Talk:Moldovan language/Archive 6

message: OK - I'm just writing here to recollect the current proper disputes this page. I think this random posting of newspaper articles and sources is not inherently wrong, but is not done is a well-structured manner and therefore clutters up the page considerably. So here goes, the remaining disputes:
*high-ranking officials - Node - the statement that many high-ranking officials recognise the language as Romanian is true. Many do not recognise this. So, the statement can be made to seem more neutral by saying, "Many high-ranking officials recognise the Romanian and Moldovan are the same, while others continue to ?use the term Moldovan language??" or something like that. It's also important to say that many government departments recognise the language as Romanian (this can be done by looking at their websites).
**I don't dispute that it's true. I dispute that it belongs here. Please see WP:AWT. It should instead be something like "some high-ranking officials, including so-and-so and so-and-so" --Node 07:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Something I would propose adding to the Lingustic view section is about how Ethnologue recognises the official language of Moldova to be Romanian (since Ethnologue is a linguistic authority, not an "official" or political one). Ronline 04:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further disputes 

message: Ureche's chronicles say that the Moldovan language is of Latin origin, however I couldn't find any instance where he claims that the language of the Wallachians is the same as the language of the Moldavians. Please check the original text at .
I think whoever added that remark must have confused Grigore Ureche with Miron Costin (1632 - 1691). It was M. Costin who wrote:
: Şi supt acel nume [Dacia] au trăit aceste ţări, până la al doilea descălecat cu Dragoş Vodă. Şi acum mulţi ne zic nouă, ţării noastre şi Ţării Munteneşti, streinii, Datzia, însă norodul, neamul locuitorilor nu şi-au schimbat numele său, că tot romanus, apoi cu vremea şi îndelungate veacuri români, apoi rumâni până astăzi.
:[...]
: ...măcară că ne răspundem acum moldoveni, iară nu întrebăm: «ştii moldoveneşte»?, ce «ştii româneşte», adică râmleneşte...
: -- De neamul moldovenilor, din ce ţară au eşit strămoşii lor
: And under that name [ Dacia ] those countries have lived, up to Dragoş Vodă's second foundation. Even now many call us, our contry and the Wallachian country, Datzia, yet the people haven't changed their (own) name, they are still calling themselves romanus, then after time and long centuries, români, then rumâni, up to this day.
:[...]
: ...even if we call ourselves Moldavians now, we still don't ask: «do you know Moldavian»?, but «do you know Romanian»?, that is, Latin...
: -- Of the Moldavian People, Of Whence Their Ancestors Came
Note that I can't vouch for the accuracy of the quotation, it's picked off the net. If someone has access to a printed copy of "De neamul moldovenilor", a precise quotation is welcome. Iulian U. 04:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grigore Ureche misquoted 

message: I have only one question: Why Mark Williamson Node ue is not blocked since he made vandalism on my edits?
:Because you have duplicated your posts here. You're an anonymous user. There are a number of things you should do:
:* Register. It's free. You don't have to give away any personal information.
:* Try to make points on talkpages RELEVANT and CONCISE. So far, you have wasted oodles of space here, and made the debate that much more confusing. Now, while it's not exactly 100% acceptable, I've removed the vast majority of your posts here now as they are, as I noted before, points that were already made.
:* Give links to URLs. Quote short excerpts. But do not copy entire article texts.
:* Now, with that in mind, I hope you can participate in this debate in a civilised manner. Yes, people have already added the arguments that Moldovan and Romanian are identical, blah blah blah. Every time you add a new section on it, you're just wasting everybody's time.
:* If you want to add back all of your repetetive and confusing text, go right ahead. I won't remove it again. But keep in mind that you are testing the patience of all involved in this debate. Talkpages are for discussion of an article, they are not soapboxes. Try to be brief, please!
:I'm pretty sure you're not going to listen to me, B,but I feel I should make these points nonetheless. Also, assuming that you are the same as the other anon editor, keep in mind that it is your fault that the article is currently locked, according to Mikka.
:Node 11:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Mark Williamson [[Node ue]] is not blocked since he made [['''vandalism on my edits''']]?

