User talk:Moldopodo

Discussion
If you want to leave a message,
you can just click here!

Your Userpage/AN

I'm glad I was able to help out, even if only a little bit. It did end up to be a productive discussion, I think, and I hope it proves useful in the future. As for your userpage, it appears to have been protected in December by User:Nick, citing privacy concerns (diff). I've unprotected the page, so you should have no further problems editing it. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, really. Unfortunately, so far this discussion is productive only with you, independently from the fact whether you agree or not with me - at least there is an exchange of explanations between two human beings, which is generally called communication. It's amazing to have so many other users privileged with rights of administrators who still do not have anything to say, nor to explain.--Moldopodo^talk 16:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan-Ukrainian relations

I think I see what happened here. You started an article at Moldavian-Ukrainian relations, which Flueras redirected to an identical article at Moldovan-Ukrainian relations, claiming that Moldovan is the correct term. I don't know which is which, so I can't speak to the name issue - but would that article (which looks substantially like the version you had before it was redirected, thus), work for your planned expansion? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Flueras was blocked as a sock of Bonaparte. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked with no justification as of 6 June 2008

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Personal attacks and disruptive comments. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Moldopodo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

and the diff with due explanation are.... absent?

Decline reason:

Not a request, and there is a link. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Moldopodo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request to have an explanation of the block with the proper justification providing a diff. I also would like to know what this weburiedoursecretsinthegarden kind of explanation is? Also why it is allowed for an administrator User:Gutza to be obviously uncivil[1] in my regard [2] and how my edits are considered uncivil when no diff is presented by the blocking admin (nor by the reviewing admin either) to justify his/her decision? Has any admin given hersel/himself 10 minutes to see what is going on really? Also, please, could you pexplain me, as per administrators' discussion board, how did the name of the section[3] "Accusation of canvassing by User:Neil disappeared? Looks like I am the only one who provides diffs and justifications here. Is this a new rule on Wikipedia?

Decline reason:

You want a diff? You got one. The conduct and/or misconduct of other users is irrelevant to your block, especially when there's ArbCom-imposed restrictions involved. —Daniel Case (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Formal notice

See Digwuren restriction and Digwuren warning. Cease making any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, especially in East European related articles or you will be subject to said restrictions. While I know you were alreayd listed there, thought I'd remind you. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rlevse' Hypocrisy

Please, User:Rlevse, how do you explain me that blocking someone (myself) for using the word wicked describing obvious bad faith editing of another user, violating 3 revert rule, and others such as civility (as per Divurgen arbitration on Wikipedia) and simply basic societal etiquette

and

on the other hand, yourself, in the quality of neutral, impartial and knowledgeable wise administrator calling other users with unfounded accusations=insults / names [4], [5] ?--Moldopodo^talk 20:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion

I want to write a new article about Bessarabia under Romanian rule (1918-1940). Maybe in next two days left of your block you could gather some material about that period's abuses.Xasha (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for letting me know. As of now, I am really not ready to take care of it, but would be most interested when I am more into the subject ;)--Moldopodo^talk 17:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldavian-Spanish relations

A tag has been placed on Moldavian-Spanish relations, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. andy (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is never perfect, be it in my sandbox or somewhere else. There is plenty of info to add, namely on economic cooperation, for example. However, there are such notions as good faith and common sense. If you think that stating that there is no common border between Spain and Moldova means no relations, then following your reasoning you should delete all articles on bilateral relation for countries not sharing a border as well.--Moldopodo^talk 16:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, the adjective form of "Moldova" is "Moldovan" (it's "Moldavian" for "Moldavia") - can we clear up this situation by having all these articles at "Moldovan"? Biruitorul ^Talk 16:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the adjective form of Moldova may be both Moldavian and Moldovan. That is what was cleared up, so there is no need to rename all articles, just like did the banned user, sock of Bonny, whose edits were all reverted by admin. --Moldopodo^talk 18:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course those edits were reverted, but it could well be Bonaparte was correct. 20,000 vs 1,180; 535 vs 130, with many of the latter referring to pre-1991 entities. I'd be happy to ask a third party to look into the issue, if you like. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Moldova link

Hello! Just to tell you about that newly created articles about Moldova can have the {{WPMoldova}} in the top of the discussion page, in order that other developers in the project be informed about its existence. You can check if your articles contains it. Thanks! --serhio ^talk 11:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kestia cu Moldavian

Moldopodo, de ce esti asha de rau pus? De ce nu ai admite ca "Moldavian" ca inregistrare a limbii ISO a fost facuta din necompetentza a organelor de certificare?! Eu ash admite ca varianta corecta "Moldovan", deoarece e dat de mai multe dictionare ale limbii engleze. Nu am nimic impotriva "Moldavian", insa nu prea am de unde sa iau exemple credibile din dictionarele limbii engleze. --serhio ^talk 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criminalidad romena en Europa

Puoi evitare di inserire l'articolo in tutte le wiki, visto che poi (giustamente) te lo cancellano? L'articolo è xenofobo, inoltre fare così equivale a spam. Grazie --Ignlig (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you avoid to insert tha article in the wiki all over the world? also becouse it's a spam and the article is razzist. thank you. --Ignlig (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:RomanianmigrantsinUK.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:RomanianmigrantsinUK.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J Milburn (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:RomaniansinFrance.gif

