User talk:Dl.goe
|
Thank you, Khoikhoi!Dl.goe
Linkspam[edit]
If you look at the guidelines for external links, they are meant to be used to show the reader content that cannot easily be added into the article. Wikipedia is not a link repository. In the case of the external link I removed, it's clear that, were editors really sincere in avoiding someone's commercial benefit, the content can be integrated into the article, which is quite flimsy as is and in need of material. Finally, I suspect that the link was added by the author of the page himself, and the rules are very strict that one cannot link to sites that one is affiliated with. CRCulver 20:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am surely not the author of the page. I am Romanian and Dl.goe stands for Domnul Goe. The link seemed to me a good example on what personal development articles are about. But I understand your arguments and changed the pages personal development and self-help as follows:
- I kept the chapter Self Help Texts and the second external link (to a Self-Help book), just to ask a second opinion, but maybe they should be removed too from Self-Help article.Dl.goe 09:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi! The way you can solve problems like these is by citing reliable sources. I noticed you provided a Romanian source for the info about the Soviet tank, I think it would be better if you found a non-partisan source instead. Otherwise, we'd have to phrase the sentence as, "according to Romanian sources...". I think the picture looks better at the top of the article, as it's pretty much the only image we have of Tiraspol. If you could find others that would be good. I'll check out the discussion at the talk page. Cheers, Khoikhoi 20:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Rv[edit]
Yes, you are right. Thanks for fixing that. It was an honest mistake. - Mauco 18:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Isolated violent incidents[edit]
I do not understand this edit remark: "please provide reference if you want to enter the word isolated" with regards to "violent incidents." The incidents are listed in the article (with references). There are very few, and they are spread out over a long period of time. They also did not happen in the whole country, but just in a few, specific points. If there were more, and if they happened all the time, all over the place, they would not be isolated. But they are precisely isolated because they are NOT frequent. Maybe English is not your first language, but please understand the difference between isolated and non-isolated, frequent, common, routine, etc. - Mauco 17:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- The word isolated implies a judgment and is a point of view. Can one draw a line between isolated and non-isolated? Which is this line? The violent incidents are listed, and so is the size of the region. The reader should judge whether they are isolated or not. I think NPOV includes presenting the facts without judging them.Dl.goe 17:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Tank& Lenin[edit]
Happy New Year to you too!
I guess you can count the votes of Vecrumba, Marius and Alex automatically. I'm interested to see how the others will react. --Illythr 00:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
History of Transnistria[edit]
As I saw you are interested in Transnistria, please join History of Transnistria and share your thoughts about the sources we need. Also, please tell in Talk:Transnistria your thoughts about open issues.--MariusM 00:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Vote shopping, are we? Be careful with the company you keep, DI.goe, because in the future, this will reflect badly on you. - Mauco 00:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Don't talk about vote shoppiing, this is what you did [1]. The difference is that I didn't indicate to dl.goe what kind of position he should take, dear often-block user Mauco.--MariusM 01:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing the DIFF. There is a huge difference: I was pointing out your overwrite of a previous edit by Pernambuco. Whereas here, you are bringing in a new user for some new edits where you want support. That is vote shopping and it is generally frowned upon in Wikipedia. My note to Pernambuco is quite the opposite. DI.goe needs to watch his/her steps carefully if he wants to play along with this sort of behavior. - Mauco 01:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Don't talk about vote shoppiing, this is what you did [1]. The difference is that I didn't indicate to dl.goe what kind of position he should take, dear often-block user Mauco.--MariusM 01:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
move[edit]
I have moved [[Intimidating warnings%7E%7E%7E%7E%7E]] to User:Dl.goe/sandbox. The best way to remove a mistake article is to put {{db-author}} at the top. -- RHaworth 14:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Trebuia să-i scrii şi tu lui Mauco pe pagina sa personală, dacă te simţi deranjat de atitudinea lui, să fie 2 persoane care se simt deranjate. Poţi încerca şi la WP:ANI.--MariusM 14:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
imrpoved link[edit]
I am allowed to improve on this page, you also improved on the page and I did not revert you, so if I make the page better, dont revert me. You can compare these two links, they are from exactly the same publisher, and read them, you can see the change which i made is an improvement to the article. The difference is that one of them only is about some websites, and the other linnk has a lot more information, it gives the background information, and the historical information, and more pictures, and so on, etc. you compare and you can see one that is best, and it is the one that I put there, so do not revert it, it is a big improvement Pernambuco 17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
blanking[edit]
This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to transnistria, you will be blocked from editing. Buffadren 14:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC) (last warning for blanking.
