join [7] It is not a very active group of users, but at least you can find on this page links to articles/issues ralating to M+R. In the Talk: Transnistria you have recently written:
I want to apologize for my delay, but it is a long report and I wanted to do a perfect job, actually it is 169 pages long and very technical so this explains why I am not finished with it yet, and I have been away from wiki-pedia for two days because of this reason. It is a very good source and there are some quotes in the report that Evilalex will like and some quotes in the report that Mauco will like, and I`ll present the findings as soon as I get it finished. -Pernambuco 11:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you, please tell me, which report it is? From the discussion I thought you meant Mark Almond's article [8], but that is very short, and definitevely not a report. The article Transnistria is now in a point-by-point revision, and the first issue at hand is the credibility of different sourses. I could not wait till you come back, but ask you now just one question: what report is it you are reading? Also, it came up the issue of scholarly work of Mark Almond, i.e. his books and articles, not through BHHRG. Do you know anything about this. I could not find any good links.: Dc76 23:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, when you get some time, could you please list your {{POV}} concerns about this article Occupation of Bessarabia by the Soviet Union in its talk page. Thank you.: Dc76 06:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know much about the guy aside from his connection with The Albany Academy so I will be of little use in expanding his article. Sorry :(
Don't understand this edit which look like vandalism to me. There were paragraphs which were included long time ago in the article, removed by Mauco during few days I didn't edit Wikipedia during Christmas (with the exception of travel warnings, he even didn't bother to discuss the removal in talk page) and I just re-added the paragraphs back. Why you reverted me, while the majority of editors of Transnistria article agreed with those paragraphs? You didn't explained your position in the talk page.-- MariusM 17:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Pernambuco, he keeps undoing your changes. See this diff for the latest stunt of his. He wants everyone to talk (he says) but he is not doing that himself. Besides, he is smuggling in some heavy POV of his own (for instance the link headlines changed, and he is hiding a link which he does not like). I know that in the past, you never wanted to stand up for me or take sides. But at least defend YOUR OWN edit. - Mauco 13:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I am amazed that you claim "I never removed anything" immediatelly after I gave you the diff when you removed 4 (for) paragraphs. You didn't scroll down to see all the changes you made? Regarding the changes of headlines (I believe you reffer at External loinks section), it was disscussed in talk page that "Transnistrian side" is unacceptable [11]. You should read the talk page before accusing others of making changes without discussion. Please note that User:Truli who participated in disscussion about headlines change is now permabanned, as sockpuppet of User:Mark us street, editor of Tiraspol Times. The majority of editors agreed that "Transnistrian side" headline is misleading. Mauco didn't agree, but why all others editors should ask Mauco's approval?-- MariusM 19:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not like what you are doing to Transnistria page, it looks like vandalism, I know that you told me in the talk page that you do not agree, but now there is another user (called "MariusM") who also reverted you, we really feel that way, I am sorry. Please propose the edits in the Talk page before you make them, or else you will just be reverted again, by me or by someone else I think, because I am not the only one who consider it vandalism, sorry for the hard words.-- Diana Teodorescu 19:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It is vandalism, this is why it is necessary to revert Pernambuco 20:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete my comment here? jamason 20:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Please mark your reverts as such.
William M. Connolley 21:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)I was telling that you broke the 3RR.-- MariusM 21:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
user:debbe, 05:15 UTC, 30 December 2006
Pernambuco, where are you? Your block should have been lifted by now. I want to bring this to your attention: [14] MariusM just undid your edit for the third time. If you don't want to take sides, that is fair. But at least defend your own edits. - Mauco 14:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
First, Happy New Year!
I've noticed your interest in Transnistria, and maybe you would like to vote in the survey on the inclusion in
Tiraspol article of the images with the Soviet tank monument in Tiraspol and Transnistrian Government building in Tiraspol with statue of Lenin in front. The survey is
here. Thank you,
Dl.goe
Hi, Pernambuco. I've wrote a message in Getulina talk. Gcoliveira 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You're not the first person (or even the 1000th) to end up a victim on this sort of thing. Common pattern: Person with no knowledge or experience with Wikipedia thinks it would be great to promote his/her (pick one): website, band, unpublished book, youtube video, unreleased amateur film, etc. The article gets deleted for obvious reasons. Person gets ticked off and starts vandalizing.