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:RomaniansinFrance.gif. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J Milburn (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Romanian crime in Europe images

Please read our non-free content criteria. These images could be replaced by free images, and are basically just decoration anyway- they aren't adding much to the article. As such, they fail two of the points. Of more concern is you reverting my edits without comment. I do NOT appreciate that. If you are undoing good-faith edits, you should always explain why you are doing so, so as to avoid edit warring. J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not be short with me. You have already thrown my edits aside without a glance, the least you can do is be polite when you are asking for my help. The images are replaceable. I live in England- I know some ethnic Romanians. I could easily take a picture of them and upload it here. That's why that is replaceable. The other is less replaceable, as it is of something a little more specific, but an image of ethnic Romanians in France (even ethnic Romanians acting illegally) could be taken or staged. In any case, that does not change the fact that the images are decoration- readers get little from the images. It's not like the article would be any worse without them as, say, an article on a piece of software would be without a screenshot. Finally, there are BLP issues here- are these people going to appreciate pictures of them being in an article about criminals? J Milburn (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean short? I simply asked if you consider these images replaceable, please replace them with the same images ("same" meaning images depicting the context of the article). I am sure, not onl I think, that these images are irreplaceable. It's not like I go out on the street in Moldavia and meet an illegal Romanian immigrant ready for a picture taken... Besides in the picture depicting Romanian immigrants in the UK, no face is seen, they all are turnedwith their backs. Also, I have uploaded a smaller resolution picture.
As for the other picture, again, I really honestly doubt that you can replace this French picture as well. It can be seen that it is unique, as it is depicting illegal Romanian immigrants training in their camp, playing the role of handicaped to learn how to beg for money on the streets at the same time. Are you really serious, when you say "this picture is replaceable"? How do you imagine to take a similar picture? Besides, your claim of persons being frustrated of seeing their own pictures really surprises me. First of all, the picture is in such a small resolution, you can hardly distinguish who is a man and who is a woman. Secondly, just between us, do you really think the people on that very picture ever touched a keyboard?
I also saw you voting to delete the article Romanian crime in Europe with your following argument relating to Romanian friends you have in UK, so I do not think you can judge impartially, whether these images are replaceable, decoration, etc, etc... --Moldopodo^talk 21:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to discuss this further with you until you start being civil and stop jumping at shadows. Stop accusing me of things. Stop assuming bad faith. J Milburn (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be civil, I have not accused you of whatsoever, but only resumed your recent actions. If there was one that was falsely described by me, please let me know. Nevertheless, you have not produced any justification or exlication how these pictures are replaceable and how they are a mere decoration, nor how they offend persons taken in them? --Moldopodo^talk 21:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too difficult. They are replaceable because a free image could easily be aquired that would illustrate the article- a photo of other Romanians, a photo of a known Romanian criminal, something like that. They are decorative because the readers' understanding would not be any less without the images- they do not help understand the text. They are in violation of our policy on biographies of living people because you are implying that these people have committed crimes (by placing images of them in an article about crime) when we have no evidence that they have. What part of this do you not understand? J Milburn (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace the pictures with equivalent depicting the same thing pictures, it is not too difficult as you say.--Moldopodo^talk 19:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our non-free content criteria. The images do not need to be replaced, they need to be replaceable. This is moot, as the images have now been deleted anyway. J Milburn (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The images were deleted for one simple reason: you ahve deliberately deleted them from the article knowing that they are under "fair use" license. That's why they became orphaned. that's why tehre were deleted. In the meanwhile you have failed to prove your allegatiosn that these images are replaceable. If you purport calling them "relaceable" - then you must have a justification and a proper explanation how they are repalceable. You have never done this, unfortunately.--Moldopodo^talk 20:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong on both counts. To quote the deleting administrator (Future Perfect at Sunrise) the images were deleted as they were "obviously not fair use", not because they were orphaned. Secondly, I clearly have provided an explanation of why they were replaceable, and other reasons as to why they fail our non-free content criteria and other policies. You are welcome to contact another editor who has a good knowledge of our policies to verify this, if you wish. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's astonishing to see you filling in this talk page without any regard to my questions still remained unanswered. How concretely these images are replaceable and all the other questions I asked you before. If your principle is simply to have "the last word", although never responding yout interlocutor, you may write another answer here. Unfortunately you have failed to explain yourself and answer any of my questions, although I have re-asked the same questions many many times, here and there, and yet no answer from you.--Moldopodo^talk 14:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I explained to you in my second comment here, and several times since, as anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see. I don't know quite what you hope to achieve by insisting I didn't. Furthermore, it is evident that at least one other user agrees with me, as shown by the fact the images have been deleted. Honestly, what do you hope to achieve? It's interesting that you accuse me of insisting on having the last word when you continue to argue the toss despite the fact that the images have been deleted, and continue to be confrontational and argumentative elsewhere- anyone who comments in support of deleting your slug-fest of an article on Romanian crime can expect an immediate essay in response, telling them that (despite clear consensus to the contrary) everything they have said is wrong, and that they are being uncivil. Frankly, some scholarly argument about the replaceability of stolen images pales in comparison to the discussion you are heading towards regarding your conduct. J Milburn (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil when you continue to argue the toss , anyone who comments in support of deleting your slug-fest. The problem is that you have not provided scholarly argument about the replaceability of stolen images . Interesting, why do you call these images stolen? They appeared in major European newspapers. And the funniest thing is that I'm certainly not the one who writes essays here. Please have a look at the length of your comments, none of which provied a single answer to my simple clear questions.--Moldopodo^talk 18:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing people of incivility does not make your comments any more convincing or any less offensive. If you do not know what 'stolen' means, look it up, I am not your own personal dictionary, and I do not want several days of answering your question then having you ask it again, insisting that I have not provided it. I could provide evidence that your comments are the essays, but I won't, because you'll just ignore it. I am past the point of discussing this with you, and I have arrived at the point of offering you simple advice. If you heed my advice, there is a chance you will not find yourself blocked. If you do not, you will wind up being discussed at the noticeboards and blocked, or even banned. Here is my advice to you-

