User talk:William Mauco

The flag of Transnistria and one of its citizens.

Rybnitsa, a city in the north of Transnistria.

Tiraspol, the capital city of Transnistria, as seen from the Dniester river.

Future RfA

Thank you very much for your comments, William. I will certainly let you know. Biruitorul 19:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Cease-fire

From the block log:

• 05:55, December 9, 2006 Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "William Mauco (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (edit-warring with MariusM on several articles for several weeks)
• 05:55, December 9, 2006 Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "MariusM (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (edit-warring with William Mauco on several articles for several weeks)

—freak(talk) 06:09, Dec. 9, 2006 (UTC)

Farewell

Just saying farewell to yourself and TOSID I have decided to wash my hamds for these clowns, the Wiki negotiation process has decended into farce and frankly I don't want anything to do with it. Transnistria slips further away each day from Molddova and the page here does little to facilitate any mutual understandings and common ground reconciliation. I have tried to reach out and work with them but they have an agenda that mediation plays no part in. Stay well Mark us street 13:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark, there is no need to abandon Wikipedia. If you feel that the dispute resolution process is not going your way, you can always take it to a broader audience. See WP:DR. The issue of "nationalist trolls" is well known and lately, the Transnistria page has had more than its fair share. I have no problem with that at all, as long as they stick to reality and don't try to make Transnistria into something which it is not. - Mauco 10:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Vandalism

Apologies. I appear to have gotten the reversion backwards. It appears that he had vandalized your comments and you had fixed them, but I had mistaken your action for vandalism of comments which he had left on the page. Again, my apologies. --Moralis 01:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I was pretty much certain that you'd overlooked something, which was why I pointed it out to you. Anyway, the guy got blocked indefinitely. His behavior was extremely disruptive and aggressive. - Mauco 02:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reconfirm your strategy

Yes, it's definitely Bonaparte. I've never seen Greier use sockpuppets, although I have seen him evade his block via an open proxy once. Khoikhoi 05:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Banned users

Mauco, you again didn't understand Wikipedia policy or knowingly make wrong comments about it. A banned user can edit after the ban, evading the ban (like Bonny is doing sometimes). Greier was blocked after a fake 3RR report (he made 5 reverts in 10 days, didn't broke 3RR) and the block was extended to a ban, but this is an other discussion. Yes, I take responsability for reinstating Greier's edit done before the ban, is my right as a Wikipedia user. When you take out the paragraph you don't revert Greier, you revert me, and this is counting for 3RR. If you don't trust me, just try.--MariusM 17:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with you with this assessment, and I do believe that I have a pretty good grasp of how Wikipedia works. It is based on consensus and collaborative editing, something which Greier consistently failed to understand and which he is now perma-banned for. You are reinstoring his edits - again, without consensus or prior debate, just like he originally introduced them - and this is hardly acceptable. Not to me, but to Wikipedia, as per WP:BAN: "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users." - Mauco 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Take care at 3RR.--MariusM 17:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution?

Hi William, Regarding this long-running dispute, might I suggest you take the case to Dispute Resolution? It does not appear to me the case will be easily resolved. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but unfortunately it looks like it is something personal for this guy. He told me at one point that he spends more time in conversation with me than with his wife. I almost wanted to tell him to go get a life, but I guess that would've been rude. The dispute centers on a person who wants to edit about a place that he has never been to and which he doesn't understand the language of. So he bases his info on sources which are one sided (that is putting it mildly). These sources, in turn, are part of an information war that resolves around a 16 year old territorial conflict where one side is losing and has resorted to slamming all kinds of wild accusations against the other side as a result. The other side is certainly not perfect either, but this particular editor has been buying into one side's propaganda wholesale, lock, stock and barrel, without ever having sat foot in the area under dispute and without being able to read the main sources of information about the area. Eventually we'll probably have to do an RfC and see where that gets us if he keeps up that kind of attitude. Meanwhile, we'll just hang in there and see if we can't curb the worst excesses. - Mauco 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Crime in Moldova

Hi William, I see that you reintroduced the passage about the Moldovan police wanting to take the kidneys of dissidents. I though we had come to the conclusion not to include this due to the dubious source. I'm not sure though, it might have been some other text. TSO1D 02:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I recall the discussion. As usual in these cases, I don't think that a conclusion was ever reached. However, there are only two sources (one of which is listed) and they are both Transnistrian. So - yes - in the eyes of Moldova, they can be considered dubious due to the politicized nature of their mutual mudslinging. I will remove it now.