I'm still getting my user page vandalized regularly by a 14-year-old who made a 15-minute VHS movie about Communist Ninja orphan factory workers in 1840. Don't believe me? See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factory: The Musical. Fan-1967 20:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you Wikistalking me [15]?-- MariusM 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors.
Hi, Pernambuco, I hope you read meantime Upson Clark's book. Please share your thoughts about the History of Transnistria. See also the section comparing Pal Kolstoe and Upson Clark.-- MariusM 04:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Pernambuco. You wrote: "thank you for the links on Public holidays in Brazil. ... do you want to make an account?" I already have an account, but I'm not signed in right now. Thanks for asking! -- 201.51.211.130 15:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The content of external links provided at Transnistria article was decided after long discussions; we should not change it. I will move your link to Transnistrian referendum, 2006 and restore the old one. Another link was also rejected from Transnistria article and placed at Ukraine-Transnistria border customs conflict as refference Dl.goe 09:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The only problem is that the specific page references were lost, but that doesn't seem to matter on wikipedia. - TheMightyQuill 18:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to store them. They're safely stored in the history of the article. - TheMightyQuill 02:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
If you like to know much more about the Electrotridoshagraphy, you can login to the following website:
http://elctrotridoshagram.bravehost.com
In this website, you will find the 2 years old version of the matter.You can also go to the Talk:Ayurveda page of wikipedia and find there Electrotridosagram in the content-box. You will find the Hindi translation of the published matter in english language. You can also go to the Talk:Research and innovations in Ayurveda page, where you will find the Translation of the ETG technology in Archive-1 section. I am also an expert of the Ayurveda, the Indian system of Medicine and write my views in talk page. You will find here my views also in connection to Ayurveda. user:debbe, 23 January 2007, 05:10 UTC
Thanks for the invite to try and make the classical homeopathy better, but I'm too busy and my efforts would be wasted as I disagree profoundly with mmost of the changes people have made to it recently and especially the person you mention who has written some of the most unbelievable garbage I have read about this subject...with such totally misinformed people contributing avidly it would be pointless to join in. People who know so little about a subject and who ramble on at great length and push their opinions so arrogantly at others should be banned from wikipedia as they make it a scrapheap of garbage and make the work of serious well informed people very tough indeed. Take a look at the original homeopathy article to see how bad that is. I have no desire to go down that road ever again. Thanks anyway but I have no intention of 'laying pearls before swine' again. Peter morrell 06:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pernambuco. We had a poll regarding word officially in Transnistria article [16]. The result was clear - the majority want this word to be removed (6 removed, 3 neutral, only 2 want to keep this word). Why are you disrupting the edit against the consensus of the majority of editors?-- MariusM 03:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your message. I appreciate your interest in improving the article. The subject is indeed very controversial and requires a deeper insight. Feel free to contact me if I can be of any assistance. Best regards, Kober Talk 08:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I haven't edited that article before, so... I don't know, but given that he has written 2 books and has several websites, it wouldn't be that hard to find a source. But I'm not particularly interested... :p as for Transnistria, I was just reading Flux (a Moldovan newspaper) the other day, and it condemned the article "Moldovan language" on the Moldavian Wikipedia because it supposedly "recognizes the statality of Transnistria". The sentence in question just says taht "The Cyrillic script is official in the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic", so that is a lesson in how sensitive people are to how we word things. Apparently, the usage of the name "PMR", and the word "official", without using quotation marks to imply that they are somehow illegitimate or the use of qualifying words like "nerecunoscut" (unrecognized) or "regionul separatist moldovenesti" (Moldavian separatist region) implies that Wikipedia recognizes the independence of PMR. I mean, seriously, it is an article written /in Moldavian/, anyone who reads in that language already knows the status of PMR, and if they ever wanted to find out more they could click the blue link to PMR (which incidentally, due to vandalism, supports the statehood of PMR more explicitly, but...). But I think that serves to show just how delicate our work here is. -- Node 00:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
