Talk:Bălți/Archive 1

message: moved from the page:
(...)
(add the photos of the city hall and the mayor offices building)
(mayor, the composition of the city council, its organization etc)
(...)
bogdan 17:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: a Crimean Tatar invasion led by the khan Meñli I Giray burned the place to the ground, before being defeated in a famous battle about 100 km north
: So, what's the name of that battle? --Illythr 16:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Battle of Lipnic, 1469 (1470 in some cronics, which considered 1 September rather than 1 January as the new day of the year). This is a village near the present day town of Ocnita. :Dc76 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tatar invasion

message: In 1818 the Russian tsar visited his newly acquired province, and during his passing through Bălţi he had a son born. Not willing to have a son born in a fair he immediately granted to Bălţi the town (city) status.
: Er, is there a source for that? On 1818, that was Alexander I of Russia, but only had two daughters. An illegitimate son, perhaps? --Illythr 17:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems he had a Polish mistress, Maria Naryshkina, who gave birth to a son in 1813. Probably that's the year, as in 1818, it was no longer a "new" province. (it was annexed in 1812) bogdan 18:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, this is kinda wishy-washy. Ok, I'll change the year... --Illythr 18:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Not son — it was his nephew, future czar Alexander II (born on the 17th of April, 1818). But he wasn’t born in the town, of course. :-) It was just that Alexander I received the news of his nephew’s birth, while staying in Bălţi (20th of April).--Imrek 15:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! But "had a nephew born" won't look as good. Hm, I'll clarify it a bit... --Illythr 17:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tsar's son

message: Er, shouldn't most of the info be in an article like Red Army atrocities? The History section is currently bigger than the rest of the article... --Illythr 19:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with that. The event has particular impact upon the city. It would be like not mentioning for Warsaw that during WWII there was a ghetto there. Red Army atrocities is in such a initial poor state that bringing this there now will automatically provike protests: this is by far not the worse atrocity the Red Army has commited. It can be added there in one sentance when that article would evolve. And also, while the treatment of POWs was an atrocity, the existance of the camp is not. It is simply a historical fact. One can logically ask: after a battle is over, where did those prisoners go? Here is one place they did. :Dc76 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Military action in 1944 and the Bălţi POW Camp

message: Looking over the last edits of Moldopodo, I can not stop but notice nice dedication, and good, positive energy. This article would certainly profit a lot from such editors. All we need is a little bit of organization. In principle, Moldopodo has judiciously re-ordered some sections and subsections. There are 3 things I would like to add:
* I moved the section Religion to a subsection of Population. It seems more logical that way
* I commented out empty sections and subsections (e.g. Sport, Media). when we will have content for these, one can easily reactivate them. 
* I don't think History of Bălţi and Memorials of Balti are worth separate articles. (I also mentioned this on Moldopodo's talk page). The reason is that, while Balti, certain important buildings, certain key historic events are notable and desearve articles of their own, I for once fail to see where History of Balti is notable as a unit per se. Memorials of Balti is even more non-notable. However, each of the three individual ones are notible! So, in the future, I will (or someone else can) create those articles (let's think about good names first, and let's look well inside wp about related stuff, so as to avoid content forking), and we can move the respective contents, leaving only links and max 1-2 sentences of description in the article. They would have to go to History section, as the title was also not good (I think actually, I am the author of that bad choice of title, so in a sense I also suggest to correct my own)
The rest seems ok to me.:Dc76\talk 21:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: This is not a bouleavrd. Officially it is a street. However, due to its position it is rather an esplanade (it is at the same time a promenade, a large pedestrian zone, but is an esplanade because cars can also drive there occasionally) which allows a long walk crossing the Vasile Alecsandri Square. In Wikipedia we trust,  Moldopodo User:Moldopodo\talk
I think, up to the intersection with Puskin street (west of it) it is strada, after that (east of it), it is bulevard. If you look on a map, be sure to nitice whether the text is left or right of that intersection :) Anyway, it is a detail. If if you find a very good reason to believe it is otherwise, please do change it. I believe I am correct, but I am not God to never be wrong. :Dc76\talk 18:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  strada Independenţei 

