Back from Wikibreak
It is good to be back! We had a great trip, and my wife was happy to see me away from the computer for a change. I will probably be a bit slow in catching up, but at least I am back now. - Mauco 20:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Glad to see you back, Mauco, I missed you. Is so boring Wikipedia without you! Don't forget the Request for Mediation [1] where you are expected.--MariusM 21:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, but you almost sound like EvilAlex who says that life gets boring without Wikipedia edit wars. That is not what we are here for, let us all remember that. I will head over to the mediation page now, but you already know that I have my own particular opinion about that. Tsk, tsk. - Mauco
Answer to MarkStreet
Your request is not to me in particular but about the content on the page. I am not the specific editor who inserted the heading that you object to, so any changes should be argued either with him or with all the editors, in which case you should post it on the Talk page of the Transnistria article. My personal Talk page is not the correct venue for opening a discussion of this. - Mauco 13:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
"Bridging the Dniester"
Congrats on your first column over there! Marius is already busy advertising it for you here. :-) Well, my personal opinion happens to coincide with yours, although, to be truly neutral, I think you should've mentioned that the habit of "satanizing" the other party is a mutual one in this particular case. Outside the column's scope, I believe that the real causes of the conflict are purely economic interests of all involved parties, with the mudslinging being just a "natural side-effect" thereof. --Illythr 15:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- The interesting thing was that I made it a condition that there be no censorship and they respected that completely. They did not even change the name of the place (they prefer "Pridnestrovie" but that would does not appear in my column). With regards to the two sides and being neutral, you could say that I did try to write for the audience, however, I also dished out equal blame. Here is the passage: "One is recognised internationally, the other is not, and both of them are a far cry from showing any tolerance or mutual respect of those who live just a bridge away, on the other side of that river."[2]. Having said that we should probably keep the Talk topical, it is Wikipedia and discussions should be primarily edit related as you know. - Mauco 01:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I already congratulated you about this article. I have however a question: You wrote: "Working with Moldovans, they had told me in no uncertain terms that this newspaper [Tiraspol Times - my note] is an apologist for rebels, a Kremlin mouthpiece". With what Moldovans you worked? I hope you don't consider me a moldovan.--MariusM 18:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I do not. I also do not let my professional activities interfere with Wikipedia. I deal with Moldovans on a daily basis. If you have questions on this, please send me an email because this userpage is not the proper place for non-Wikipedia topics which are not related to collaborative editing. See WP:UP. - Mauco 19:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've sent you an e-mail with some questions. We can continue our disscusion through e-mail.--MariusM 20:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
3RR notice
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 15:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. This is noted, and I have participated in the discussion of this matter on both the 3RR page and in the article's Talk page, urging others to do the same. - Mauco 15:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Take care at 3RR rule at Transnistria article. Friendly advice.--MariusM 19:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, likewise. - Mauco 20:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Article suggestion
Good suggestion regarding that 'non native' article, I have put a reporter on it MarkStreet Oct 23 2006
- You have my permit to let your guy freely use whatever you want from the research that I've done so far in the matter. I don't really have anything else except from what is posted on Talk:Transnistria and a little bit in the discussion page for G. Marakutsa, so just give him the links and tell him to go to town. Other than what is available here, I don't possess any other info. There are no edits to this effect in main namespace. - Mauco 03:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Uh, did you just archive an ongoing (even heated, I'd say) discussion with Vecrumba? (*baffled*) --Illythr 13:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes/no: The discussion is now continuing in History of Transnistria, to avoid content forking. Then we will move a summary of that article into main Transnistria when done. - Mauco 13:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll move his arguments there, then. There appears to be some sort of miscommunication between you to... --Illythr 14:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Transnistria smuggling
Hi William, sorry for the delay in my reply but I was not very active on Wikipedia last week. I would be glad to work with you on the crime/smuggling section. What are the main points you wish to address? TSO1D 21:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
leaving
Hi Mauco, i have decided that my time here is completely wasted. We differed on many things but may I say you were about the only voice of reason here . It is really pointless for me being here if I am restricted to the talk page and even there my pleas to debate the important issues get ignored, When we do reach agreement on an issue that would present TD in a more normal light, these changes are seldom if ever made. It is depressing to read. MarkStreet 27th Oct
- User Girla often feels the same way, just so you know. However, he has decided to "stick it out" just to make sure that ulta-nationalistic trolls don't poison the encyclopedia with their pet interpretations of important historical events. - Mauco 21:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
3RR
Friendly advice: Take care of 3RR rule.--MariusM 22:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
maps
- My sources for the various Khazar-themed maps included the Cassell Atlas of World History by John Haywood and the Penguin Atlas of Russian History (Puffin, 1995) as well as descriptions given in a number of secondary sources. The maps are approximations though- they should not be used to "prove" that x kingdom ruled x region at x point in time. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The Sviatoslav map you cite was created by me too... serious objections were raised to it and it has been removed from the Sviatoslav I of Kiev article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I am actually aware of that. Irpen participated in that discussion. In fact, I would never use a selfmade map from Wikipedia as a source for anything. My question was merely focused on your sources. So far, I have identified five sources which pretty much say the same thing and give equally overlapping years (950 - 962 - 970). These five are all reputable, academic sources. I am specifically not counting Wikipedia, biased websites, political parties and so on. - Mauco 05:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The Primary Chronicle