message: This page will only work if blocked. Now Node is making multiple edits and everything will lose track again. I'm not accusing Node particularly, it's just that if everyone makes edits, revert wars will start again. The previous situation with Mikka was much better! I'm not a sysop, so I can't block the page. So, until then, I'm reverting everything. It won't work otherwise. Ronline 10:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To the version before the anon vandalism, or after? --Node 11:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To the one before. Ronline 11:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it's fine with me. Anittas seems to be trying to spread the idea that my overall goal here is to bombard this page until my wishes are directly committed. I've already given in on a lot of things, though. I only made edits to the page because it was unlocked, and I felt they were minor and reasonable. Since others obviously felt that wasn't the case, fine. But don't get the idea that I would like it better unlocked -- when it's unlocked, it's a constant target of anon vandalism. This does not seem to be resolvable in the near future, unless we could identify the anon and take appropriate action. Other issues on this page, as such, are not severe enough to warrant the locking -- it's only the anon who keeps reverting the page. But hopefully this will give us time to reach consensus. And since Anittas and his crew seem to like you more than me, could you please tell them to stop adding long sections about politics to the talkpage? Whether or not Moldova and Romania will unite to form Romania Mare in 15 years is not really an immediate concern for this page. We need to discuss the real issues that are going on here. The discussion of unrelated issues only serves to make the discussion more confusing and too fast-paced. --Node 11:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please block this page again! 

message: What's the status here? It sounds like you haven't moved alot. Let me know. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Time's up

message: I believe that the article needs to emphasize that the entire discussion between Romanizators, Originalists, and the Soviet leadership took place in a region that never was part of the Principality of Moldova. Indeed, the establishment of the "Soviet Autonomous Moldovan Republic" was done on land that never before was part of the Principality of Moldova (or, for that matter, Romania). User:Dpotop
:I agree with you. Anyway we should replace this ugly expression by "Defenders of truth and Soviets, Communists, Russian Revisionists" Bonaparte  talk & contribs
::Bonaparte? What exactly is your proposal? mikka (t) 17:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dpotop, you must provide a specific suggestion, not a general desire "to make things better", so that we could reasonably discuss it. For starters, what's wrong with creation of Moldovan republic in the area of compact residence of Moldovans? Such republics were created everywhere in what was before the "unitary and indivisible, Orthodox Russian Empire", in its official parlance.  mikka (t) 17:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I propose writing: In 1924, the Soviet Union made its first move aimed at creating a new Moldovan identity, different from the Romanian one. That year, a Moldovan Autonomous Soviet Republic was created on Ukrainean territory that had never belong to the principality of Moldavia or to Romania. In the new "Moldovan" republic, Ukraineans formed 42% of the population, compared with only 30% Moldovans. In this new Soviet republic the ingredients of the new Moldovan identity, including the Moldovan language, were engineered before they were imposed to the population of Bessarabia from 1940 to 1941, and then from 1944 to 1992. Jacky 08:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's quite funny. What about today? The official language is "Moldovan". And yet it's past 1992... --Node 15:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanizators and Originalists 

message: Bonaparte, you don't seem to really want to resolve this debate. Rather than make constructive comments, you are saying the same things over and over again like a broken record or a parrot. "Identical! Identical! Identical!" -- we all heard you fine the first time, and the second time, and every time after that. Give it a rest.
Also, it doesn't help that you're constantly saying things like "he's only 16", "he's a vandal", or "he should be banned". You have said them so much already, that now you're just wasting your and everybody else's time.
If I really deserved a banning, it would've happened already. There are hundreds of active admins on en.wiki. Woohookitty and Mikkalai, among other admins, have already visited this page, and have dismissed all of your requests that I be banned. Saying it over and over again won't mean it will finally happen.
::::It wasn't you that you've been banned and blocked in 25 November? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Node_ue Apparently Node ue is not identical with Node ue. 
:::::I don't see anything about a block in 25 November. Just some old blocks from nearly a year ago (in December) for a violation of the 3RR. None before or after that at all. --Node 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I disagree. bogdan 14:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: You disagree? So you think that vernacular Moldovan is identical to vernacular Romanian? Where are you getting this bogus idea? --Node 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree too, so there's two of us, so everybody else it's a little bit to axiomatic. --Orioane 14:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not helping! 