No not all are self proclaimed, please i understand you are doing standarization but this unilateral changes were not agreed to. Please use the talk page before such major edits. The turkish community in Cyprus is not independent even de facto, because it is heavily dependent on Turkey in all aspects. Standarization is nice but you can not force models or definition to different situations Aristovoul0s 14:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Friend, i have not reverted, i edited the article feel free to check. The intro to the article has been exhausted in discussion at the talk page for long time now. Today two editors show up that have not been part to the discussions to change the intro to something that was factually wrong and definately a POV, not to mentioned not agreed upon. One of them is you. Once again i understand you are trying to standarize articles and it is a good thing. However try to read a bit through the talk and the archives and then change the intro. In fact i quarantee that the intro will be changed again by other editors than myself during the day. just wait and see. Aristovoul0s 16:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Please take more care over WP:3RR and consider yourself lucky to avoid a block William M. Connolley 20:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Jonathanpops has a point there. -- Illythr 19:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Show me where in your version of the article de jure status of Abkhazia is mentioned? Where does the reader get the idea that Abkhazia is de jure part of Georgia? Nowhere! I just added relevant information in a concise and clear manner. Why do you try to hide it from the reader? ( PaC 05:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC))
The duration of the block is 24 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your apologies and sorry if I was hard on you. My friend's parents were tortured to death in Abkhazia. It was a reall campaign of ethnic cleansing. However, I understand your position too. I'll try to work out a compromised version based on legitimate and third-party sources. Best, -- Kober Talk 19:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for ruining the Samuel Hahnemann article with your 'friends' who clearly know nothing about the subject they are so keen to edit. It has been completely hacked to pieces. Wikipedia really could do without people like you. Please don't ask me again to make contributions when this is exactly what has happened repeatedly to these articles...as I said before 'laying pearls before swine.' Exactly right. Peter morrell 19:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's arguing that an article on it might not be appropriate at some point, just that this one has no merit because there's no NPOV material in it not covered at Homeopathy. I mean, is there anything in the present article usable as a basis for the new one that couldn't just be copied from Homeopathy with better result? Let's save the talk page, by all means, but probably best just to restart from scratch. Adam Cuerden talk 12:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You said a couple weeks ago that you could do the map of Transnistria. I am wondering what you need for that? Could you, please, look one more time through the links I provided in that talk at that time, and see what else you need. I don't mean to rush, do whenever you can, just if I forget to ask now what you need, we will both forget, and it will never be done :-) My understanding was that people (Jonathanpops, Illythr, etc) want a small map of Europe with a small rectangle showing Transnistria and part of the rest of Moldova. Then they want that rectangle expanded, and as far as I could get, in 4 colors: 1) territorry under Transnistrian control, 2) under Moldovan control, 3) under the Joint Control Commission and any of the sides' control, and 4) other countries (Ukraine if this case). I am thinking, maybe it is possible from the latter map to do 2 more insets: the two smaller regions (around Dubasari, and around Tighina). For the latter there is a safe (and the only possible) boundary: the administrative boundary of the localities, which has not been changed for many-many years, maybe at all during 20th century. This is the boundary shown on official maps. I know exactly which villages should be in which color. So the point I guess remains to find a detailed map of those two regions, showing the boundary of the lands of the villages. When you get some time, could you, please, see what is still needed? Again, thank you very much for helping with it - it is an ingratious task: Dc76 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Instead of blindly reverting, like you did here, please discuss in talk anything you want to revert. I did discuss my changes, which were restoring old info taken out without discussion (link of conflict.md is a good example), and I did provide source for new info - human right abuses that happened in March 2007. You took out from the article recent human right abuses of March 2007, when you will accept those - after one year? Then you will say those are already old news not anymore relevant.-- MariusM 19:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Abridged talk 14:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked you from editing Wikipedia for 3 days for your use of the sockpuppet Kertu3 to edit war at Transnistria, as confirmed by Checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pernambuco. Your sockpuppet has been blocked indefinitely. Please contribute positively once your block expires and discuss any contentious changes you wish to make to article on the relevant talkpage first. WjB scribe 18:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You may not remember me, but I was your meditator in the meditation case regarding [Northern Ireland]. I, however, was affected by China's ban on Wikipedia. I apoligize for my sudden inactivity and disappearance from Wikipedia, causing the meditation case to end prematurely.