Oh and, umm, sorry for not replying for so long - I'll give the Chronicle a try, but the language there is so different from modern Russian that in reads like gibberish for most of the time to me. I can still try and get some useful bits and pieces from it, but it'll take a while to study. --Illythr 03:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if it is hard for you, imagine how it is for someone like me whose knowledge of Russian comes from reading books. - Mauco 04:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Asking others help
Hi Mauco, I have a question. In Transnistria talk page you accused me for asking Dpotop input about this article. You presented this as a major violation of Wikipedia guidelines but you also used the same methods, as I answered on that page. I don't understand why you accused me of bringing other people on the pages we have disputes, as you used the same methods. I never was the first to accuse you for asking others to team with you, I only answered at your accusation. In fact, I am not convinced is something wrong to ask input from other users, is only you who made such a problem from that, and it seems for me there is some hypocrisy here. For "History of Transnistria" you asked now the help of Russian user Ghirlandajo. No problem for me, but why you keep accusing me for similar behaviour? Try to be consistent in what you consider a good behaviour in Wikipedia, don't use double standards, and it will be more easy for others to WP:AGF for you.--MariusM 13:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Asking known experts in a specific field for a help with fact-checking in a specific historic matter where I am not myself an expert is not the same as canvassing for supporters and engaging in wholesale vote shopping, as would have been clear if you had included DIFFs. My behavior[3][4] is hardly comparable to yours.[5][6] Pleeeeeease...... - Mauco 23:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Re: "enthusiatic followers"
Would you be able to show me some examples? If it's an anon it's most likely Bonaparte, which would therefore give me the right to block him. Khoikhoi 06:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, they are the ones who engage in the lame edit wars on Talk on several Transnistria-related subject (my specialty and area of expertise). They have taken to studying my contribs now. Anyway, I don't want them blocked. It is disruptive, of course, but if it gets too out of hand I think that the next step will just be an RfC or two. Hopefully it won't even come to that. - Mauco 06:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, no problem. If the stalking gets out of hand, post something at WP:AN/I. BTW, also make sure you don't do the same thing. ;-) Ciao. Khoikhoi 06:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- I hear you loud and clear! It is not cool to disrupt to make a point but this particular one which you mention was just a bit over the top -- literally first-first-first AND had already been reverted by another editor, prior to me going there. - Mauco 06:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Sheriff
Hi William,
Thanks for your friendly note. I appreciate that you are asking for a third opinion on this matter. You know, I don't know a whole lot about Transnistria, except that it's a hotly contested area in Eastern Europe. I certainly don't feel qualified to weigh in on the topic itself, although I will note it is an awfully short article for the disproportionately large discussion on the talk page, which exceeds the article itself by several times! However, if you need administrator assistance, or advice on how to make the article more neutral, this sort of edit worries me, as it doesn't appear NPOV. Can you at least back that assertion up with a specific incident when they were confrontational? For example, a specific date when a confrontation happened? This will at least clear up the notion that such a statement isn't NPOV: if a confrontation actually took place, it is easy to document it using WP:CITE. If it was just a comment in a newspaper or something, consider the idea that maybe you're giving it too much undue weight. If there's an article on Sheriff on another language edition of Wikipedia that is longer, such as the Romanian edition, you could use that to try to model this article. Feel free to contact me again if the issue remains "hot". Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Firsfron, it was on purpose that I picked you at random from the AM list, since I didn't want any indications of inappropriateness on my part. Your non-specialist status is just what we need: Someone who is not an expert on the area will be able to look at it with a cool head and see things from a Wikipedia point of view, not from the POV of a participant. In the matter of the confrontational Renewal-Smirnov position, which you specifically asked about, these eight different sources all back up the statement.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] To save you from wading through all of them, a summary of the key points from each of these can be seen here: Talk:Renewal_(Transnistria)#Sources. Basically, the request was not to ask you to "take sides" or rule on who is right in a content dispute, but just to provide some detached Wikipedia policy/guidelines guidance on what is appropriate for such an article and what is not, in terms of relevance and criteria for inclusion and exclusion. - Mauco 04:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
3RR board
In connection with the message left there by Marius, please heed to an advice to not ever revert war whoever you are dealing with. Marius' ridiculous previous attempt to "win" via the at once rejected ArbCom submission suggests that there are indeed certain problems with this user. But rv warring is not ever a solution. --Irpen
Your comments are invited on WP:ANI
There is another user who has made some comments regarding your edits and has alleged that you have got around with 3RR breaches without getting blocked. Your comments are invited here. You can access it through this link. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 14:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Transnistria talk
Hi, I am just thinking that we sometimes argue on the Transnistria Talk page about things that are hardly interesting to other users. I am suggesting sometimes to use my and/or your user pages for that. You told me:
My opinion: Let us please focus on dealing with the current content disputes, so we can unlock the page quickly, and not invent new issues to bicker over.