message: Node_ue, I'm asking YET AGAIN for real references regarding the differences between Romanian and official Moldovan. What you shown us are differences between the vernacular language which are not part of the official language. 
Here are some quotes from actual linguists:
: In August 1989, the Republic of Moldova instituated legislation which would affect language use in several ways. First, it mandated that the Republic revert to a Latin-based ortography. Second, it declared the official status of Moldovan/Romanian.
:: Grenoble, Lenore A (2003) Language Policy in the Soviet Union, Springer, 
: [Soviets] based standard Moldovan on Muntenian/Oltenian Romanian, the dialects of Romanian on which standard Romanian is based. And so they just plagiarized Romanian grammars in effect, writing them in Cyrillic instead of Latin script, which somewhat hid what they were doing.
:: Dyer, Donald Leroy, author of various studies of linguistics of Moldova in a personal mail to node_ue (who asked for some clarifications)
: [about Moldovan language during the Soviet era] Apart from a few lexical differences (mainly technical terms borrowed from Russian rather than, as in standard Romanian, from western languages), the written language was thenceforth indistinguishable from that in use in Romania and moves are afoot to harmonize the technical terminology of Moldova with that adopted in Romanian specialized dictionaries.
:: Price, Glanville. Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe. ; Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK; April 2000
bogdan 17:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the relevance of any of these three quotes, when used in context. The first one says absolutely nothing about whether or not Moldovan and Romanian are identical. The second one says in the next breath that there are however 2 relatively insignificant features which distinguish the official languages. The third one does say that there were differences, so it actually goes AGAINST the pt you're trying to make. --Node 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The official languages being non-identical 

message: Here is an interview with the famous Vasile Stati, the one who supports the Moldovan language to the point of writing the Moldovan-Romanian dictionary. URL: http://www.vremea.net/news/2005-01-13/18:45:35.html
Here is just one excerpt, the one I prefer:
: Incontestabil, forma literară, cea mai elevată a limbii moldoveneşti, forma cultă, prelucrată de scriitori şi lingvişti, este identică cu forma literară a limbii româneşti. 
: Translation: Undisputedly, the literary form, the most elevated form of the Moldovan language, the cult form, used by writers and linguists, is identical to the literary form of Romanian. 
I'll let you read the rest (in Romanian), which is interesting, especially when it talks about its sources. Beware, however, it's a nice piece of Soviet style politics and "mauvaise foi", to the point of incriminating "the payed agents of Romania".
The guy essentially says that "Moldovan is Romanian. The spoken language is a bit (but not much) different. Nonetheless, we have the right to call it Moldovan if we want to". I would very much agree to base the current article on this position (this is exactly what I've been trying to do all along).
What is funny is that it takes an american to be more Moldovenist than Vasile Stati. :D
User:Dpotop128.93.62.28 15:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from Vasile Stati (the author of the Moldovan-Romanian dictionary) 

message: "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin referring to Romanians from Moldova. This is what is still going on here on this page. Russification still continues. (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+md0027)) Bonaparte  talk & contribs
:Bonapparte blocked for persistent enflaming this talk page in blatant and conscious violation of WP:Civility.  mikka (t) 22:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin'''

message: It looks like Bogdan decided to leave Wiki. This is good news for those who try to prove that Moldovan is not a Romanian language. You can now open that bottle of champagne, Node. --Anittas 11:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually bad news, Anittas. Bogdan was a moderate among extremists, willing to consider to a degree the opinions of linguists, while it seems most remaining (who will remain unnamed) would rather just say "They're identical, and any source that disagrees is obviously invalid because I say so". --Node 23:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Among "extremists"? Please. You're the extremist here, by far. Alexander 007 23:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was definititely a lot of bad uncivilized behavior at this article and the talk page, also done (purposefully) with anonymous accounts. And I do suspect most of that is some of the Romanians. It is very hard to make good discussion in those situations. Please let us stop that. Yes, Bogdan was one of the people who actually was reasonable, it is said that he helft. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice to see you spit on your own people while ignoring the one who provoked us. The one who told us that he didn't understand what we said because we wrote in Romanian and he only understands Moldovan. The one who tried to reinvent the linguistic science and discredit Bogdan's arguments. --Anittas 05:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You must be thinking of somebody else, Anittas. I never said I didn't understand what you wrote because I only know Moldovan. I never tried to reinvent linguistic science, and I don't see what's wrong with trying to discredit somebody's arguments -- that's a normal academic thing. --Node 15:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't get it, Anittas. The point is not who believes what. Not the most important point at least. The point is maintaining civilized standards of discussion. Unlike you, for me first matters if a given person is a good-natured human being, and only second if that person has to be from my country. Your and Bonaparte's clown and troll performace damages your changes at getting anything done. The sooner you get that, the better. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogdan Giusca left Wiki 

