Misplaced Pages

User talk:Buffadren: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:20, 3 April 2007 editCatarcostica (talk | contribs)187 edits Transnistria← Previous edit Revision as of 07:20, 3 April 2007 edit undoCatarcostica (talk | contribs)187 edits TransnistriaNext edit →
Line 70: Line 70:
It's on my watchlist. After we'll have reached some sort of agreement about the intro I'll look at the other issues. ] 13:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC) It's on my watchlist. After we'll have reached some sort of agreement about the intro I'll look at the other issues. ] 13:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Hy! Nice work! Even I don't agree with some of your reverts is nice to know that somebody is really neutral is looking and revert our biases. Thanks !!! You keep me in line. ] 07:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Hy! Nice work! Even I don't agree with some of your reverts is nice to know that somebody really neutral is looking and revert our biases. Thanks !!! You keep me in line. ] 07:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:20, 3 April 2007

From Alaexis

Thanks for the support. I think we should use the same words in both Abkhazia and S. Ossetia articles. Alaexis 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what 'de-facto control' is. 'Control' is afaik not a legal term (like independence) so it cannot be 'de-jure' or 'de-facto'. It either exists or not. Regards. Alaexis 09:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It's clear from the intro that S. Ossetia is internationally recognised as part of Georgia. It's written there 2 times actually (on 3rd and 6th lines). Returning to your example there is such legal term as 'private property' but 'control' does not equal to 'ownership' neither legally nor by common sense. I think 'de-facto' is redundant and should be removed. Alaexis 11:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks there

Concensus is always the best thing, but don't be afraid to be bold when removing linkcruft. Nikola 18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Governments can not arrest?

Why you believe governments can not arrest, as you made an edit in Transnistria article? Of course, arrests are made by the police, but this issubordinated to the government. Transnistrian government did made some arrests, some of them explained in Human rights section, and not all are related with religious freedom.--MariusM 11:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

MariusM has a good point. At any rate, Dpotop later changed that section of article and managed to make it both more critical and more NPOV at the same time. Despite my misgivings, it is better now than the way that both you and MariusM (and myself) left it. - Mauco 13:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

From Alaexis 2

Hi! Why do you insist on those changes? Imo they are relatively minor and not worth the efforts to enforce them. There are much more needed things to do. Regards. Alaexis 16:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take care at 3RR.--MariusM 09:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind :) Alaexis 20:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo

Thanks yourself for being a calm and non-partisan contributor. As I said, my revert was mostly to keep the agreed version, but I think it's better now anyway. Davu.leon 12:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Re: River incident:
To keep the conversation coherent I replied in my talk page, as I will usually do when one is started there. - Best regards, Ev 14:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I copied the comment from my talk page to the article's talk page. - Best regards, Ev 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure!

All in a day's work. LittleOldMe 16:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey you need to understand that nobody looks at you since you don't have a clue about Transnistria.--Criterium 16:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Criterium is now on a 24 hour block. LittleOldMe 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know

There's no problem if you're User:MaGioZal (and I have to say that everything indicates at that direction). You did nothing wrong. :) --PaxEquilibrium 12:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

we are not the same, you have no evidence to support this claim. Buffadren 14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

United Nations semi Protection

Hi I notice you semi protected the United Nations page, Good move, you may have noticed were we discussing this on the talk page and were about to request it. How long to you intend to keep it like that. Buffa Buffadren 18:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The request for protection was made at WP:RPP, which is why I semi-protected the article. As the history notes, the semi-protection will expire 23:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC). -- tariqabjotu 18:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Doing in Pristina?

Not UNMIK, if that's what you're worried about. I'm researching a documentary about Kosovo. Slow but fascinating work. Davu.leon 00:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

UN Protected

You're welcome for the support. The article deserved it. oobug/contrib 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Uninformed edits

Why did you make this edit and include the same link twice? Just curious...--Domitius 18:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit is not mine and i question the decision to include it. I RV to what was agreed by others on the Talk Page .Buffadren 12:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Do You claim that 3 Chapters of the UN Charter alone are not guaranteeing borders of internationally recognized countries? --PaxEquilibrium 15:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

It's on my watchlist. After we'll have reached some sort of agreement about the intro I'll look at the other issues. Alaexis 13:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hy! Nice work! Even I don't agree with some of your reverts is nice to know that somebody really neutral is looking and revert our biases. Thanks !!! You keep me in line. Catarcostica 07:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)