Again, I apologize.
¿Exir? ¡Kamalabadi! 10:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello Pernambuco! Thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an
Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The
biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure
verifiability, all biographies should be based on
reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current
866 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{
unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 05:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Terence John Marsh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terence John Marsh until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SL93 ( talk) 21:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I saw the toy trains page but would like to know if there are users who have specific information about Brazilian made toy trains? - Pernambuco 04:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source for the June 1969 friendly fire incident you added to the USS Edison article? I'd like to be able to cite it.-- agr 23:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you please revert yourself here. I want it, Marius wants it, and neither of us can do it because of the 3RR. Check the article's talkpage. -- Tzekai 16:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello! This message is in regard to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transnistrian referendum, 2006. I'll be happy to help all of you out here, but first I've left an important message on that mediation page which requires your response. I would also appreciate it if you could watchlist that page so that we may facilitate discussion and communication. I look forward to working with you! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 00:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't understand your intervention in Transnistria's talk page. You reverted relevant info. See talk page of Transnistria, info is confirmed even by official Transnistrian sources. Reverting relevant information you did also in Transnistrian referendum, 2006, where neither me or Tekleni asked your intervention. Now we are blocked in a mediation where the same POV pusher like in Transnistria article refuse to accept. Please discuss in talk page before reverting. I would apreciate if you will revert yourself in Transnistria.-- MariusM 01:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I have just taken on the Northern Ireland case as a Mediator. If you approve of me to be the mediator, reply here, and state whether you like public or private mediation. Thanks, ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?! Join Esperanza! 23:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You made a "support" comment that sounded like you were agreeing that we should rename the template, but it was in the section asking if there was consensus for various code-formatting changes unrelated to the template's name. I moved your comment up a section so that it appears in what I think is the intended place. Please revert me if I'm wrong! Thanks. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as the Northern Ireland page is pretty stable (see some of the involved user's explanation on the mediation page, most notably the last comment), I would like to ask whether you think the problem has been already solved, and should the mediation case be closed. Thanks. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?! Join Esperanza! 04:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, no problem about the "one of the world's best". I've probably made several similar mistakes before I read the Wikipedia guidelines on the matter. Regards, -- Pappa 10:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking the exact same thing. Note that there's currently a thread about him at WP:AN/I. Khoi khoi 21:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Pernambuco,
Apologies; my impression was that a consensus to remove any and all territories that were not standalone countries recogniz/sed by the UN was established some days ago. I'm about to create {{ Dependent and other territories of Europe}} as a consequence (thence {{ Dependent and other territories of X}}).
I believe I did...?
I'm surprised that it appears to you as if I am the only one to have a say in this (or indeed the other related) template/s... Do you start reading from #This and similar templates' names...? Best wishes, David Kernow ( talk) 13:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with David. David made good edits since I requested that the page should be protected. We have to reach consensus and I've explained maybe too much what and is not an unrecognized country. -- Wissahickon Creek talk 14:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Pernambuco, I know that you already said that you don't like to get involved in edit disputes, but you just got reverted even as part of a wholesale rvv done by MariusM. He reverted me (as usual) and in the process, he decided to get rid of your work, too, even though your edit was agreed upon by EvilAlex and not by me. See this diff [5]. He did not discuss it on Talk:Transnistria first, but just reverted it all the way back to a version from 2 days ago. Sorry: That sort of behavior is unacceptable. I don't know if you want to defend my edit, but at least you should defend your own. - Mauco 05:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to hear from you and maybe we can work together on something. We are already working together in the WP, aren't we? :-) JRSP 03:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, the results are inconclusive for that one. Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Thank you very much for your interest in the issues related to Moldova and Romania. If you have continued interest in them, please feel free to join [7] It is not a very active group of users, but at least you can find on this page links to articles/issues ralating to M+R. In the Talk: Transnistria you have recently written:
I want to apologize for my delay, but it is a long report and I wanted to do a perfect job, actually it is 169 pages long and very technical so this explains why I am not finished with it yet, and I have been away from wiki-pedia for two days because of this reason. It is a very good source and there are some quotes in the report that Evilalex will like and some quotes in the report that Mauco will like, and I`ll present the findings as soon as I get it finished. -Pernambuco 11:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you, please tell me, which report it is? From the discussion I thought you meant Mark Almond's article [8], but that is very short, and definitevely not a report. The article Transnistria is now in a point-by-point revision, and the first issue at hand is the credibility of different sourses. I could not wait till you come back, but ask you now just one question: what report is it you are reading? Also, it came up the issue of scholarly work of Mark Almond, i.e. his books and articles, not through BHHRG. Do you know anything about this. I could not find any good links.: Dc76 23:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, when you get some time, could you please list your {{POV}} concerns about this article Occupation of Bessarabia by the Soviet Union in its talk page. Thank you.: Dc76 06:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know much about the guy aside from his connection with The Albany Academy so I will be of little use in expanding his article. Sorry :(
Don't understand this edit which look like vandalism to me. There were paragraphs which were included long time ago in the article, removed by Mauco during few days I didn't edit Wikipedia during Christmas (with the exception of travel warnings, he even didn't bother to discuss the removal in talk page) and I just re-added the paragraphs back. Why you reverted me, while the majority of editors of Transnistria article agreed with those paragraphs? You didn't explained your position in the talk page.-- MariusM 17:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Pernambuco, he keeps undoing your changes. See this diff for the latest stunt of his. He wants everyone to talk (he says) but he is not doing that himself. Besides, he is smuggling in some heavy POV of his own (for instance the link headlines changed, and he is hiding a link which he does not like). I know that in the past, you never wanted to stand up for me or take sides. But at least defend YOUR OWN edit. - Mauco 13:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I am amazed that you claim "I never removed anything" immediatelly after I gave you the diff when you removed 4 (for) paragraphs. You didn't scroll down to see all the changes you made? Regarding the changes of headlines (I believe you reffer at External loinks section), it was disscussed in talk page that "Transnistrian side" is unacceptable [11]. You should read the talk page before accusing others of making changes without discussion. Please note that User:Truli who participated in disscussion about headlines change is now permabanned, as sockpuppet of User:Mark us street, editor of Tiraspol Times. The majority of editors agreed that "Transnistrian side" headline is misleading. Mauco didn't agree, but why all others editors should ask Mauco's approval?-- MariusM 19:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not like what you are doing to Transnistria page, it looks like vandalism, I know that you told me in the talk page that you do not agree, but now there is another user (called "MariusM") who also reverted you, we really feel that way, I am sorry. Please propose the edits in the Talk page before you make them, or else you will just be reverted again, by me or by someone else I think, because I am not the only one who consider it vandalism, sorry for the hard words.-- Diana Teodorescu 19:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It is vandalism, this is why it is necessary to revert Pernambuco 20:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete my comment here? jamason 20:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Please mark your reverts as such.
William M. Connolley 21:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)I was telling that you broke the 3RR.-- MariusM 21:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
user:debbe, 05:15 UTC, 30 December 2006
Pernambuco, where are you? Your block should have been lifted by now. I want to bring this to your attention: [14] MariusM just undid your edit for the third time. If you don't want to take sides, that is fair. But at least defend your own edits. - Mauco 14:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
First, Happy New Year!
I've noticed your interest in Transnistria, and maybe you would like to vote in the survey on the inclusion in
Tiraspol article of the images with the Soviet tank monument in Tiraspol and Transnistrian Government building in Tiraspol with statue of Lenin in front. The survey is
here. Thank you,
Dl.goe
Hi, Pernambuco. I've wrote a message in Getulina talk. Gcoliveira 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You're not the first person (or even the 1000th) to end up a victim on this sort of thing. Common pattern: Person with no knowledge or experience with Wikipedia thinks it would be great to promote his/her (pick one): website, band, unpublished book, youtube video, unreleased amateur film, etc. The article gets deleted for obvious reasons. Person gets ticked off and starts vandalizing.
I'm still getting my user page vandalized regularly by a 14-year-old who made a 15-minute VHS movie about Communist Ninja orphan factory workers in 1840. Don't believe me? See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factory: The Musical. Fan-1967 20:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you Wikistalking me [15]?-- MariusM 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors.