message: Hello,
I've been trying to add more factual information in the introductory section, following an earlier discussion. In my text, I took into account the remarks of Mikka, but it seems that Node is not happy with it, and quickly reverted it (in 5 minutes, or so, the time I made myself a tea :) ). So, here is the fragment I propose instead of the second paragraph of the introductory section:
: The Moldovan language is the official language of the Republic of Moldova, as defined by its constitution. However, as stated by Vasile Stati (a linguist and hard-line supporter of the Moldovan identity), the literary forms of Moldovan and Romanian are identical. The official Moldovan language is identical to Romanian, in its form from before the 1991 reform (minor changes in the form of one letter and in spelling). Actual differences w.r.t. Romanian occur in the colloquial speech of highly-russified areas of the Republic of Moldova, such as Chişinau and Transnistria. The spoken language of these areas features Russian loanwords and expressions, not present in Romania-born speakers (which tend to use english or french loanwords). Speakers who use such loanwords are aware of doing so and can easily express themselves without using them. To take into account these differences, as well as the particular accent_(linguistics) of the country, certain linguists promote Moldovan as a standalone language, different from Romanian (among them, the same Vasile Stati). This scientific dispute is generally considered in the context of the larger political debate covering Moldovan identity (which is arguably the main political debate in post-Soviet Moldova).
: Of all Moldovans claiming either "Romanian" or "Moldovan" as their mother tongue, 45.2% declared their native language to be "Moldovan", while 54.8% declared their native language to be "Romanian". 
Jacky 08:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with edits made by Dpotop. A consesus was reached by majority of the people.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs 08:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus? Where? I only see two people here who agree, you and Dpotop. And majority is irrelevant, acc'd to official WP definitions you need more than 80% to agree. --Node 09:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Their opinion have been posted and will be accordingly taken into consideration :) .  Bonaparte  talk & contribs 09:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth are you talking about Bonaparte? Do you really want to achieve a neutral and stable version of this page, or do you just enjoy conflict? We were actually getting somewhere, and then you came back and started your trolling again. It's pointless to say "I disagree with _______ and support ______" when you don't give any specific details as to your reasoning behind your conclusions. And which people are you talking about? I see 2 people here who agree to Dpotop's version, you and him. Who else????????????????? --Node 09:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: ::The Moldovan language is the official language of the Republic of Moldova, as defined by its constitution.
Yes, I can certainly agree to that.
::However, as stated by Vasile Stati (a linguist and hard-line supporter of the Moldovan identity), the literary forms of Moldovan and Romanian are identical. The official form of Moldovan is identical to the official form of Romanian, in its form from before the 1991 reform (minor changes in the form of one letter and in spelling).
I'm sure you would agree with me that Vasile Stati is certifiable. He makes heaps of contradictory statements -- in his dictionary, he very clearly explains how Moldovan has an illustrious literary history and how it's so amazingly different from Romanian, and then in this interview he says they're nearly identical. Now, he can hardly be considered a reliable source.
And the statement "the literary forms of xx and yy are identical" is absolutely untenable, in ANY situation. Even if you said "the literary forms of Leeds English and London English are identical", that would be untenable despite the fact that Leeds and London are part of the same general literary tradition. The reason for this is that any given body of literature is not directly parallel to all others. Try instead to say "(nearly) All constructions in literary Moldovan are perfectly acceptable in Romanian as well."
As a "linguist", Stati should know this.
And you of all people shouldn't be saying "...as stated by Vasile Stati..." -- why not cite someone more credible? Stati has been discredited by many linguists.
::Actual differences w.r.t. Romanian occur in the colloquial speech of highly-russified areas of the Republic of Moldova, such as Chişinau and Transnistria.
I wouldn't really agree here. First of all, "w.r.t." is not a proper expression for an encyclopedia article. It should say "between". Also, this implies that everybody in Chisinau talks like this in an informal situation, which certainly isn't the case.
And you have once again opened the Pandora's box that is Transnistria. Please, try to avoid any statements which include any statement about the status of Transnistria. So you could say "the colloquial speech of urbanised areas including Chisinau and Transnistria", without mentioning Rep. Moldova explicitly and thus leaving the status of Transnistria open. This is an article about Moldovan language, NOT about Transnistria.
::The spoken language of these areas features Russian loanwords and expressions, not present in Romania-born speakers (which tend to use english or french loanwords).
It's a bit strange for me that you say "Russian loanwords and expressions". As I noted previously, one could make a good argument for a Ukrainian genesis for most features which seems reasonable, or even Belarusan or perhaps Bulgarian. Also, not all unique features are nessecarily of a Slavic origin.
And "Romania-born speakers" is a judgement call, implying the unity of Moldovan and Romanian. Instead, a good passage should say "not correct in Romanian usage".
::Speakers who use such loanwords are aware of doing so and can easily express themselves without using them.
Do you have references for this? And again you refer to them as "loanwords", as if they naturally separate themselves from other words, but they don't. Some do, like "drug" (vs "prietenii"), but many (like "sclad") don't. Why not instead say "people who speak in such a fashion"??
::To take into account these differences, as well as the particular accent of the country, a certain linguists promote Moldovan as a standalone language, different from Romanian
Actually, the major debate about Moldovan isn't the colloquial language or the accent. It's about the official language, which is obviously a ludicrous debate in the first place, but nevertheless continues. Stati makes 0 mention of the colloquial language, and words which are unique to it are not included in his dictionary.
And no real linguist will debate seriously about what is a language and what is not, as it's a purely subjective judgement in the first place. Only quacks like Stati try to make serious scholarly arguments about such status, others will state it only as a personal perception. Please see dialect...
::(among them, the same Vasile Stati). This scientific dispute is generally considered in the context of the larger political debate covering Moldovan identity (which is arguably the main political debate in post-Soviet Moldova).
"Which is arguably the main political debate..." here we see a peacock phrase.
Node 08:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind if I take this page off watch? You guys are a bore. Chill out. Alexander 007 08:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go ahead... if you don't care anymore, that's fine. --Node 09:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with Node. His edits doesn't reflect the consensus reached here. Again he tries to push a POV. I agree and support the edits of User:Dpotop!  Bonaparte  talk & contribs 09:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you don't agree with me. You never agree with me. And we're talking about dpotop's edits, not mine. And which consensus did we reach here? And who participated in that consensus? Was it a bunch of imaginary friends? --Node 09:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will ignore this attack.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs 13:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentary on Dpotop's addition 

