User talk:Jonathanpops

User:Greier has requested an admin investigation of you. He is basically a troll who has been blocked a gazillion times for disruptive behavior. He has also been hard on my case. I personally don't think that any of your edits have been problematic, and certainly not as disruptive as the behavior of Greier. But if you encounter any problems, please let me know, and I will be glad to report on how you and I have agreed/disagreed and generally worked well together in the past on the Transnistria talk page. Please don't be discouraged by this investigation and please don't stop participating in Wikipedia. - Mauco 17:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for telling me, it doesn't really bother me at all though. In fact it's all very nerdy to be honest. :)

Talk page archive

Hello, I'm an administrator responding to a complaint atWikipedia:Requests_for_investigation. I don't see anything that merits my intervention. You've been civil and participated in discussions, and you look like a new user who's acted in good faith.

There is one thing I'd like to suggest. Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page shows how to create a page archive so that discussions are easier to reference. Regards, Durova 13:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wondered how you do that. I will do this in future.--Jonathanpops 20:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiraspol Times

Hi Jonathan. Some time ago you asked a question regarding Tiraspol Times: is a real hard copy newspaper, or only a website? User:William Mauco replied that TT is a real hard copy newspaper and pretended that User:Illythr can confirm [1]. Quote from Mauco: “It is both. Illytr wrote, and he posted the reply here (see archives). The website is daily and the paper version is not. MariusM is trying to claim that just because he hasn't seen the paper version, it doesn't exist. He will get a surprise the next time he visits Transnistria (...). It is also available in the hotels and some other places which Illytr has more information about than me.”. Today Illythr just confirmed that "we can safely assume that TT is not sold in Tiraspol in public areas. As of late October 2006, at least" [2]. Just another example of Mauco's plain fallacies, is his habbit to pretend that different persons/refferences/books support his POV, but when you check you find this is simply not true.--MariusM 14:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to badmouth me. Jonathanpops can read. He can follow your links. He can draw his own conclusions as to what "habbit" (sic) I have, and who is guilty of what fallacies. And it ain't me, chum. - Mauco 20:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Jonathanpops can read and can understand. Thanks for wikistalking me.--MariusM 20:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user (MariusM) has a nasty habit of posting information about me on the private Talk page of other users. I am monitoring his contributions - not wikistalking - in order to gather the necessary information for an RfC on his behavior. - Mauco 00:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've always had doubts about there being a hard copy of the Tiraspol Times, in fact I'm sure I wrote them somewhere on the discussion. I think if there really were a paper newspaper we would have seen pictures of it by now. Like I also said though I don't think it makes the TT any less useful that it doesn't have a paper version, but I do think that everybody should call it what it is, a website, and nothing more grandiose than that.

At the same time I don't hold the same supspicions or animosity towards Mauco that you seem to, MariusM, and I don't think there's a need to mention his name everytime you come up with a new theory or some new evidence. It seems to me that the two are often unconnected. Having said that I don't have the same disregard for your opinions, MariusM, that some others seem to at times. A lot of the stuff you have to say makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not trying to draw sides here either, or trying to be everyones's friend, but just saying how I see things from my point of view.

Anyway, my own wild theory is that the Tiraspol Times, Visit PMR and Prinestrovie.net are all run by the same person, or bunch of people, not necessarily for nefarious reasons - just that they are. Although, knowing me, this is probably common knowledge and not any kind of revelation at all.Jonathanpops 00:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is also my view - same bunch of people, conected with PMR government, are running all those sites. Nothing particullary bad on this, is normal for PMR authorities to try their best on PR. The problem appear when in Wikipedia those are presented as independent sources, we link to all of them, and those sources are used to contradict trully neutral and reliable sources like BBC or OSCE. This is why I believe we should link only at the official site of PMR government.--MariusM 01:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. We should link to whatever is in conformity with Wikipedia guidelines on external links. In regards to sources, we should reference what Wikipedia allows us to reference. We are not breaking new ground here, or entering unchartered territory. Wikipedia has had policies and guidelines in place for years, and if in doubt, we simply consult those. What I believe or what MariusM believes is completely irrelevant. - Mauco 04:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really true, 'What I (Mauco) believe or what MariusM believes is completely irrelevant', otherwise what was that silly poll for external links all about? I'm sure a few different sites in that vote would have been added if we just followed the wikipedia rules, but the votes overruled that.Jonathanpops 17:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiraspl Times has nothing to do with PMR Government thank you, The other two probably have some connection, Tiraspol Times has a print version with a circulation of around 1,000 copies MariusM is just causing his usual attack on TT, Why, we suspect he may be connected with a rival media but cannot prove it but he always goes on professional attacks on the papers credibility. He knows fine well we have printed editions as does Evil Alex whose family live in Tiraspol. EvilAlex never questioned this because he knew the truth, Mariusm Cannnot live with either democracy or the truth and given that Tiraspol Times represents both in Transnistria we are his favourite target, .. Mark us street Nov 24th

Well I have nothing to gain from either side being right or wrong, and I don't believe there is a hard copy version either. I also don't believe there is no connection between your website, the Tiraspol Times, and visitpmr and pridnestrovie.net Jonathanpops 17:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to make a completely different comment, but not now.