Realise that Wikipedia is not somewhere to act upon your grudges. We follow a neutral point of view, and will not tolerate abuse of others.
Continuing to argue when consensus is blatantly against you will not get you anywhere. People will just start ignoring you.
Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Any non-free content must conform to our non-free content criteria, and a failure to adhere to this policy will be treated just the same as if you damage the project in any other way.

If you choose to take my advice, then I applaud you, and welcome you to the project. If you choose to ignore it, then it is obvious where your loyalties lie. I am not going to discuss these images with you directly any further- if you genuinely believe that they should have been kept, you should raise the matter at deletion review or contact the person who actually deleted them. J Milburn (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer my questions. Thank you in advance. I know you know the big words, but it's irrelevant here--Moldopodo^talk 21:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not satisfied with my explanation, you are more than welcome to instead consult Future Perfect at Sunrise, or take the matter to deletion review. J Milburn (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions - Answers

User:J Milburn, it is useless to speak on something else, when I asked you precise questions. Besides your reference on "consensus" regarding deletion of Romanian crime in Europe seems rather strange to me, where numerous users expressed their deisre to keep the article with precise arguments and suggestions of improvement. Anyway, let's get back to the point. I see you keep writing comments on my talk page, but always aside of answering the questions. I admit, you might be lost finding them through all this, often irrelevant, comments. So, I decided to help you and put them together as clearly as possible. I hope you will provide answers with personal input, meaning that it is not enough to invoke a mere Wikipedia rule, but what is even more important is your perosnal reasoning applied exlcusively and concretely to the images and questions about them in question. I hope this will spare your time, but it also looks like you have plenty of it, taking in consideration precedent irrelevant comments. Please, answer my questions.