Hi, Pernambuco, I hope you read meantime Upson Clark's book. Please share your thoughts about the History of Transnistria. See also the section comparing Pal Kolstoe and Upson Clark.-- MariusM 04:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Pernambuco. You wrote: "thank you for the links on Public holidays in Brazil. ... do you want to make an account?" I already have an account, but I'm not signed in right now. Thanks for asking! -- 201.51.211.130 15:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The content of external links provided at Transnistria article was decided after long discussions; we should not change it. I will move your link to Transnistrian referendum, 2006 and restore the old one. Another link was also rejected from Transnistria article and placed at Ukraine-Transnistria border customs conflict as refference Dl.goe 09:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The only problem is that the specific page references were lost, but that doesn't seem to matter on wikipedia. - TheMightyQuill 18:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to store them. They're safely stored in the history of the article. - TheMightyQuill 02:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
If you like to know much more about the Electrotridoshagraphy, you can login to the following website:
http://elctrotridoshagram.bravehost.com
In this website, you will find the 2 years old version of the matter.You can also go to the Talk:Ayurveda page of wikipedia and find there Electrotridosagram in the content-box. You will find the Hindi translation of the published matter in english language. You can also go to the Talk:Research and innovations in Ayurveda page, where you will find the Translation of the ETG technology in Archive-1 section. I am also an expert of the Ayurveda, the Indian system of Medicine and write my views in talk page. You will find here my views also in connection to Ayurveda. user:debbe, 23 January 2007, 05:10 UTC
Thanks for the invite to try and make the classical homeopathy better, but I'm too busy and my efforts would be wasted as I disagree profoundly with mmost of the changes people have made to it recently and especially the person you mention who has written some of the most unbelievable garbage I have read about this subject...with such totally misinformed people contributing avidly it would be pointless to join in. People who know so little about a subject and who ramble on at great length and push their opinions so arrogantly at others should be banned from wikipedia as they make it a scrapheap of garbage and make the work of serious well informed people very tough indeed. Take a look at the original homeopathy article to see how bad that is. I have no desire to go down that road ever again. Thanks anyway but I have no intention of 'laying pearls before swine' again. Peter morrell 06:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pernambuco. We had a poll regarding word officially in Transnistria article [16]. The result was clear - the majority want this word to be removed (6 removed, 3 neutral, only 2 want to keep this word). Why are you disrupting the edit against the consensus of the majority of editors?-- MariusM 03:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your message. I appreciate your interest in improving the article. The subject is indeed very controversial and requires a deeper insight. Feel free to contact me if I can be of any assistance. Best regards, Kober Talk 08:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I haven't edited that article before, so... I don't know, but given that he has written 2 books and has several websites, it wouldn't be that hard to find a source. But I'm not particularly interested... :p as for Transnistria, I was just reading Flux (a Moldovan newspaper) the other day, and it condemned the article "Moldovan language" on the Moldavian Wikipedia because it supposedly "recognizes the statality of Transnistria". The sentence in question just says taht "The Cyrillic script is official in the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic", so that is a lesson in how sensitive people are to how we word things. Apparently, the usage of the name "PMR", and the word "official", without using quotation marks to imply that they are somehow illegitimate or the use of qualifying words like "nerecunoscut" (unrecognized) or "regionul separatist moldovenesti" (Moldavian separatist region) implies that Wikipedia recognizes the independence of PMR. I mean, seriously, it is an article written /in Moldavian/, anyone who reads in that language already knows the status of PMR, and if they ever wanted to find out more they could click the blue link to PMR (which incidentally, due to vandalism, supports the statehood of PMR more explicitly, but...). But I think that serves to show just how delicate our work here is. -- Node 00:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
No not all are self proclaimed, please i understand you are doing standarization but this unilateral changes were not agreed to. Please use the talk page before such major edits. The turkish community in Cyprus is not independent even de facto, because it is heavily dependent on Turkey in all aspects. Standarization is nice but you can not force models or definition to different situations Aristovoul0s 14:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Friend, i have not reverted, i edited the article feel free to check. The intro to the article has been exhausted in discussion at the talk page for long time now. Today two editors show up that have not been part to the discussions to change the intro to something that was factually wrong and definately a POV, not to mentioned not agreed upon. One of them is you. Once again i understand you are trying to standarize articles and it is a good thing. However try to read a bit through the talk and the archives and then change the intro. In fact i quarantee that the intro will be changed again by other editors than myself during the day. just wait and see. Aristovoul0s 16:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Please take more care over WP:3RR and consider yourself lucky to avoid a block William M. Connolley 20:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Jonathanpops has a point there. -- Illythr 19:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Show me where in your version of the article de jure status of Abkhazia is mentioned? Where does the reader get the idea that Abkhazia is de jure part of Georgia? Nowhere! I just added relevant information in a concise and clear manner. Why do you try to hide it from the reader? ( PaC 05:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC))