The same principle should operate in reverse. Frankly, all-Moldovan sources (as in: Only Moldovan sources) are dubious for crime accusations against Transnistria. - Mauco 10:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the text. I'm not saying that no Transnistrian sources should be used on Moldovan ones or vice versa, but they should be used with great caution and must be balanced by an opposing viewpoint. Of course ideally external sources would be best. In this case, however, its tone as set by the last sentence "It is claimed that police then threatened to plant narcotics on them and to remove their kidneys, to sell them the black organ market. While under arrest, they heard screams of torture from nearby cells." is simply too strange and sounds to me like just another example of a paranoid and unsubstantiated PMR description of anything related to Moldova. TSO1D 15:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But it is a two-way street, you know. On the other side of the street, we have Voronin saying that 13 factories are producing arms nonstop, day and night, and that PMR earns $2 billion a year from illegal weapons. I can source all of this, of course. But supposedly, the arms are being shipped by air. Because Transnistria is landlocked and its only two borders are with Moldova, on one side, and the European Union's 24-hour border monitoring mission on the other side. Oh, I forgot ... PMR has no operating airport and its airspace in controlled by Moldova. - Mauco 18:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusations

Please remove your libelous accusations from all relevant pages forthwith, Mauco. This has gone on long enough, and I will not tolerate further slimy attempts at defamation from you. --Pēteris Cedriņš 17:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know when the investigation has concluded, and I shall be glad to close the file; regardless of what the result shows. If you think that it is moving forward too slow, just ask admin to speed it up. - Mauco 18:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How do I do that -- which admin? Please suggest a course of action. At present, all I can see are ludicrous and libelous accusations by you. I want them removed, and so far no one has supported your accusations -- no one, Mauco. --Pēteris Cedriņš 19:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That is what you say. The record shows something else. User:Ghirlandajo first pointed out the very obvious and blatant sockpuppety, almost a year ago: 25 January 2006. After that, an admin also took the opinion that Anna Planeta was a sockpuppet.[1] This was on 8 October 2006. I am merely the third to join the chorus. I am as surprised as you are that this has dragged on. By now, the case should've been resolved and you should either have been cleared or sanctioned. - Mauco 03:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo is notorious for misbehavior and has been sanctioned more than once. The admin Khoikhoi was brought in by you, Mauco -- [[2]]. Do two and a half Wikipedians make a chorus in Tiraspol? --Pēteris Cedriņš 08:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Both of them commented on your alleged sockpuppetry and voting distorsions before I did. But I can see where you are going with this: anyone who shares this view, or agrees with me, does not count. This, however, is precisely why a request for an open and broader investigation is so important: It can involve wholly unrelated and independent third party admins, and its results will settle the issue according to Wikipedia norms. Feel free to pick a couple of admins at random and ask for this to move along. And PS: I am not based in Tiraspol, and neither are the two other users that you mention. None of us post snide comments secondguessing you, so please do not do the same for us. - Mauco 14:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You are based in a Tiraspol of the mind, methinks -- I never thought you were in the physical Tiraspol (that would require a physical existence, and not yours... of that I was always certain!). And you are wrong, sorry -- Ghirlandajo once commented upon Anna, not me. Khoikhoi was brought in by you. Agreement to a CheckUser is also a lie -- I thought that I agreed to an IP address check, and Anna said so explicitly. There is a long edit history, dear Mauco -- mine predates yours, and the fact is that even Anna, who has a paltry history, predates you. Unlike you, I have never been sanctioned or blocked, ever. Unlike you, I am a real person with a real name. The page we are talking about at the moment says the following: Cases on this page are debated for up to ten days, after which the decision considering the suspect has to be made. Your accusation has been up since 9 November... I think more than ten days have passed since 9 November, don't you? I would also point out that you are dragging in extraneous things -- the only people supporting your accusations here are... oops, is... is you. Period. --Pēteris Cedriņš 15:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Anna a real person? How can you prove this? That would probably make the issue of your breaking Wikipedia policy moot. - Mauco 15:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I can prove it very easily, as I have suggested for some time. I gave you my phone number and my street address. I won't repeat them, because I no longer trust you. However, you can Skype me from my blog. Find someone based in the physical Tiraspol, or who knows Romanian, and we can conference in various languages, including Romanian on her part, at the same time. I'm male, don't speak Romanian, and suspect that I am who I am -- I mean, the blog owner might complain, if it wasn't my blog? Any other ideas? I mean, she chose to be anonymous. You're accusing me, Mauco, sorry. I don't think I have to bend over backwards to prove my innocence -- but I will, because you keep this going. If you can't afford to call, I will call you -- if you have a cell, it will show the number. Or not so advanced in the Tiraspol of the mind? Or -- aren't you real?