message: I will take some time off editing this article, as it seems to me that it's definitely a huge loss of time, very different from other wikipedia articles I contributed to. I do not know what the motivation of Node is, but it is obviously strong, and I do not have the moral authority to tell him that he is an extremist. BTW, I do believe he is one.
:Although I've had some disagreements with you, I must say that overall, I feel like you have made a positive impact on this article, and that you have made genuine attempts to reach consensus. As regards me being an extremist, I would say that most of my views are supported by linguists, and that perhaps my views are not fully understood -- I certainly wouldn't say that Moldovan and Romanian official forms are separate languages, but then I wouldn't say they're the same language either, because I don't believe there's a real dividing line there (see dialect). You said earlier that my opinion is more Moldovenist than Stati's, I really have to disagree, he's an extreme Moldovenist and makes lots of comments about the illustrious literary history of the Moldovan language and **** like that, and he is the protegé of a famous Soviet linguist who made patently insane assertations about differences which simply never existed.
I prefer letting our friends from the Republic of Moldavia deal with him. I hope they can deal with Node, otherwise Wikipedia is just a playground, where any oppinion can be pushed by determined editors. There is at least one Moldavian editor on this page, with admin powers, which should be ok, to start. I have also seen nice posts of other Moldavian editors, some at the mo wikipedia.
:Ahh Dpotop, "Moldavia" has negative implications  because it stinks of the Soviet era. The name for the country in English is (republic of) Moldova. Anyhow, I still think it's very interesting how opinion here is polarised -- editors from Moldavia (that is, the Romanian part) seem to hold much more extreme anti-Moldovenistic views than other Romanians, or even most Moldovans (Basarabenii).
I will only observe this page, and only support the positions of Moldavian editors, or suggest them changes (upto now, their oppinions seemed quite in line with what I proposed). Upon request from their part, I can contribute.
Given that all Romania-born editors were at some point in conflict with Node, I suggest they do the same. 
In particular, I suggest Bonaparte and Anittas to refrain from personal attacks. Node is counting on them, and using them actively to legitimize his position in the eyes of non-romanian wikipedia editors. In particular, do not let yourselves provoked, even if Node is seeking it. Just remember that by personal attacks you simply help him.
Dpotop 10:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dpotop, I have actually considered abandoning this conflict because of the personal attacks. I don't enjoy them, and I don't feel that they help me. I think it would be reasonable for me to seek at this point for Bonaparte to be banned permanently for harassment (after some of the posts he made), but I don't really care so much to chase after that. Bonaparte has littered the user talkpages of many Romanians telling them to come edit here. I have not done the same with non-Romanians. I did not ask anybody to block Anittas or Bonaparte. I'm still really quite offended by the attacks, and after some of the things Bonaparte did/said, I really am actually intimidated. --Node 16:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Node ue, if this continues, please ask at WP:AN/I for a block. In fact, if this continues, I will ask there too. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear all 

