User talk:Maxmibsb

Welcome!

Hello, Maxmibsb! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. If you have questions, please contact me or ask at the Arbitration Committee Clerks Noticeboard. Mellk (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad I can be of assistance - since you're here, I'd like to request that you act as a neutral arbiter on a topic that a certain user keeps editing that goes against historical consensus and against the grain Maxmibsb (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure if I am the best candidate for this role. If you find that you cannot come to an agreement on the talk page, it is worth looking at dispute resolution. For example, if it is just a disagreement between two parties, then you can request a third opinion. My suggestion would be to refrain from making any kind of personal attacks, even if you believe that you are right, as this often leads to blocks. Mellk (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I will look to ask for mediation should the issue persist. This particular individual is difficult to reconcile and find a compromise with given that they have a pretty long history of distorting pages towards a russian centric / soviet viewpoint (see their bans for instance). Me pointing this out should not be considered an attack, as this was not meant, rather I wish to draw the individual's attention towards the fact that they are going against consensus and removing difficult to dispute facts that may jeopardize the neutrality of an already contentious article. I don't personally agree with much of the page (even though I belong to the group in question unlike this individual), but that doesn't give me an excuse to prop up my agenda on it. Maxmibsb (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You can point this out in the correct venue, but suggesting that someone might be getting paid for their editing very much counts as an aspersion. Mellk (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

What would that venue be? And the funding comment was irony more than anything but I get your point Maxmibsb (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

To report something that needs urgent administrative action, you can create a report at WP:ANI. But you should note that your own conduct will also be examined. It is best to try to discuss issues with behavior first but I do not see much discussion yet. Mellk (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the topic at hand is the article, so let's try to stick to that first. The article should be judged by the content within more than by the people editing it. As for the ethics of each contributor, that is a separate topic in itself. I'm just interested in finding as neutral, and historically accurate a compromise as possible (which I have attempted to do given I acknowledged and dropped a point of mine on dual identity even though it is a valid point, on grounds that my source wasn't the best). I have a Bachelor's in history for a reason. Maxmibsb (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not see a recent discussion at Talk:Moldovans. But I can give my input there once a new discussion has been started and the arguments have been laid. Mellk (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've done some changes in the article, including some removals of what you added. You can read my edit summaries for the explanation, for example here is why I removed the note [1], it fails at its objective of not separating between Moldovans and Romanians due to it not being used for other countries with large Moldovan populations, and if it was used, it'd bloat the template with information already stated anyway at the start of the article. I've tried to intervene neutrally, please let me know if there's any issue you still perceive. Also, the comments you left at the other user's talk page are pretty inflammatory, a continuation of these could lead to a block. Super Ψ Dro 12:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, I've had a look at some of the changes, and while I appreciate you trying to help, I believe some of the things you chose to include drive home the wrong point. I also think that certain biases purporting to your being from Romania show, which take away from the neutrality of the article, which I will get into later.

  For starters, very few of us call the Romanian language "Moldovan". It might be true over in occupied Pridnistrovie, and for the older folks, or non-integrated russian speakers, but in Moldova proper, fewer and fewer people use the term, even in Balti and UTA Gagauzia. I wish to remove that line because it looks like it was written by somebody who still thinks everyone in Moldova is sovietized. I strongly feel like that line has nothing to do there, and will endeavor to see it removed

  Secondly, the bit about reuniting with Romania is unsourced and frankly not that relevant to the article. I get that it's popular in Romania, and don't get me wrong, I am personally for it (after Romania sorts out its impotent political establishment (Moldova too :)) and fixes its abysmal deficit, and after a referendum is held). Opinions are highly split on this, with 50% for reuniting on a good day, and 40% on a bad one. What is relevant, which I included, is say the 2024 census featuring the option to identify with two ethnicities, because it is becoming increasingly common for people to embrace a dual Romanian-Moldovan identity. Of course some people like myself and my ancestors, or other people with higher education will identify as ethnically Romanian (but also indicate Moldovan/Bessarabian nationality/origins). Some people in Romania like to gatekeep the Romanian label and not consider us part of the family, assuming we are all ultranationalist statalists, which is the kind of generalization uneducated people in Western Europe might also make when thinking all Romanians are gypsies/roma/thieves, etc.

  Thirdly, the "Romance ethnic group" bit is completely bogus. "Romance" is not an ancestral group, but a linguistic one, and frankly Romanians/Moldovans have way more in common with the South Slavs and Hungarians than with the other romance speaking countries. It feels like a bogus label that makes no sense, no Moldovan would ever call themselves "Romance" for crying out loud. Romanian-speaking actually shows a connection to Romania and its language. I also insist on that label being taken down, it sounds ridiculous. The article had "Romanian-speaking" for months before some anonymous IP address screwed it over.

  Hope this answers your questions. Just as a final comment, we Moldovans hate being told what we are, and that extends to our Romanian kindred too. So to you and all fellow Romanians from Romania, avoid talking in absolutes.

Maxmibsb (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's that important to keep the mention of the "Moldovan language", obviously I have never been in Moldova so I don't have a completely certain glimpse on society there, but it really seems to be dead from public life other than the cases you mentioned. Personally I don't mind if it's removed.

I included the part about unification with Romania because I wanted to highlight that while self-identification firstly as Romanian is uncommon in Moldovan censuses so far, it does not mean that less than 10% of Moldovans have some kind of identification with Romania. You seemed to want to achieve something similar, by adding "self-identified" next to Moldovans when talking about the 2014 census. Maybe you could rewrite my text in a way you prefer. The lead is not supposed to be sourced by the way, it is supposed to be a summary of information already in the rest of the article (which does need sources). Actually as far as I know the 2024 census results on ethnicity aren't out yet but if they are, totally feel free to include this information, it'll be relevant for the article specially if it allowed more than one ethnicity as an answer, which I didn't know.

Regarding "Romance", personally I am for consistency and pretty much all other Romance-speaking ethnic groups have this word in their opening sentence. Slavic ethnic groups, for example, also feature the collective group they belong to in the first sentence. I am aware these aren't equal cases however, there is hardly a unitary Romance group. Maybe we could use "Romance-speaking". Though I also don't care that much if it's removed.

Frankly I don't mind you altering my changes, but there should be discussion attempts at the talk page next time. You could've argued your points to the other user there. Thanks for the constructive discussion here. Super Ψ Dro 17:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Think I found a good middle ground :). I just removed the adjective and left it as "ethnic group native to R.MD". And I did remove the "moldovan" language bit since you said you didn't mind. Let me know what you think. And I'd also encourage you to visit Moldova one day, I like to describe it as what Wallachia and Romanian Moldova would have looked like if they were annexed into the USSR :). A day trip should suffice. Visiting the PMR might be fun as well, but I wouldn't recommend telling them you're Romanian as some people there really might take it the wrong way if you know what I mean :). If you don't want any hassle at customs take the ferry from Molovata Noua :) Bring your Romanian Buletin to get into R.MD, and your passport for PMR. Maxmibsb (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy with the outcome. I've removed the parts of disputed relevance and did a couple other minor changes. I haven't even spent enough time in Romania, but yes, I'd like to visit Moldova one day, including Transnistria, a region very overlooked and depreciated among my countrymen. I read your media very often and have an interest in your country, I've written several articles on Moldova. I hope that we will be one country again, and I believe that we will. This was a good interaction, have a nice day :) Super Ψ Dro 18:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)