Question from User:Moldopodo	Answer from User:J Milburn
Do you agree that the first image, depicts Romanian migrants in the United Kingdom and therefore perfectly fits into the section on United Kingdom? Please explain why?
Do you agree that the first image, depicts Romanian migrants in the United Kingdom and therefore perfectly fits into the section on United Kingdom? Please explain why?
Do you agree that the first image from Daily Mail depicting Romanian immigrants in the UK, shows them completely anonimously, with no face seen, they all being turned with their backs to the camera. Please explain why?
Also, do you think that the second version of this first image I uploaded and you deleted again, would be better than the one with initial bigger resolution? Please explain why?
Do you agree that the second image from Le Parisien, depicts Romanian migrants training in a camp in a suburb next to Paris, learning how to pretend to beg and to look handicaped at the same time? Please explain why?
Do you agree that the second picture perfectly fits in the section regarding Romanian crime in France, therefore perfectly describing and fitting in the context? Please explain why?
Do you agree that the second picture depicts illegal Romanian immigrants training in their camp in a Parisian suburb next to a highway, playing the role of handicaped in order to learn how to beg for money on the streets at the same time; this image being of small resolution in its original, one can hardly distinguish who is a man and who is a woman? Please explain why?
Do you agree that both of these images are unique? Please explain why.
Where to find easily other replaceable images depicting exactly the same thing? Please explain.
Please explain, why did you decide that these images were replaceable?
Please explain, why are they mere decorations according to you?
Please provide a replaceable image, and if you cannot do so, please explain why?
Please explain, why are they mere decorations according to you?
Please explain, why did you call thes images "stolen"?
Do you think that voting "delete" the article where the images are inserted and deleting the very same images from the article contributes to its quality? Please explain why?	Yes and no. Removing images that do not meet our non-free content criteria from articles definitely does improve our articles, as one of the most important goals of our encyclopedia is to be free. Supporting deletion of an article may help the article (for instance, it may encourage those who are working on the article to improve it to encourage the delete voter to support its retention) but, overall, voting to delete an article is an attempt to get it removed. If it genuinely is an article that should not be here, this is a Good Thing, as it improves the encyclopedia as a whole, which is the priority over improving individual articles.
Do you think that stating that you know ethnic Romanians, deleting these two (three with the reloaded smaller resolution version) images and voting at the same time "delete" the article makes you an impartial neutral objective editor, according to the Wikipedia and simply common sense principles (some of which you have cited above)? Please explain why?	Absolutely. When editing Wikipedia, I do so from a completely neutral point of view, and will not let my own opinions stand in the way of improving the encyclopedia. For instance, in real life, I hate pop music, but I have still written articles about pop music (see Connie Talbot). Also, despite being a very strong atheist, I have written about churches (see Askam and Ireleth). We should not judge the neutrality of editors from who they are in real life, but on how they edit within the encyclopedia. Furthermore, I don't really have strong views any way. Despite knowing some ethnic Romanians, I am by no means close to them, and have no real links to any eastern European country. Other than simply not being a racist person, I have no views on eastern Europe. It is also worth noting that I did not delete the images, but tagged them so that others would have time to disagree, and then an uninvolved admin (in this case, FPaS) could judge whether the image should be deleted.
Do you think that describing personally my behaviour as "confrontational" and "argumentative" (without providing any diffs), and calling my requests addressed to you "Please be civil" "accusations of uncivility", calling my rather short, compare to your comments "essays", calling a rather divided discussion on deletion of the page "blatant consensus", calling my comments on the page on deletion of the Romanian crime in Europe as "slug-fest", "toss debate" - a good faith and civil description?	I am not answering this question. It is apparent to me that your intention with this question is not to help you understand the situation (which I am assuming is the motive of the others) but to try to vilify me, and make me look as if I have been uncivil, been hypocritical and assumed bad faith, which I resent. Just to clarify, please do not doubt that I certainly assume your good faith and decency, my only intention was to know whether you think those descriptions were "good faith and civil" descriptions, nothing else minded, unless your consciousness tells you something else--Moldopodo^talk 00:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I have been quite clear that I have said everything that I intend to about the images- if you genuinely believe they should be restored, you can go to deletion review or talk to Future Perfect at Sunrise, who was the one who actually deleted the images. However, if it will help you to answer the questions like this, as you seem to feel it will, I will provide answers to the other questions. Finally, I feel your opening comment was incredibly patronising, which is somewhat ironic. Please do not patronise me. J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick answer: I truly appreciate your answers and apologise for the unfortunate wording of my opening which made you think of "patronisng" you. Believe me I have no intention to teach you whatsoever. I only wanted to kindly re-ask you to answer my questions please. Looking forward to your answers. And at the end of this message I do put an intentional serious smiley :-) I'd love to see some of these signs from time to time on certain Wikipedia disussions, in the healthy spirit of understanding and constructive collaboration. Thank you User:J Milburn.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:RomanianmigrantsinUK.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:RomanianmigrantsinUK.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:RomaniansinFrance.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:RomaniansinFrance.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello, Moldopodo. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your disruptive edits to the AfD discussion about Romanian crime in Europe. The discussion can be found under the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_on_AfD. Yours, andy (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

You are on a final warning - any further edit-warring, particularly along nationalistic lines, and you will be indefinitely blocked. This includes the cut and paste moving of articles to "Moldavia" rather than "Moldova". Any further creation of POV nonsense articles about the evils of Romania, and you will be indefinitely blocked. Any further disruption of AFDs, and you will be indefinitely blocked. The problems you cause, directly, with your incessant disruptive editing take up far too much time of far too many people. On a number of occasions, now, you have managed to convince admins to unblock you by promising to stop edit-warring, and then promptly going back to edit-warring a few days later. Coupled with the warnings you received above relating to the Digwuren restriction, you are on very shaky ground indeed. Again, this is your absolute last chance - you will need to radically change your behaviour, or you will be blocked for good. Neıl 龱 08:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, calm down, change your rhetorics to a more polite tone, take a deep breath, and then write me a more neutral message, as you want Wikipedia to be. Oh, and by the way, don't hesitate to provide diffs for each and every of your allegations--Moldopodo^talk 11:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few examples from the last week ALONE:

Cut and paste moves: [6], [7]
Nationalist edit-warring: [8], [9], [10]
AFD disruption: [11], [12], [13]
Nonsense articles about the evils of Romanians: Deleted history of Romanian crime in Europe‎
Notice re Digwuren restriction: [14]
Blocks being released early due to hollow pledges of good behaviour: [15]

Final warning stands. I have little patience for wikilawyering, so don't waste your time. Neıl 龱 12:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that what you qualify as "Nationalist edit-warring" can be characterized as such. And, after all, Moldopodo couldn't have edit-warred with himself, yet I see no warnign to other "edit-warriors".Xasha (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly the only thing he has done wrong, and, to be honest, the behavior of others is irrelevant. J Milburn (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add a final warning about deceptive edit summaries ([16]); this edit was not "removing unsourced material". Neıl 龱 08:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neil please to be more explicit in your warnings and explanations. I really doubt, like Xasha, about the exceeded nationalism or nonsense in the examples provided above. Provide please some more argumented examples about edit-warring. As for the subject of "Moldavian", I think Moldopodo should consult also other opinions, especially from category:Wikipedians in Moldova before move the pages. ;) --serhio ^talk 18:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because, of course, people who live in a country have a more valuable opinion regarding how we should cover said country. Have you any understanding of our policies on consensus and no original research? Furthermore, I don't think the lack of 'explicit warnings' makes Neil's point any less valid. Anyone who has dealt with Molodopodo can see that his editing crosses the line- and yes, I have looked into this, this isn't based only on my own dispute with him. J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:canton&district