message: Vasile, I think you are a well-meaning person, but your edits have been too huge, and without consultation. Thus, I reverted them. Please feel free to to make minor corrections on the page, but anything major has to be discussed here first. 
I did the same thing to Node ue above.  So it is not as if I am biased against one side or another. But unilateral edits will do no good. Thanks.  Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a list of problems with that article? I am not able to find the problems in that amount of discuss. --Vasile 16:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Vasile. No your edits were not controversal. But I think it is not a good idea to start editing away that article without discussion. It will lead to people thinking that anything goes. There is some discussion on the talk page about what to change. I guess that needs to be dealt first. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Discuss what? --Vasile 17:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What to be included in the article. You can read above about the issues. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vasile's edits 

message: Same justification as for you (again!) and User:Vasile, earlier today. User:Dpotop
: I thought the recent edits of Node ue were just cleanup, without removals, so they would qualify as minor edits. By the way, one more reason I reverted Vasile is because he was not aware I think of the discussions in here, which I think was not a good idea. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Node edits reverted

message: D. Bucharest wins with 1-0 and pretty much eliminates the chances of the Russkies to qualify. Bravo! We already have two teams qualified for the next round of Uefa. Dinamo can be the third. Bravo! 
http://www.uefa.com/competitions/UEFACup/FixturesResults/Round=2209/match=81973/Report=RP.html
--Anittas 22:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankx for the good news. We are the winner! I hope it won't be the last time when we teach them a <football> lesson.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs 22:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anittas and Bonaparte, this is silly. Please move that to your talk page. It makes me think you care about truth and fairness less than about hating the Russians. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for celebrating the national day of your people with us. You have a strange way of expressing your sentiments, tho. --Anittas 05:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  On your talk page buddy, express your sentiments on your talk page. Or, if you wish, go home, open a shampagne, and have an awesome party (I wish I could join, I like beer). But not here, Anittas, this page is called Talk:Moldovan language. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  But I am "Moldovean" and I speak on "Moldoveneste". I belong here. --Anittas 05:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinamo Bucharest 0wnz Moskva (ro: [[Moscova]]) 

message: *Mark Williamson (node_ue) testify again that he likes to make inflamatory edits. He is alone in his position, he did not reached consensus, he reverted text without explanation.(Proof: [])
*We now may consider further actions to stop him, there are sufficient testimonies so far and he did not obey the rules of Wikipedia.
*However I don't agree with his edits and other as well, as seen above User:Bonaparte, User:Dpotop, User:Ronline, User:Alexander_007, User:Anittas, User:Danutz, User:Oleg_Alexandrov.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs 11:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bonaparte, let people themselves say what they agree with, the list above does not give justice to the issue. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a response to that WHO ELSE so I wanted one more time to emphasize who are the supporters. Else someone didn't know ...([])  Bonaparte  talk & contribs 17:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Again unilateral changes made by Node

message: I have attributed one of your contributions to Chris Sundita (his contrib was minor). I apologize. Nevertheless, good point. Romanian was written in cyrillic for a long time.Dpotop 14:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies to Node 

message: People, I would like to remind you to not make very big changes to this article. And do not make a lot of changes at once either. Please work step by step. Add something, wait a couple of days, see the reaction. Use the talk page a lot. And use long and clear edit summaries when you make changes. 
We have a fragile peace in here, anybody making really big changes risks causing a revert war. There is nowhere to rush. Please take it easy. Do not add really controversal things before stating those on the talk page. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are doing just fine. All what they added was first discussed here and approved to be added. Plus they have my full support and I agree with them. These changes are very good and NPOV.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs 17:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That you agree with them is no big consolation. :) Again, slow progress is the best progress. Thank you for your undertanding. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big request  

message: I would like to present you a map of the Moldava integrated by Michael the Brave around the year 1599. Of course all people from the state spoke romanian.
:I suggest that this map to be added at the section Hystory 1500-1660.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs 19:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Opposed. That belongs to History of Romania, not here. I understand your point, but the issue is already dealt with in the text, and this map will just inflate the passions. What is needed Bonaparte, is a map of variation of dialects across Republic of Moldova (yes, we do have variation). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that it is almost certainly a copyright vioulation, it presumably belongs nowhere in Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Moldova integrated with the other romanian regions, by 1599 

message: :Image:Romania 1600 02.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Romania 1600 02.gif