The duration of the block is 24 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your apologies and sorry if I was hard on you. My friend's parents were tortured to death in Abkhazia. It was a reall campaign of ethnic cleansing. However, I understand your position too. I'll try to work out a compromised version based on legitimate and third-party sources. Best, -- Kober Talk 19:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for ruining the Samuel Hahnemann article with your 'friends' who clearly know nothing about the subject they are so keen to edit. It has been completely hacked to pieces. Wikipedia really could do without people like you. Please don't ask me again to make contributions when this is exactly what has happened repeatedly to these articles...as I said before 'laying pearls before swine.' Exactly right. Peter morrell 19:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's arguing that an article on it might not be appropriate at some point, just that this one has no merit because there's no NPOV material in it not covered at Homeopathy. I mean, is there anything in the present article usable as a basis for the new one that couldn't just be copied from Homeopathy with better result? Let's save the talk page, by all means, but probably best just to restart from scratch. Adam Cuerden talk 12:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You said a couple weeks ago that you could do the map of Transnistria. I am wondering what you need for that? Could you, please, look one more time through the links I provided in that talk at that time, and see what else you need. I don't mean to rush, do whenever you can, just if I forget to ask now what you need, we will both forget, and it will never be done :-) My understanding was that people (Jonathanpops, Illythr, etc) want a small map of Europe with a small rectangle showing Transnistria and part of the rest of Moldova. Then they want that rectangle expanded, and as far as I could get, in 4 colors: 1) territorry under Transnistrian control, 2) under Moldovan control, 3) under the Joint Control Commission and any of the sides' control, and 4) other countries (Ukraine if this case). I am thinking, maybe it is possible from the latter map to do 2 more insets: the two smaller regions (around Dubasari, and around Tighina). For the latter there is a safe (and the only possible) boundary: the administrative boundary of the localities, which has not been changed for many-many years, maybe at all during 20th century. This is the boundary shown on official maps. I know exactly which villages should be in which color. So the point I guess remains to find a detailed map of those two regions, showing the boundary of the lands of the villages. When you get some time, could you, please, see what is still needed? Again, thank you very much for helping with it - it is an ingratious task: Dc76 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Instead of blindly reverting, like you did here, please discuss in talk anything you want to revert. I did discuss my changes, which were restoring old info taken out without discussion (link of conflict.md is a good example), and I did provide source for new info - human right abuses that happened in March 2007. You took out from the article recent human right abuses of March 2007, when you will accept those - after one year? Then you will say those are already old news not anymore relevant.-- MariusM 19:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Abridged talk 14:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked you from editing Wikipedia for 3 days for your use of the sockpuppet Kertu3 to edit war at Transnistria, as confirmed by Checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pernambuco. Your sockpuppet has been blocked indefinitely. Please contribute positively once your block expires and discuss any contentious changes you wish to make to article on the relevant talkpage first. WjB scribe 18:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You may not remember me, but I was your meditator in the meditation case regarding [Northern Ireland]. I, however, was affected by China's ban on Wikipedia. I apoligize for my sudden inactivity and disappearance from Wikipedia, causing the meditation case to end prematurely.
Again, I apologize.
¿Exir? ¡Kamalabadi! 10:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello Pernambuco! Thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an
Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The
biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure
verifiability, all biographies should be based on
reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current
866 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{
unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 05:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Terence John Marsh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terence John Marsh until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SL93 ( talk) 21:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)