Actually canton is aslo a 3rd degree devision of France, 2nd in Costa Rica an Ecuador, 4th in Bolivia. So there doesn't seem to be an established rules. I would go simply for "raion". For reference, Britannica and Encarta go for "dsitrict".Xasha (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion, looks good as it is.--Moldopodo^talk 15:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldawien

Unfortunately, that's not quite it: we already know that the official name is Republik Moldau, the question was (and probably remains), what is the short name - Moldau or Moldawien. I was unable to find a definite answer, as several German agencies use both of these names. --Illythr (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New articles linked to Moldova

Hello, just to remind you to add the {{WPMoldova|importance=|class=stub}} in the top of the discution pages of the newly created pages. Happy editing! --serhio ^talk 18:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indef block

You have been indef blocked for repeated disruption and arbcom violations. See Wikipedia:AE#User:Biruitorul and the two ANI cases linked to therein. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to one month to comply with Digwuren. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rlevse,

I would like to ask you to explain this please.
I would also like to remind you, that there is nothing uncivil fpr you, to apologise when you commit a mistake (procedural mistake regarding indef and monthly block).
Thirdly, I will certianly contest this monthly block, as there was no justification for it provided. The most absurd is that the Digwuren request was filed against User:Biruitorul by me for User:Biruitorul's uncivil behaviour, irrelevant comments and disruptive editing, for which I have provided clear diffs.
Moreover, as this request was pending, User:Biruitorul continued disruptive editing by removing, moving, deleting, reverting Rulers of Moldavia article.
Speaking of all of this User:Biruitorul kept continuing posting diffamatory and slanderous statements in my regard.--Moldopodo^talk 11:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Moldopodo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please see the talk page for explanation as well as for the check user request from here till the end of the talk page

Decline reason:

The things you cite are accusations of other individuals being uncivil to you and requesting a checkuser on one of them. You do not address the reason YOU were blocked though for your disruption of the AE pages. Please show how you did not disrupt thing, not why others are bad, if you would like to be unblocked. — MBisanz ^talk 20:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Moldopodo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Unfortunately I cannot address the reason why I was blocked as it was not even addressed by the blocking admin. No diff to suport the block was provided. It is is nice to see how you refer to Wikipeda rules stating that what I say does not lie in the unblock request' scope, but I would also appreciate if you referred to WP rules the same way while evaluating the reasons for this block as well, knowig that this block of my user user account was a result of the request for Digwuren arbitration enforcement against Biruitorul, and... after communications of User Biruitorul with User Rlevse[17], [18], and this. As for the user check request, I have written it here, as as of now I have no capacity to file it myself. --Moldopodo^talk 16:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is ample evidence of your disruption, and no indication that you plan to stop. — Jehochman ^Talk 13:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Diffamatory, slanderous, irrelevant and unfounded statements and accusations

User:Biruitorul

Diffamatory and slanderous statements in my regard posted by User:Biruitorul	Notes
[19] And, further to Andy's report, may I point out this user's disruption here, here, here, here, here, here and here, just in the last couple of days? This goes beyond a mere content dispute. There are false accusations of incivility, disruptive moves, redirects and move requests, distorting of primary sources, dismissal of reputable secondary sources, a hostile attitude, and above all an effort to conflate Moldova with Moldavia. Given the user's growing block log and damage to numerous articles, it's possible the at wit's end point of the Digwuren case has been reached. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]	From the references provided, it is clearly seen who reverted first, how many times User:Biruitorul moved and removed pages, and the absence of any justification whatsoever, for these disruptive edits by User:Biruitorul. Please, note, I have also explicitely asked User:Biruitorul to stop this at least while I was writing the article and also my request to use the talk page.
[20] I appreciate the fact that this is not the place to carry out mere content disputes. However, the problem is rather graver than that. Moldopodo, for no good reason (other than, I suppose, to deflect attention from himself), has hauled me before AE on totally spurious charges. And despite a final warning to cease the type of disruptive editing he has been engaged in for a long time, he goes right on, in this case continuing to try and cloud the distinction between Moldavia (to 1862) and Moldova (1991-). That should be addressed, right? Biruitorul ^Talk 15:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]	Please, see how User:Biruitorul maliciously and grossly interprets my mere error of placing the initial arbitration enforcement request in a wrong place. Please, note, I have initially created a new section and clearly called what it was "arbitration enf. request", before the User:Tariqabjotu twice deleted and merged it with the rest of the discussion, and then finally saying me: Please use your own user talk pages or the talk pages of relevant articles to carry on this dispute. If either of you think arbitration enforcement is required here, there is a separate noticeboard for that. However, neither of theses noticeboards is for debating the content of articles and carrying on your dispute. -- tariqabjotu 07:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[21] Simple - the article is at Moldavia, for now. If it gets moved to Principality of Moldavia (which it won't), then by all means carry out the move. And by the way, Moldavia ceased to exist as a principality in 1862, so sooner or later, the recent additions of post-1862 rulers will be erased. Biruitorul Talk 17:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)	I think it is useless to comments on this "which it won't" and all the previous moves by User:Biruitorul of such articles as Cinema of Moldavia, Moldavia,a s well as on the consequent capacity of this user to contribute constructively to Wikipedia or even to have the capacity to have the desire to listen other users--Moldopodo^talk 16:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neil