Does this need about what sources are linkable "according to guidelines" need to be discussed on the talk page? And frankly, I've seen "conformity to guidelines" used to link to and reference all sorts of drek. And this certainly does look like Wiki-stalking. Mauco, you have better ways to spend your time. MariusM can express his opinion as he pleases as long as he has a reasonable basis. After this obvious bit of ugliness I'll certainly makes sure to communicate only in Emails. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Mark

Hello Jonathan, I fully agree with you that Mark's edits were non-professional to say the least and you of course did the right thing by reverting him. The trouble is that Mark has made similar comments on the talk page, but had not begun editing the main article until recently. I have actually had the same concerns that you voiced when following his recent edits. Of course the official Wikipedia guideline in such a case is the 1RR where you only revert a user once and then open dialogue to reach consensus. Nevertheless, thAt idea entails cooperation and restraint on the part of all users involved and I am not sure that we can guarantee that here. In any case, the quality of the article is what matters the most, so don't be afraid of offending someone if you undo an edit you consider to be of low quality. Although I wouldn't say that his position as editor of the Tiraspol Times necessarily presents an ethical problem that should prevent him from editing the Transnistria article, he should certainly not try to impose his POV on the text. As for your question about posting your concerns somewhere else, hopefully Mark will change his behavior and further conflict will be avoided. However, if you (or other editors) will consider his actions disruptive, then a Request for Comment or Mediation can be intitiated. TSO1D 22:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

Yes, I was just as surprised as you were to see them. I'm not entirely sure, but it looks like they display the net amount of bytes added or removed during that edit. TSO1D 14:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is definitely what they mean. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Colored_numbers_in_Watchlist TSO1D 14:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

What is being disputed? As far as I can tell, the article has a anti-Romanian and pro-Russian bias. Could you maybe make the case for the dispute header, or just make the needed changes? It looks awful. --Diana Teodorescu 19:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing it too fast Diana and you have no agreement with the longtime editors, it is maybe not vandalism, but it feels like it, for us who have participated longer. I am not a frequent editor and jonathanpops is also not, but both of us will revert this, sorry, because it is not the right way to work with others.

I also added another link, so each site can have four links. I do not take sides, I just want to make sure that there is no bias on one side or another side, give equal time to both views. You can see it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=prev&oldid=97190020 just scroll down to the end. Pernambuco 19:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why are you blaming me for? the article has a anti-Romanian and pro-Russian bias. And what is your source for all your criticisms? I'm a bit skeptical about your edits regarding the article, it's good that you have not participated longer. That sounds much like the propaganda used by the Soviets to sustain "Transnistria" as the most wonderful country in the world. --Diana Teodorescu 19:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, please explain in talk why you deleted the paragraph about Yakovlev opinions, which was agreed by everybody (including Mauco) in November, the paraagraph about border issues, which was part of the article since begining of September without any comments before Pernambuco started his deletion, the paragraph about US Department of State position which is disscused in talk and travel warnings which were also part of the article for longer time. We opened the discussion in talk and you just labeled "vandalism" and reverted without explanations.--MariusM 19:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing something mariusM, because people like me and like Jonathanpops, we are not the ones who add or delete, so we do not need to explain, you can see our explanations in the edit log, what we are doing is really very simple: We are restoring vandalism and extremism, and that is what jonathanpops also wrote, he said when he did his revert why he did it. You can see the edit log, that is where the explanation is. Pernambuco 20:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jonathanpops, did you delete the paragraphs that MariusM is talking about, I know you didn´t, and he accused me of the same, but he is confused, this was done by some other editor earlier, we are just restoring the the previous versions which are not vandalized, until the extremists on both sides can learn to work it out via the talking and consensus on the page Pernambuco 20:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted back to what I thought was a sensible point, to Pernambuco's last edit. There was one edit by MariusM that got overwritten by my revert, but it was only this bit "Some parties and publications were banned.^{[citation needed]}." where MariusM removed the "^{[citation needed]}". I thought it was so small that you could just redo it if it was important, sorry MariusM. Jonathanpops 21:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have on-going discussions on talk page about:

During your revert you also deleted some paragraphs about which you never expressed any oposition in talk page. I was few days in wikibreak and Mauco changed a lot in the article during this time. I wanted to restore previous stable version but now-blocked User:Pernambuco became mad. The new adition was about U.S. Department of State position, which is sourced and I explained in talk that is relevant.--MariusM 22:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is the only edit of yours that I went over: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=97175327&oldid=97167969 I can only see the ^{[citation needed]} tag that you removed. It's unfortunate that User:Pernambuco has been banned if he has. I was only trying to clear up what I see as patent vandalism, which I'm sure others do and will too. Unlike User:Pernambuco though I don't care enough to get involved in an edit war and get myself banned too. I'll just leave the page alone and let some admin restore it and lock it again. Jonathanpops 22:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pernambuco