My understanding was that the page is blocked until we agree upon the edits, in order so that when it is unblocked, there wouldn't be more regretable edit wars. I used this opportunity to bring several small and big issues altogether, so that we can eventually discuss them before making respective changes in the article. (There are many of my propositions that require only yes/no. The last thing I want is an edit war because of country/foreign state.) The best thing, in my oppinion, would be that we agree about formulations, then when some troll comes and vandalizes (unfortunately they will come from all sides eventually), we all jump to defend. Includes me to jump when there is anti-Russian bias, and you to jump when there is anti-Romanian/anti-Moldovan bias. It would be nice if we devise an un-written "code of conduite" - to discuss the things in the talk pages before making edits other than (1) spelling/syntax, (2) addition of new facts due to new developments. I thought we are working towards this, aren't we?
I understand that even if the page would be now unblocked, none of us would do edits before agreing upon them in the talk page. So if the article is blocked or unblocked, is irrelevant. Can I ask you, please, why do you want to unlock the page as quickly as possible, is there anything new you want to add, or you want to edit the existing formulations? If it is the former, let's unlock the page for a couple hours, you add it, and we lock it back untill we finish the exising disputes. I see just 4 editors, inluding me and you, who left more than one short comment on the Jmabel's list. So I am waiting for the others to come, and comment. As I guess you do as well. My impression is that when we will all argree on a big list of say about 15 edits, everyone will feel a big releaf.:Dc76 03:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- BTW, despite all our disagrements on edits, it has been nice exchanging views and oppinions with you.:Dc76 03:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Indeed your clarification to my Transnistria edit the other day in the Modovan-Romanian union was pertinent: thank you for precising it well. Also, well, I would like to apologize since I may have hit a sensitive spot with my edit: I just thought that the Transnistrian question was fairly overlooked but I should have considered beforehand that the article could be/have been subjected to very heated discussion..luckily it looks like I haven't awaken any demons (by the way, I made today a very light edit on yours, I guess you agree). Thanks again! Mountolive 19:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- You are welcome. I have answered you on your own user talk page. - Mauco 01:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
"Siberian" Wikipedia
Hello! Recently, you cast the first vote against closure of the "Siberian" Wikipedia, basing it on the right to self-determination of small nations and supporting it with a list of Russian soldiers' attrocities in Chechnya. Perhaps the issue was misunderstood. There is no Siberian language or Siberian nation, apart from the native Turkic and other peoples who lived there long before Russian colonists arrived in the 16th century. The matter in question is an artificial "language" created based on several archaic Russian dialects in 2005 by a Mr. Zolotarev and a few of his friends, inclusion of which fairly blatantly violates the No Original Research policy of Wikipedia. Siberian Slavs speak Russian and list themselves on censuses as Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusans - this you can verify for yourself. I invite you to return to participate in the discussion, and appreciate constructive debate on the topic. Cossack 00:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, but that is not me. It is "another" William Mauco (!!) and someone who claims to have parents who were killed by the Russians [15] [16] which is not my case. My dad died peacefully, and my mom is still alive, and neither of them have ever been to Russia. If I wanted to vote on this topic, I would vote alongside Mikkalai because I think that he is giving quite a wellreasoned explanation (and, like me, he is not Russian but well-versed in the history of Russia and in Russian affairs). - Mauco 13:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that guy's userpage at meta redirects to yours here, identifying him as your impostor. I'd wager, some sort of action may be in order... --Illythr 14:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. I can conclusively certify that he is not me. I am the only one (I hope!!!) with my login for en.wiki, and I do not have any account on meta.wiki, so the 'William Mauco' over there belongs to someone else. - Mauco 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I've stricken out the vote by an impostor. Knowing the specific topics on enwiki that WM is editing I suspect this is the Bonny-friend who is prolific in inventing silly tricks of such kind. --Irpen 18:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good call! I get my share of silly tricks, as you call them. That comes with the territory (literally speaking). - Mauco 02:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- That was surprising... I'm glad we cleared that up. Cossack 03:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Community for Democracy and Human Rights
I have a published source which claims that this organization was set up by Modest Kolerov, from the Kremlin, and that it was his idea. I am a bit worried about including it unless I can get a second independent confirmation. Do you know anything about this? Does it ring a bell? - Mauco 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Man, I’ve got no idea. I Googleled around and that’s what I've found about “Human Rights” and “Modest Kolerov”:
- Modest Kolerov: If we connive at integration problems, Paris problems will come to Latvia, Regnum News Agency, 11 August 2005
- Georgians express outrage at Russian sanctions, deportations, EuraisaNet.org, 10 October 2006
- --MaGioZal 18:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)