As for User:Neil who wrote the "final warning" on my page

Diffamatory and slanderous statements in my regard posted by User:Neil	Notes
[22] If you read his block log ([58], he keeps getting unblocked by fooling admins into thinking he won't edit war again and this time he means it, then promptly starts edit-warring again. I am going to be watching his contributions closely from now on, and have given him a final warning, and I really mean my final warnings - one more bit of rubbish and he is indefinitely blocked. Neıl 龱 08:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Briefly. Nothing I have said has not been civil. There are a number of Moldovan users on en.Wikipedia. The diffs you have asked for are on your talk page. Note I didn't even raise the cross-Wiki spamming you carried out a few weeks ago. Neıl 龱 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)	The references provided by User:Neil do not explain, if simply not contrary, what User:Neil tried to support with them ("final warning")

Irrelevant unfounded "warning" of User:Neil

Accusation of "Cut and paste moves":

Please see the history of Cinema of Moldova how, when and who started and further continuously moved and copy pasted pages and talk pages.

(cur) (last) 07:59, 19 June 2008 Neil (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Cinema of Moldavia: NPOV move-warring - country is called Moldova on Wikipedia [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
(cur) (last) 00:20, 19 June 2008 Biruitorul (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (Please see WP:OWN, WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLEGROUND.)
(cur) (last) 23:51, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,699 bytes) (I started the articel, the person who moved the articel has never explained anything on the talk page and never contributed to the article. Nor, was there any notice that the redirect page was deleted)
(cur) (last) 20:01, 18 June 2008 Girolamo Savonarola (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (rv - redirects exist for a reason; we should not have two virtually identical articles for all naming variants)
(cur) (last) 17:58, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,699 bytes) (→Cartoons: Maria Mirabela)
(cur) (last) 17:57, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,409 bytes) (→International recognition)
(cur) (last) 17:51, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,260 bytes) (→Cartoons)
(cur) (last) 17:51, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,263 bytes) (→Cartoons)
(cur) (last) 17:51, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,274 bytes) (→Cartoons)
(cur) (last) 17:50, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (3,977 bytes) (please, stop this total disruption. I'am writing the artcile, please use the talk page. Pleas stop moving the artcile around as I am in the middle of writing it.)
(cur) (last) 17:46, 18 June 2008 Bogdangiusca (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (rev -- Moldopodo, don't move an article by copy & paste)
(cur) (last) 17:33, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (3,977 bytes) (Please stop disruptive editing. You are NOT contributing to the artcile, but only messing it up. Let me write the article please. Should you have any questions, use the talk page please)
(cur) (last) 17:30, 18 June 2008 Biruitorul (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (please stop being disruptive)
(cur) (last) 17:28, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (3,977 bytes)
(cur) (last) 17:20, 18 June 2008 Biruitorul (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (moved Cinema of Moldavia to Cinema of Moldova over redirect: The country is called Moldova!!!)

History of talk page of Cinema of Moldavia

(cur) (last) 03:56, 19 June 2008 Girolamo Savonarola (Talk | contribs) (1,092 bytes) (rv - please try reading Wikipedia:Redirects (and yes, i did leave a comment on the talk page, it just is only visible in the wikicode) (undo)
(cur) (last) 23:53, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (1,155 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (last) 23:52, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (833 bytes) (Undid revision 220211375 by Girolamo Savonarola (talk) Please stop this, Explain on the talk page) (undo)
(cur) (last) 20:02, 18 June 2008 Girolamo Savonarola (Talk | contribs) (1,092 bytes) (per redirect policy) (undo)
(cur) (last) 17:46, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (833 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (last) 17:30, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (311 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (last) 17:20, 18 June 2008 Biruitorul (Talk | contribs) (36 bytes) (moved Talk:Cinema of Moldavia to Talk:Cinema of Moldova: The country is called Moldova!!!)

Message from the talk page left by User:Biruitorul: This page has gone through various incarnations, including Cinema of Moldavia and Cinema of the Moldavian SSR. However, I submit the present title is best because Moldova is the current name of the country, even though it was called Moldavia in the past. Just as Cinema of Ukraine also deals with the Cinema of the Ukrainian SSR, so too we should maintain this simple, recognisable title rather than forking one article for every change in regime. In any case, I ask that future moves be made using WP:RM. Biruitorul Talk 18:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Biruitorul has never tried to reach any consensus or exhange any opinion neithe on the contents of the article nor on its title. He just decided what it will be according to his own personal view without regard to anybody nor anything else, moved, copy pasted the âge just as I was writing it, ignoring my numrous requests to use the talk page to explain his reverts and moves along with deletions, as well as requests to simply wait until I finish the article. This is by the way, typical of the banned User:Bonaparte.--Moldopodo^talk 12:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Cinema of the Moldavian SSR:

(cur) (last) 16:45, 24 June 2008 Biruitorul (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (←Redirected page to Cinema of Moldova) (undo)
(cur) (last) 02:37, 22 June 2008 SmackBot (Talk | contribs) m (6,547 bytes) (Date the maintenance tags or general fixes) (undo)
(cur) (last) 11:16, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (6,517 bytes) (→International recognition: re-arrange) (undo)
(cur) (last) 11:15, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (6,412 bytes) (→Cartoons) (undo)
(cur) (last) 10:57, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (6,517 bytes) (rearrange) (undo)
(cur) (last) 10:49, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (6,117 bytes) (→Actors) (undo)
(cur) (last) 10:48, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (6,116 bytes) (→International recognition: actors) (undo)
(cur) (last) 10:34, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,967 bytes) (→Cartoons) (undo)
(cur) (last) 10:21, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,956 bytes) (→Cartoons: costesti film festival) (undo)
(cur) (last) 10:15, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,706 bytes) (editing) (undo)
(cur) (last) 10:14, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,693 bytes) (→International recognition: stork) (undo)
(cur) (last) 10:11, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,546 bytes) (→Cartoons) (undo)
(cur) (last) 10:07, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,310 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (last) 02:52, 20 June 2008 Biruitorul (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (moved Cinema of the Moldavian SSR to Cinema of Moldova over redirect: let's not content-fork)

Accusation of "Nationalist edit-warring":

User:Neil provided following references to support his grave accusation: [23], [24], [25] I could not establish anything nationalist in these edits, other than providing totally neutral scientific and other sourced information, often countering reverts of User:Bogdangiusca baldly erasing these edits, calling them as "original research" with no explanation why...--Moldopodo^talk 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of "AFD disruption":

User:Neil provided following references to support this another grave accusation: [26], [27], [28]

I would like to note that other than another absurd unfounded accusation, slandering comments in my regard were kept on the very same disuccion page for days and surprisingly User:Neil did nothing about them...--Moldopodo^talk 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of "Nonsense articles about the evils of Romanians" Romanian crime in Europe‎

I would like to note that the article wa snot about "evils of Romanians", but about the unprecddented rise of criminality rate, exceeding in Spain and Italy the rate of crimes committed by local nationals, about very important phenomenons and societal disturbance caused by legal and illegal immigrants arriving from Romania into UK? Germany, France, Finland, Italy, Spain, also about effects of Romanian crime in Denmark. The article was sourced, if not oversourced, inlcuding scietific research, statistics provided by police reports, media coverage, official state public statistics... Numerous users have also expressed their wish to keep the article, but to imrpove the contents' presentation. I have created many other articles and none of them is a nonsense article. This acusation by user Neil is another grave unfounded accusation.--Moldopodo^talk 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant mention of "Notice re Digwuren restriction:" [29]

I would like to mention that this restriction was contested by me on the ANI Board, and the admin in charge explained it it was applied for the usage by me of the term "wicked" describing the numerous repetiive intentional disruptive edits of a user pushing through an explicit uncovered pan-Romanian propaganda, disregarding official data. It is not clear for me why the referecne for this restriction was placed here. Moreover, I consider there is a malicious intention from User:Neil in placing references to this previous restriction, which is not relevant to the present debate, nor have I violated Digwuren restriction on any counts in this case as well.--Moldopodo^talk 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slanderous statement: "Blocks being released early due to hollow pledges of good behaviour:" [30]

I would like to note that adminsitrators have clearly taken their time to look deep enough into the matter and presented their excuses for the unjustified block.--Moldopodo^talk 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Final warning stands. I have little patience for wikilawyering, so don't waste your time. Statement proving that User:Neil did not look deep enough into the matter, nor has he checked the diffs he provided himself. This statement also proves that User:Neil does not apparently and unfortunaltely have any desire to look deeply into the matter.--Moldopodo^talk 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bogdangiusca

Diffamatory and slanderous statements in my regard posted by User:Bogdangiusca	Notes
[31] Moldopodo readded that a couple of times. It includes various insulting phrases toward the Romanians like "todas las rumanas son putas y les gusta la polla". (All the Romanian women are...) bogdan (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)	These are the comments, which readers of the most read newspapaers in Europe left after reading the articles describing the Romanian crime in their respective country. "I" did not add thiese comments. However, I have copy-pasted these comments to the discussion page, as the admins previously did not do anything to remove insulting comments from other users in my regard, starting from "Anti-Romanian" to "racist", etc, etc. When I asked the same admins why this double standard, no answer was provided.--Moldopodo^talk 15:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rlevse

Diffamatory and slanderous statements posted by User:Rlevse	Notes
[32] I find little merit in Moldopodo's claims. However, I find much in Biruitorul's against Moldopodo. Couple this with Neil's warning to Moldopodo only two days ago that if his disruption continues, he'll be indef blocked, I have little choice but to indef block Moldopodo, so I've done so....next day, changed to a month to comply with Digwuren.	In other words I do not care for looking through the diffs provided, so I won't mention them in my decision, and anyway, since there was an earlier block (also by enforced by me), there will be a later one as well, why not?. Is this the way a reasonable adminsitrator justifies his/her decision?--Moldopodo^talk 16:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[33] I explained, you didn't get it. Calling someone "ethno-racist/fascist" when they've said they find it offensive is disruptive and incivil. How would you feel if he called you that? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] [34] Xasha (talk · contribs) blocked 72 hours by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for racist and disruptive comments. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request - strong suspicion

User:Biruitorul follows commonly the same pattern of the banned socket-pupetter User:Bonaparte, although the language used is milder sometimes by user User:Biruitorul. Although, I do not know what language used User:Bonaparte before being blocked.