I think you should drop this argument, y'know? I don't plan to contribute to Wikipedia, much less to Transnistria-related articles, in the near future. But I will defend my honor against a poseur like you, I promise. Your politics are one thing -- you are welcome to them. But you have impugned my personal honor and the honor of my friends. I do not take kindly to that, "Mauco." --Pēteris Cedriņš 15:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You are the one who shows up at my user talkpage with accusing me of "slimy attempts at defamation" and with veiled threats of legal action. Friend, I have done nothing more and nothing less than what Wikipedia is all about: If we see what appears to be an attempt to circumvent a vote by stuffing it with sockpuppets, we can and should get to the bottom of it. If you feel that I have done anything which is counter to accepted Wikipedia policies and guidelines, please open an RfC on the matter. Otherwise I must kindly ask you to refrain from accusations, threats and personal comments about me. If you read the Peteris Cedrins file you will see that it has no threats and personal comments, that it is strictly professional and deals with your edit pattern and the edit pattern of the psedonym which I and two other users - referenced above - believe that you created for sockpuppetry purposes. - Mauco 22:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Please assume good faith." Something you have not done, Mauco. Merry Christmas. --Pēteris Cedriņš 11:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Likewise. And if I can do anything to speed this up with an admin, please let me know. I agree with you that it would be good to get closure on your file. - Mauco 13:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Please allow me to quote my comment from the relevant page --

Pēter -- you forgot Wikimath! The project page says: Cases on this page are debated for up to ten days, after which the decision considering the suspect has to be made. I don't think ten days have gone by yet! I mean 9 November 2006 - 7 January 2007 couldn't possibly be ten days, could it?

I repeat, dear Mauco -- withdraw your libelous accusations, please. --Pēteris Cedriņš 07:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Mauco, please be reasonable. Peteris is not a problem-free editor and I often find him pushing Latvian nationalist POV into the articles. But he certainly is not anyone's sock or a sockmaster from what I can tell. Deal with his edits, not with Peteris himself. --Irpen 09:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Irpen. Though I don't agree with you, of course! [grin] --Pēteris Cedriņš 10:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Er really, why is it taking so long? No comments from anyone "in charge"... --Illythr 11:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Source, "Nachalo"

Hi Mauco. I am looking for a book called "Nachalo" which is incompletely cited in a work I'm reading and which I can't locate. The citation I do have reads: «Начало»: Сб. воспоминаний, Тирасполь, 2000. Have you ever heard of, or seen this book? Worldcat and even google turn up nothing. If you do know the complete citation, I would very much like to get a hold of the work. Thanks! jamason 17:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A collection of memories and recollections? That sounds like something which might have been vanity published. "The Home" rings a bell, but I can't quite place it. I will look in my notes and see what I can find. PMR is a small place. Even if self published, there has to be a record of it. - Mauco 02:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Found it! (...I think) I am told that I'll get a copy of this book in my mail in January. I'll keep you posted, Alan. - Mauco 16:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Either I had the title slightly wrong, or you are about to get the only copy this side of the Dniester. This one looks like an interesting read, too. "Начало" refers to the beginning of the "интердвижение" (small 'и') in Moldova, and from the snippets I got from Volkova's Горячее лето I think it should be a wealth of information (similar to Славы не искали if you've read that). Let me know! Best, jamason 22:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