Undiscussed edits[edit]
Your latest edit to Transnistria was undiscussed. You will most likely be reverted. Why don't you propose changes first, in talk, and wait a few days so all of us can get a chance to give you feedback? - Mauco 20:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I already made your changes. --Mr. Sure Entry 21:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Pernambuco[edit]
A request of CheckUser regarding him and Pernambuco was deleted by Khoikhoi in BAD FAITH (an admin friend with a meat and sockpuppet master Mauco):
After that dcmevit found mauco.
Thank you, Special:Contributions/82.160.43.14. Jpgordon answered you the page was moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Pernambuco. But I find the information particularly interesting... If the request for checkuser issued on 1 November 2006 was not treated dismissively, I wouldn't have wasted my time discussing with Pernambuco till 30 March 2007... And it was treated dismissively; I cannot otherwise interpret Khoikhoi's words: "This was probably requested by Bonaparte to Soso via email"...Dl.goe 08:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
RE: Missing information[edit]
Hello. I think we need is a Military of Transistria article, so I am inviting interested parties to author it. Still, I'm not seeing what is missing with respect to the former 14th Army (which I presume mostly comrpises the Transnitrian military). I looked through the talk page as instructed by the tag, and I simply cannot find any refernce to this request aside from my own recent related querry. Accordingly, I am provisionally removing that tag; presently, it seems excessiv, and the article it highlights is already linked in the intro in rather clear terms (i.e. "fought a war for independence backed by the former 14th Soviet Army in 1992"). I am not familliar enough with the history (or, indeed, even the geography!), so I would appreciate your input on the matter. At the same time, I'm attempting to reduce the tag overload since it strikes me as adding to the editorial dispute rather than seeking to ameliorate it. Which is to say, if information is missing, why not add it (rather than add a tag)? Regards, El_C 03:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I made some edits on Chechnya. I don't like also "de facto" ..if they push it so do we on their fucking independent regions...
About Chechnya[edit]
Hi! Actually Illythr has already answered your question. If it were 1998 now I would not object to calling Ichkeria de facto independent republic. I have no problems with admitting that Chechnya was de facto independent republic in 1996-2000. Alaexis 03:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Text about PCR' members[edit]
I put that text there, showing what the context was before 1990 in Romania. The reader, who may be from other country or from Romania but much younger, may not know the particular situation that was in that times. The insertion is neutral and reflects the exact situation, based on experience of my friends, my colleagues and me. Of course, the exact numbers of former PCR members was published at the beginning of 1990 (and I remember that was announced 4,3 millions) but I took them now from Wikipedia ([PCR]).
If this is or not relevant for Băsescu, I don’t know, but for sure, it must complete the previous statement “he claimed that he joined the PCR in order to promote his career”, which, at first view seems to be just a lie. I not discuss here if it is or not a lie, (I don’t know that – maybe only Băsescu knows) but for the people who don’t know the exact situation before 1990 it’s verry important, allowing them to judge themselves. So, I consider that both statements should be together in text, or together out of text.
I will look for your comments before I'll move the text back. Also I'll try to complete some of the "citation need".
Regarding the dogs, the scandal, the statistics... I was baited 2 times by a "communitarian dog" and once I followed the treatment; my son was baited few times but only once we went to hospital while in the others was only some pants destroyed and some scratches. Like us, there were a lot of people who reported the bite only if it was serious. For that I consider that the number of attacks officially reported was much underestimated – they reported only the serious injury - and your calculation about bites/day etc. can’t be realistic. Anyway, any report could not show the fear that the citizen may felt when it was necessary to go home in the night or when his child was out for playing. If before the Băsescu’s campaign we had around 30 dogs around the building, after was left only 2 or 3 and it was great. Unfortunately, in few years, their number was back to 20-30… and I think that you know why. No more comment.