Regarding your comment about Pernambuco, I met this guy first at Transnistrian referendum, 2006 where he reverted relevant info and I was obliged to ask a formal mediation [3]. This mediation was closed after several months for lack of activity. In all those months Pernambuco didn't explained his reverts - you can follow the discussions here. I asked him "Pernambuco, you are part of this dispute, you should state your position", and his reply was "can you not read, I have already said my position, and my position is that you can not close the mediation, I can see that it is still needed, why, because I can see that you do not agree with Mauco and that Mauco do not agree with you". I told him "You should state your position regarding the 4 issues which are the subject of this mediation, not about me or Mauco" and his reaction was "Why do you ask me, why do you not ask anyone else, has the mediation started, and are you the man who is in charge of it, or what? where is the mediator, does he agree with everything that you are doing, you are not the person who owns wikipedia". This was in 2 January 2007, while the mediator Flcelloguy, member of Wikipedia Mediation Comitee, accepted the case in 14 October 2006 and was waiting for all parts to explain their position. Is impossible to discuss with this guy, he don't have his own personal opinions (at least in Transnistria-related topics), he only claim being neutral and wanting to stop edit wars. His "neutrality" is going so far to wrong counting votes, refusing to recognize his own edits (I asked him why he reverted US Department of State position and Yakovlev opinions in Transnistria article and he kept pretending he didn't remove them even after I gave him the diffs) and voting for deletion of one of my sandboxes [4] (I believe it was first time in Wikipedia when the deletion of a sandbox was discussed [5]).--MariusM 13:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Energy portal

Hi! As someone plugged into the Energy Portal, you might be interested to know that I've made a request for a portal peer review today - perhaps you might like to contribute your thoughts? If you haven't stopped by the Energy portal recently, you'll see that it's now looking rather different too! Gralo 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have had a look at it. There is quite a lot to take in, a large amount of information. I like all the different energy source bits, it would be nice to look into those more. Jonathanpops 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr with permaban proposals

It may be interesting for you to look at Request for arbitration about Transnistria where permanent ban was proposed for Mauco, me and EvilAlex. You will not learn more about Transnistria watching this, but maybe you will learn about Wikipedia.

Meantime, in 17 April I was blocked for one single edit at Transnistria, for the arbitration comitee is prepared new evidence of my "edit-warrior behaviour".

There is also some background on this case: [6], [7].--MariusM 08:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope you don't get banned MariusM, I think you're all right. Jonathanpops 12:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I am inclined to view your last edit as vandalism, Jonathanpops. What sort of explanation is that? You hereby requiered to offer rational grounds when reverting any and all Transnistria-related entries. This conduct is disruptive and must stop. El_C 16:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was putting stuff back that had been taken away, not editing stuff out. Please do not speak to me this way again. Jonathanpops 18:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to revert without explanation you may be blocked from editing without further notice. El_C 18:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As will you, now please stop speaking to me. Jonathanpops 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria

I think you are a "colateral victim" of this article and of some admin bullying which is directed mainly against me. You made the mistake to support a view close to mine, as EvilAlex did and was blocked. Regarding your question about possible complaints, I think you can add them at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence. See there also my aditions.--MariusM 19:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Marius, I didn't know there was a whole page of stuff like that. I'm not sure I'd know where to start, it looks fairly complicated. I was disappointed about the way El_C spoke to me, but I'm not sure how that can be of any useful relevance to the Transnistria arbitration. I would like to complain about his behaviour but I don't really know how, I'm not sure I have the time and I don't think it would do any good anyway. I think he's just a rude person who's somehow been given some admin powers and doesn't mind blocking people for slighting him. I'm not sure what to think of Fut Perf (sp?), he doesn't seem to be as rude at least.

I see there is already a quote from me on the arbitration page about differetn Maucos and Mark Streets coming and going, that pretty much sums it up as far as I feel about the article. Personally I would just like to see it be fair, balanced and truthful. I don't hold any illusions regarding that ever happening though, but it would be nice. Jonathanpops 19:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite warnings, you and your opponent Buffadren have continued the same old sterile revert-war over the TT link at Transnistria. [8] I've seen you making this exact same revert with the exact same argument at least three or four times. This is unconstructive revert-warring, no matter how slowly you do it and no matter how safely below the 3R level you keep. As per the general warning about edit-warring on that article, I'm blocking both of you. Block length for you is "only" 31h, as a first offender. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense, I don't have any opponents. I use the same excuse because it's the truth. This is ridiculous. Jonathanpops 08:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Hi, Jonathan. My sandbox which was already subjected at a deletion attempt from Mauco and his sockpuppet Pernambuco was again proposed for deletion by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise and the debate was closed as "delete" by User:El_C despite the fact that the majority of people participating at debate was against deletion. My feeling is that I am subject of a harassment campaign, and is exactly because of this I am not willing to give up and accept intimidation. Maybe you will want to express your opinion at the deletion review debate.--MariusM 12:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark

I am not he Buffadren 09:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]