message: Thank you for editing help. I have just seen this message (after the one I left on your discussion page). It's a good idea to hide those sections out temporarily, as I did not know how to do this. 
I do appreciate your efforts in organizing the article. 
However, like I said earlier, (in a rather vivid manner, being shocked by your edits in terms of contents as referred to Romania all the time for an unknown reason to me) I do not appreciate adding personal political opinions, which most of your edits are as far as thier contents is concerned. Language and politics are very sensitive issues and for me, they have no place at Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, and not a forum for expression of personal thoughts, regrets, etc. It's all about stating facts as they are, remaining completely neutral. 
Sociology and history sections, for their ambiguous statements, do need exact references. For example your (Dc76) following edit: I would like to know the reference at a source that states that people from Soviet Union never felt in Bălţi as in their own home. Or another edit, where you (Dc76) keep adding to Moldavian (as referred to national of Moldova) Romanian. Did you see this on the Department of Statistics internet site?
Also, please state the sources for university demonstrations, who were they for? As for myself I remember demonstrations in favour of USSR and keeping the Lenin monument. 
Why did you (Dc76) delete the reference that people from all over USSR and Eastern Europe came and built and rebuilt the city after the Second World War? Most of the city infrastructure, event its new districts, all of this exists thanks to all those skillful people who came from all over the USSR. 
Also, references to work migration, mentality of apparatchiks ("directives from above" quote) appear quite strange or at least misplaced to me. For this you can edit Economy of Moldova (or write a separate article on Economy of Bălţi) or Demographics of Moldova articles on Wikipedia. It is true what you are saying (in this case), but either it has to be documented (like you very well did with reference to ziua.ro article) or deleted. Otherwise it looks like an expresion of your personal ideas and thoughts.
In Wikipedia we trust,  Moldopodo 12:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characterizations of Dc76's actions by Moldopodo 

message: Dear Moldoopdo, There were many bad-faith edits you did (politically motivated). I left the good and unquestionable ones. I am not opposing in principle other edits, but since it is clear they could be controversal, please list them here. We can discuss, and find a compromise. Just list the issues: 1,2,3, etc. If for some issue, it is too complicated to explain it in more than 2 sentences, in order not to waste our time, copy the current version of the sentence from the article, and the version you propose. Thank you,:Dc76\talk 21:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characterisation of Moldopodo's action by Dc76 