The same pattern results from:

irrlevant to the subject of the discussion, diffamatory and slanderous accusations on any talk page and administrators' noticeboard discussion related to me
the same pattern of moving, removing pages, changing formulation, inserting POV statements (or reverting them to the previous - identical ones)
ignorance of the talk page discussion, arguments and sources provided both on the talk page and in the article itself, ignorance of the requests to stop removing and moving pages around as I am editing/writing the article (Balti Steppe/Balti depression - Cinema of Moldavia/Cinema of the Moldavian SSR/Cinema of Moldova
good knowledge of Wikipedia rules and capacity to delete pages in order to rename them.--Moldopodo^talk 15:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have known both users for a very long time and I can say for certain that they are definitely not the same person. Biruitorul is a well-established user with 36,000 edits, who has also been active since May 2006 (you would think someone would've suspected something by now). I can assure you that they are different people with very different styles of editing. One is constructive and the other is destructive. Khoi khoi 02:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second that. While both have a strong Panromanian and anti-Moldovan bias, Biruitorul knows Wikipedia better and knows to avoid certain unwritten rules. Bonaparte just uses brute force. While a behind-the-scenes collab between the two may be possible, I strongly doubt they're the same real person.Xasha (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: being a Bessarabian myself, I'm ardently pro-Moldovan; I'm just anti-Moldovan separatism, like most Romanians. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the tone used is different (sometimes), but the diffamatory and slandering accusations, their posting all over where it is completely irrelevant, moving removing, deleting pages as I am writing them - all of this brings to the exactly the same result. I think it is totally probable that User:Bonaparte and User:Biruitorul are one and the same person (Biruotorul means "Winner" in Moldavian language).--Moldopodo^talk 19:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I aslo kindlu reqest to perform the check user with User:Bonaparte - User:Biruitorul, but also User:Olahus - for uncivil and irrelevant remarks, just in line with the edits by User:Bonaparte and User:Biruitorul, as this one forexaple. --Moldopodo^talk 16:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can personally state that the "Diffamatory and slanderous comments" you have listed above are nothing of the sort. In fact, your response is far more uncivil. And please read WP:NPANPA. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, refrain from commenting here, as I have asked previously. Please, provide a diff for my uncivility here, and also please check the definitions of defamation and slanderous.--Moldopodo^talk 17:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldopodo, please take a look at our policy WP:LEGAL. Any legal threats made against another editor may result in a block at the discretion of any administrator. Regards, nat.utoronto 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nat, what in the world are you talking about? Please explain where did I make "Any legal threats made against another editor"???--Moldopodo^talk 22:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have yet made any explicit threats, but all your talk of slander makes it sound like you are considering it. 'Slander' is a term linked with legal threats in a way 'personal attacks' or civility aren't. J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do check the definition of slander and defamation. You do not need to be a native English speaker to undersand that its scope goes well beyond legal consequences. Moreover, in order to speak of legal action from my side you need to have the proof, otherwise, this grave unfounded accusation is also slander and defamation from your part.--Moldopodo^talk 00:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that, whether that is what you intend or not, you are coming across as being very legalistic; I'm not accusing you of anything. J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molavia, Principality of, disambig

Moldopodo, could I ask what you are doing? Why are moving the content of the article Moldavia to another called Principality of Moldavia, and not through a proper move but through cut and paste? And what consensus are you citing. When you proposed the move Talk:Moldavia#Requested_move there was no consensus for such an action. Please stop. TSO1D (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as per consensus on the talk page of Moldavia (move request section) users have agreed that the article Moldavia is about geographical region Moldavia.--Moldopodo^talk 21:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the request closed with no consensus. Page moves without consensus (which is what you are doing) are highly disruptive and tendentious. Kindly stop and focus on more productive editing. And do remember, you are on a final warning - 'any further edit-warring, particularly along nationalistic lines, and you will be blocked. This includes the cut and paste moving of articles to "Moldavia" rather than "Moldova".' Biruitorul ^Talk 21:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indef block

(copied from talk page of Rlevse)

Moldopodo, since your one month block expired, you have falsely claimed consensus here, here (both today), filed and another friviolous ANI report, filed Talk:Moldavia#Requested_move_1 and Talk:Moldavia#Requested_move, both of which were no consensus to move the articles which you chose to ignore. You've made several false statements, disrupt the encyclopedia, ignore consensus, and appear to only push your own POV. You leave me with no choice but to indef block you on standard wiki principles and policies. Last time I did this and changed to one month to give you another chance but you've clearly shown you are not here to be productive in building the encyclopedia. I'm listing this at the Digwuren case logs too since there is so much overlap therewith. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award

Mulṭumesc! --Node (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]