Mihaip 05:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think the notes should be placed at the bottom of the article. I made some changes to the text, as I doubt people were invited in PCR, anyhow, we have no proof Basescu become a member after being invited.Dl.goe 16:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is funny what you say. There was no other way but someone from inside PCR local unit (from work or education) to propose a guy in a meeting (enlarged or not) AND the present members to approve. It was impossible to propose himself as not-members hadn't access to meeting. It seems that you didn't catch that horrible times... good for you! Even more, before '70-'75, and before the "official" invitation at PCR, the future member was verified to have a "healthy roots": worker parents and family (no intellectuals!), no political suspicions of any of them back to 1944, and so on; after '85-89 some of this restrictions was aborted. I can only tell you some aspects (and I wrote about some of them) but only about the latest period while my big family who had different troubles before, informed me about the past.
About possibility of promotion, I met more than a hundred engineers and economists till 1990, but no "big chief" -not member PCR. My father told me about one that he knows, (who was really brilliant – he said) - not member PCR - who was promoted at 50 in position of "chief engineer of a section". Manager?? No way! I think that you can check all of that with the older people; almost all of them know that kind of stuff. If you find some or is anybody who has more accurate information, is welcome to improve the text (till now there was nobody with another opinion!).
By the way: today I had the occasion to check the relevance of my text with 14-15 people of different nations, (only two of them already knew something about Romania – but not much and the third was a Romanian lady). I presented them the Internet page and your remark. Asking them to comment the relevance of text, all of them agreed that my little text is not at all out of context, it is necessary and without it, they misunderstood the principal paragraph. When I ask them where is better to put it, only one said that is ok in footer, the rest was agreed that is better to put somehow inside the text (“nobody check footnote when is reading”).
If you wont more details, we can talk somehow on private.
- It is funny what you say. There was no other way but someone from inside PCR local unit (from work or education) to propose a guy in a meeting (enlarged or not) AND the present members to approve. It was impossible to propose himself as not-members hadn't access to meeting. It seems that you didn't catch that horrible times... good for you! Even more, before '70-'75, and before the "official" invitation at PCR, the future member was verified to have a "healthy roots": worker parents and family (no intellectuals!), no political suspicions of any of them back to 1944, and so on; after '85-89 some of this restrictions was aborted. I can only tell you some aspects (and I wrote about some of them) but only about the latest period while my big family who had different troubles before, informed me about the past.
Mihaip 08:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- I change "some" with "all" career, but I still don't like it: is not accurate. The career was not the only reason, there was much more. I haven't time for writing more, but: self-protection can be another - the important decisions for someone could be taken in a PCR meeting, if one wished your job, it was enough to say something (false) about you in meeting - you couldn't know and couldn't replay - just sow that you was transfered, etc. I think that this version is not at all real, the first one it was better, even it was not complete (it was not my target) it was enough relevant. Now, it seems that all 4 mil. people want to make career - false - there was among them some old stupid workers who didn't want any careers - they were good at work, but no leadership, nothing, etc. So... do your best to modify again, (maybe back) or somehow you will consider...
Mihaip 08:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, I didn't catch those times. I now remember I was once told the recomendation of an old PCR member(comunist ilegalist) was needed to become a member. But I think at Traian Băsescu we should have only a breef description on what PCR membership represents, and the detailes at PCR article. Here's what I suggest.Dl.goe 16:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are right, even is not yet quite well. I think that "career" means too much and also too less. Let me explain (your example remind me): I had an assistant (at “seminar”) that I know for sure that he was not PCR member. It was brilliant on math, clearer and more intuitive in explanations than our professor, but till 38-40 years old he was only a university assistant (in ~1982-1985), even he has a doctorate. Has he a career? Certainly (at y=ct. when x-> oo)! But, you consider that it was his dreams of career? I think that all is in promotions! Right, he was "promoted" once from Lyceum to University (10 years before), and that was all. So, the answer is: some little promotions – yes it was possible, but big promotions - no. I suggest (if you agree) changing "career" with "big promotion" or something equivalent (career is not clear enough).
About travel, is not quite so, usually normal travel was no related with PCR but with security, while to work outside, yes (even as simple worker). In fact it was much more complex (it is a lot of “if”), so I think it should be removed.