user:MariusM's userpage

I've removed the content about you on this user's userpage. I believe you are correct that this content violated WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F, in that the content appeared to be an attack on you. In the future, I would ask that you not edit this user's userpage, as you two have a volatile history on Wikipedia, and such edits can only lead to the situation escalating. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you reverted my comment to Marius here, but please don't. I don't know if it was a mistake, or what was going on. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

---

First, Happy New Year!
I've started a survey on the inclusion in Tiraspol article of the images with the Soviet tank monument in Tiraspol and Transnistrian Government building in Tiraspol with statue of Lenin in front. The survey is here. Thank you, Dl.goe

D1.goe

Please refrain threatening other users like you did here. Wikipedia is a community were communication between participants and expressing opinion is free.--MariusM 21:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No such thing. I am merely being helpful by offering my good advice, and anyone is free to take it (or not). The last user who played along with MariusM on these games got blocked before the day was over. The page that they both "worked on" got full protection as a result.[3] My message to D1.goe, whom I know from lots of other pages, was to make sure that he did not fall into the same trap. We do not want him blocked, and we do not want any more pages locked. Oh, and just so we are clear that this is not an isolated case: MariusM leaves a trail of locked pages everywhere he goes ... Media in Transnistria is currently under full protection, after he started edit warring with me. And less than an hour ago, another admin was forced to put History of Transnistria under full protection. This happened 13 minutes after MariusM showed up and reverted some of my work. The admin restored some of it, then protected the page, and then wrote a message to the effect that these issues should be handled via Talk and not via revert warring. I don't mean to point fingers, but I do see a pattern, and there is nothing wrong with telling others to be careful in such a situation. - Mauco 00:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion took place at Transnistria Talk page. I moved it here.Dl.goe 10:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Protest towards Mauco's conduct

There were many discussions on Transnistria. A problem appared :as there was quite a war edit, I added appropriate templates before all discussed paragraphs. My edit summary was:"I added templates before all content under discussion. Please don't rv this edit as it contains many changes that deserve to be treated separtely.".
Mauco reverted under this edit summary:"rv POV hijack".
I think Mauco's revert not only didn't help stoping the waredit, but further increased it.I protested on Talk page , but Mauco never answered, although he edited Mauco reverts chapter.

Recently I got Be careful with the company you keep, DI.goe, because in the future, this will reflect badly on you. and DI.goe needs to watch his/her steps carefully if he wants to play along with this sort of behavior. on my talk page.Dl.goe

Assume good faith and you will see that this was merely helpful, friendly advice. If you assume bad faith, even a friendly comment can of course be misconstrued. D1.goe assumed bad faith and submitted this for an RfC because MariusM urged him to. The RfC was rejected, of course. He then tried another thing, which admins also deleted. Another piece of friendly advice: Move on and try to work on edits, rather than fixation on individuals. - Mauco 03:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Mauco deleted this comment, I add it back. Is not personal atack, is reporting an inappropiate way of dispute resolution tactics, without folowing the path of WP:DR. If Mauco believe that this is personal attack, he should use existing procedures of reporting personal attacks.--MariusM 03:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Is not only your case. Mauco tried to silence oposition begging an admin to block EvilAlex [4]. He was not successfull, Wikipedia is not Transnistria and silencing oposition is not so easy, but is worth to notice the kind of tactics Mauco is using. I suggest him to focus in bringing accurate and sourced info on this pages, not in blocking opponents.--MariusM 03:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