message: In order to explain yourself on these points, you may right your comments right below. If the point was already answered previously (in 27 points section), leave a reference (see point X in 27 points section).
=== Spam ===
Continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism. 
Adding by Dc76 an unknown anonymous, amateur and almost not visited site hosted for free in the second line after the official site of the city in the External Links section, whereas the most important city portals and sites are left after. The site presents the history of Bălţi in  Romanian (whereas the site is advertised as multilingual) in a avery similar wording as Dc76 puts on English Wikipedia, namely about history of Bălţi. Dc76 adertises this site on almost all languages of Wikipedia in article on Bălţi, in the External links section, often even omitting the official site.
Yes, almost all of the most visited officially registered sites and portals about Bălţi, if not all of them, are in Russian, which is just another sign how "wide spread" Moldavian is in Bălţi. Even on the official site of Bălţi there are more pages in Russian than in Moldavian.
=== Sneaky Vandalism and Intentional Misinformation ===
Sneaky vandalism 
Vandalism that is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of dates), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Some vandals even use edit summaries such as "rv vandalism" to mask their changes. 
==== Changing Street names ====
changing the name of the central street Independenţii into boulevard. 
==== Covering of Historic prevalence of Russian language in Bălţi ====
stating that younger Moldavians might or might no know Russian, whereas in Bălţi Russian is spoken and understood by everyone, even the official site of the City Administration is bilingual and actually has more pages in Russain than in Moldavian, 
==== Falsifying history of migrations inside the USSR ====
adding phrases like immigration from USSR was a move to establish a Russian speaking majority (another simple lie), whereas immigration was about sending competent specialists to rebuild a whole Republic of Moldova, all these communities spoke Russian amnog them, even if for themseves it was not their native language, 
==== Deleting the date of Local public elections ====
stating that last elections of local public administration took place in 2003, whereas they took place in 2007
==== Deleting Names of City Administration in Russian and leaving Moldavian language names ====
deleting names of City Administration in Russian and adding those in Moldavian, whereas even signs on Republican Ministeries in the capital of Modlova are written both in Russian and Moldavian (like the Ministry of Internal Affairs for example)
==== Diminishing the importance of the Ukrainian community in Bălţi and in the North of Moldova generally ====
specifically diminuishing the importance of the Ukrainian speaking community in Bălţi by adding phrases speak some Ukrainian
==== Claiming an unexistent "pro-Western" opposition ====
adding phrases that opposition in Bălţi is pro-Western, whereas, the governing Communist party is clearly Western and has made the most since Moldavian independence for EU and NATO integration. Besides the AMN bloc (which is part of the so called "opposition") is openly linked with Russian politicians.
==== False presentaion of the Bălţi history ====
speaking of Bălţi as a quiet city, omitting to state the most important demonstrations that were against one official language, but not forgetting to mention some minor demonstrations organized by National Front (extreme right of Moldavians considering themselves as Romanians) with a couple of students from Bălţi State University, and calling these reform orientated,
==== False statements on Bălţiers ====
stating that Soviet people never felt connection to the city of Bălţi (what source supports this statement?), whereas most of them were born here.
==== False statements on languages used in the MSSR ====
stating that schools and administration were in Russian during USSR, whereas both Russian and Moldavian were used officially everywhere in Moldavia, schools and universities including, official state acts, etc.; 
==== Deleting Russian names of district names of Bălţi ====
deleting names of districts in Bălţi in Russian, whereas even Moldavian speakers use them, and leaving only those in Moldavian;
==== False presentation of Moldavian ethnicity ====
* changing Moldavian nationality into Romanian nationality and adding Moldavian and Romanian nationalities together, 
==== False presentation of Moldavian language ====
* changing Moldavian language into Romanian language, 
==== Denying an obvious world known fact: Bălţi (Beltsy) Steppe ====
* deleting phrase that Bălţi is located in the Bălţi steppe (it is a world known fact, registred by the Encyclopædia Britannica),
=== Intentional Nonsense Edits ===  
====Personal undocumeted opinions ====
adding personal opinions as an official reference like 
* The railroad lines are not electric, and contain only a single lane between stations./ref/It is debatable whether this was a policy of the Soviet administration or simply carelessness./ref/ 
* Bălţi was the industrial center in the north of Moldavia (so which city is then in the north of Moldavia?),
==== Misplaced statements relevant for other articles ====
* adding phrases on economy of and demographics, as well as history of Moldova in general, whereas nothing pertinent to Bălţi proper,
* writing imaginary history of Bălţi, adding completely unrelated passages on Romanian hostory (so why not to write about Napolenic wars in Bălţi history then?),
==== Unverifiable data ====
* providing data of Romanian censuses, with no possible verification. If it's statistical data, it is not part of general culture obviously known by everybody. A link and a source is necessary.
* providing "historic facts" without any link or possible verification, 
==== Pure nonsense ====
* stating that Russian speaking politicans were always elected by Bălţi citizens because of their higher turnout rate (whatever that is supposed to mean), whereas Bălţi was always international city, and was always governed by Russian speaking persons simply because of their higher competence, acknowledged even by Moldavian speaking persons, who also vote for Russian, or Ukrainian speaking persons, 
==== Lack of linguistic knowledge ====
* badly translating from Moldavian (deletion of Bălţi translation as a swamp, check any online dictionnary), 
- additionally: I wonder, if Bălţi dates back to 1421, what was the language used then, may be Old Slavonic?  In that case the word comes from Slavic "boloto", pronounced as "balota",  which means swamp. The place was founded by Polish rulers (Slavic language), if I am not mistaking. Or may be Moldavian word 'baltă' has Russian origins? This way or the other, Moldavian baltă can be and is translated as swamp. Moldopodo 16:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blatant vandalism[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism] by Dc76 on the Bălţi article of English Wikipdia (written by Moldopodo)

message: ====Personal undocumeted opinions ====
adding personal opinions as an official reference like 
* The railroad lines are not electric, and contain only a single lane between stations./ref/It is debatable whether this was a policy of the Soviet administration or simply carelessness./ref/ 
* Bălţi was the industrial center in the north of Moldavia (so which city is then in the north of Moldavia?),
==== Misplaced statements relevant for other articles ====
* adding phrases on economy of and demographics, as well as history of Moldova in general, whereas nothing pertinent to Bălţi proper,
* writing imaginary history of Bălţi, adding completely unrelated passages on Romanian hostory (so why not to write about Napolenic wars in Bălţi history then?),
==== Unverifiable data ====
* providing data of Romanian censuses, with no possible verification. If it's statistical data, it is not part of general culture obviously known by everybody. A link and a source is necessary.
* providing "historic facts" without any link or possible verification, 
==== Pure nonsense ====
* stating that Russian speaking politicans were always elected by Bălţi citizens because of their higher turnout rate (whatever that is supposed to mean), whereas Bălţi was always international city, and was always governed by Russian speaking persons simply because of their higher competence, acknowledged even by Moldavian speaking persons, who also vote for Russian, or Ukrainian speaking persons, 
==== Lack of linguistic knowledge ====
* badly translating from Moldavian (deletion of Bălţi translation as a swamp, check any online dictionnary), 
- additionally: I wonder, if Bălţi dates back to 1421, what was the language used then, may be Old Slavonic?  In that case the word comes from Slavic "boloto", pronounced as "balota",  which means swamp. The place was founded by Polish rulers (Slavic language), if I am not mistaking. Or may be Moldavian word 'baltă' has Russian origins? This way or the other, Moldavian baltă can be and is translated as swamp. Moldopodo 16:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intentional Nonsense Edits 