Again, agree to complete the article “PCR” with necessary details and let here only the essential + a link to PCR’s exact paragraph for who want more details.
You know what? Cut the word "claims" from the main text (for this it was neccesary all this explanations) and put all stuff in PCR article with a link from here, and everybody will be happy. So, considering that you have enough details, I let you decide what is better to do. If you want in the future to contact me for anything (and I can help), let me a note in my talk. Mihaip 07:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)- During communism, Romanians were usually rejected the right to travel abroad (or to work abroad), accordingly, those who were alowed were highly privileged. So we should mention that simple PCR members hadn't had such privileges. Regarding the word career, I think it includes big promotions [2]. But, before we enter in such detailes, the whole paragraph was described as original research and removed [3]Dl.goe 11:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are right, even is not yet quite well. I think that "career" means too much and also too less. Let me explain (your example remind me): I had an assistant (at “seminar”) that I know for sure that he was not PCR member. It was brilliant on math, clearer and more intuitive in explanations than our professor, but till 38-40 years old he was only a university assistant (in ~1982-1985), even he has a doctorate. Has he a career? Certainly (at y=ct. when x-> oo)! But, you consider that it was his dreams of career? I think that all is in promotions! Right, he was "promoted" once from Lyceum to University (10 years before), and that was all. So, the answer is: some little promotions – yes it was possible, but big promotions - no. I suggest (if you agree) changing "career" with "big promotion" or something equivalent (career is not clear enough).
Arbitrare Transnistria[edit]
Dl.goe, am primit observaţia că secţiunea mea de dovezi de la arbitrarea Transnistria e prea lungă. Te-aş ruga să preiei în secţiunea ta o parte din cele scrise de mine. Mă refer în special la [4] în care e vorba direct despre tine, poate şi alte lucruri. După ce le vei trece în secţiunea ta, le voi şterge din secţiunea mea. N-aş vrea să se piardă evidenţă despre comportamentul lui Mauco.--MariusM 07:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
third entry :-) :Dc76 11:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Un Crăciun şi un An nou fericit!--MariusM (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The Tăriceanu Note[edit]
Hi, I've looked in the history of the Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu article, and saw you were the one that added the translation of the note. I have added the translation to Wikisource (Tăriceanu Note), since it looked like a very well done translation to me. Now I want to ask you: are you the translator, or did you copy it from another site, 'cause I want to add this info the the Wikisource page. diego_pmc (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
AIV reports[edit]
Thank you for reporting a particularly troublesome vandal. Anon editors there are now blocked for one year. Next time, please follow the instructions at the top of the page WP:AIV. This speeds handling of requests, and makes it easy for you to copy and paste the data to create a report. (In particular, the format of your report wasn't recognized by the bots which assist with that page.) Thanks again. —EncMstr 07:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Covering raw links[edit]
My apologies. I realise that I acted rather hastily. A "raw link" is a string of html hich appear in the "Notes" section but which gives readers little idea of the source, author, etc.
I've gone in and "covered" the first one from the Guardian, and after I've saved this, I'll go back and look up the article and put in the author's name as well.
So, yours looked like this (tho' I've added spaces and removed the "[" (square brackets) "]" so you can see what it looks like):
ref http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2011/mar/22/bolshoi-rocked-by-scandal /ref
Mine looks like this:
ref Miriam Elder, "Bolshoi Rocked by Scandal and Intrigue", The Guardian (London), 22 March 2011 Retrieved 12 February 2013 /ref
By adding the "[" you block out the string of HTML and just reveal the article info.
Hope this helps. Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
In addition:
I also included the first ref to the existing ref name="GDN" link so that all four references to the same article appear together. Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article TripleA is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TripleA (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Reception material for TripelA[edit]
Hi, could you please find sources for the distros (and other platforms) which included TripleA? this reach has also some significance. Also, more good sources and reviews from reliable sources (e.g. have typically a Wikipedia article) are helpful. I beleive there are more print media reviews from the early 2000s (other languages than english) out there. also, cover disk inclusion of gaming magazines has some importance. cheers Shaddim (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Dl.goe. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Dl.goe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Dl.goe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)