message: * badly translating from Moldavian (deletion of Bălţi translation as a swamp, check any online dictionnary), 
- additionally: I wonder, if Bălţi dates back to 1421, what was the language used then, may be Old Slavonic?  In that case the word comes from Slavic "boloto", pronounced as "balota",  which means swamp. The place was founded by Polish rulers (Slavic language), if I am not mistaking. Or may be Moldavian word 'baltă' has Russian origins? This way or the other, Moldavian baltă can be and is translated as swamp. Moldopodo 16:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of linguistic knowledge 

message: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
By piling up all my comments at one place, detaching from actual phrases and statements to which they refer exactly, Dc76 makes them pointless, hence compromising in a deliberate attempt the integrity of Wikipedia. This was made at least twice (re-editing by Dc76). Just have a look at the Bălţi talk page and its history. Moldopodo 17:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moldopodo, you should know that personal attacks are forbiden in Wikipedia. There is a difference of opinion between you and DC76, but this is not allowing you to accuse DC76 of vandalism. He acted only to bring a version of article which, in his mind, is better.--MariusM 19:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with MariusM, firstly you may have started this article, but you don't own it. Secondly, it has explained to you several times about personally attacking other editors by calling them vandals.--Addhoc 22:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I changed the name of the section, because it contained words directly offending me personally, like calling me vandal. 
*It's a lie of yours, Dc76, and you may call it NPA, I have never called you vandal, but did qualify your edits as vandalism. Moldopodo 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: About sourses, what statements exactly you want me to sourse? I don't see the need to waste time (I have very little, sorry) and bring sourses for sentences that are no longer in the text of the article. Look at the 27 issues, read my versions of them, and add a  in the places you would prefer to have a citation. 
* If you do not have time to source your edits, why do you edit? Moldopodo 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: About which language(s) is official. Illythr's explanation from 27 october is very exact and correct. The main difference between my explanations and his, is that you are reading his in rm shrift, and mine in bull-red one. :) Perhaps, also because he has a good adility to explain, which is very true.:Dc76\talk 18:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moldopodo, Just for your notice, I consider that you have erased truthful information, and that you have added some false information, like  you addition that there are 4 official languages in Moldova. So, please, don't assume right away what is right and what is wrong. 
*It is not about what is right or wrong, what you like or what you don't, it is about reflecting what it is. Moldopodo 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be nice if you could answer them. I am not saying you are oblidged to. But then I would like it to go on the record that you deliberately chose not to answer them.:Dc76\talk 18:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think is Moldopodo is Mauco. --Moldorubotalk 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all - very unlikely, b/c Mauco was clearly a native or near-native speaker of English, and because Mauco did not have the same "popular culture" knowledge and Soviet regime-glorifying mentality that Moldopodo shows (at least to my view). Second, whatever factual non-sense he might occasionally bring (e.g. 4 state languages; diminished importance, etc), he is entitled to good faith and civil language from other WPedians. He had already toned down some of his rethoric after talk with Illythr. I suggest everyone to concentrate on the edits to the article, issue by issue, as we might be able to eliminate a dosen of them in one go.:Dc76\talk 18:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If he's not Mauco (though I doubt) he's Dikarka/MarkStreet et Co.--Moldorubotalk 19:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He knows enough about Balti (from some details of his edits) to be clearly identifible as living in the city. (At least to my understanding.) Also, he clearly does not know a lot of WP rules: e.g. he used my name on his page, which is the definition of being on the verge of PA. So, when he says he first saw WP 2 months ago, I believe him. Then, why on the earth would Mauco or Mark Street care about Balti? I believe Smirnov is rich to sponsor PR image of Transnistria, but I don't think him be that rich to get to a God forgotten place (unfortunately, with heavy hard, it is still true) like Balti. I suspect (but this is just a supposition, I might be totally wrong), Moldopodo is related to www.beltsy.md. Whatever that be, I have no problem with him. Some of his edits are my problem. :Dc76\talk 20:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by Dc76 on the Bălţi talk page (written by Moldopodo)