STRONG PROTEST: Personal attacks have no place on this talk page. See Talk Page Guidelines above. This talk page is for discussing the edits to the article, and not behavior of me or any other editor. If you feel that my friendly advice was not taken in the spirit in which I gave it, then anyone can do an RFC. MariusM urged[5] D1.goe to do this, and he opened one.[6] It was closed. End of story? No. He then attempted a second little "witchhunt" and that, too, was shut down by admins.[[7] By now posting it here, on an inappropriate page, the two users are in breach of WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK and WP:NPA. I feel that this is uncivil behavior and not at all helpful to a spirit of friendly, collaborative editing. What on earth has this to do with edits to the Transnistria-article? - Mauco 05:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Indeed, I've started a RfC: I didn't know well how to make a RfC, and I created an article named intimidating warnings~~~~~; I soon realised my mistake and I asked for help [8]. The article was deleted, and I've started an RfC the correct way. At the top, I've posted a warning: This request has not met the proper requirements: Only one user tried to resolve the problem.[9]. The RfC was deleted after 24 hours, because it didn't meet this requirement.

The reason I've started a RfC without first have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried to resolve the problem is that I didn't know how to answer to threats, and I inferred such an attempt would further increase the conflict. Indeed, I am now accused of uncivil behavior.Dl.goe 10:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

File:Mediafax15jan07.gif

The story on MediaFax which disappeared. (Original URL)

File:Googlenews15jan07.gif

How the article was displayed on Google News on 15 Jan '07 (my news startpage is personalized for Moldova, in English)

File:Googlenews15jan07-detail.gif

On 15 Jan '07, it was the top story in Google News when searching articles with 'Transnistria' as keyword

File:Googlenews15jan07-detailsearch.gif

The article also came up in listings of all Moldova articles on 15 Jan 07, but less than 4 hours after it had been published, MediaFax removed it. It stayed in the Google News index, but the link to it was broken due to the article no longer being present on www.mediafax.ro

Neo-Stalinism

Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! :-)

Although I'd be careful with such statements. Practice shows that Godwin's Law can be applied to Stalinism as well...Comrade. ;-) --Illythr 00:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I found this story via Google News. It was posted in English early on January 15, 2007, on the Mediafax website. Mediafax, for those who don't know, is (from their plug) "Romania’s largest multimedia news agency, providing news, photos, analysis, press monitoring as well as audio and video content to thousands of media and corporate customers. We write some 500 news stories every day, accessed by 90% of Romania’s mainstream media, with 200 reporters working in Bucharest and more than 40 locations across Romania."[10]

What caught my eye was that the article reported the event from PMR's point of view, and quoted the news from Tiraspol Times on the same story.[11] This is not normal in the Romanian press. The norm is that news unfavorable to Moldova in relation to Transnistria is either a) suppressed and just not reported, or else b) spun around, to make Transnistria become the bad guy. Regardless of the actual facts in the case.

This story being different, it was news and I saved a screenshot. The original link to the article was this now-dead URL.

I wanted to refer to it on the Wikipedia talk page which already had an ongoing discussion of the event in relation to the border issues edit for the main Transnistria article. However, when I clicked on the link a few hours later that same day, it was gone. It was not replaced with a rewrite to a more pro-Moldovan slant either. Is that neo-Stalinism when webpages all of a sudden disappear?

It was still available on Google News. But whenever I clicked on the link from Google, it ended up with a database error (that of an entry not found because the article had been removed). Click on the images to see them in detail. - Mauco 23:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

When you click on the last two screenshots to enlarge, you can see that even after the story was removed from Mediafax's website, Google News still kept traces of the original Mediafax article as part of the search descriptions / summaries. - Mauco 23:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And Google News STILL has the story. As of right now, it ranks #2 when you search for "Igor Smirnov". Of course, link still doesn't work. It is gone for good. - Mauco 23:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Their site has a kinda messed up search system (requires to login). The mishap is rather amusing, I agree. --Illythr 00:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There could also be a more innocent explanation. Maybe they make free articles available only during the first hour, and after that, users have to pay and/or login. Some sites are like that (although they usually archive the story after a week or so, and not within the first couple of hours). Usually when that happens, the link does not just go dead. It displays an explanation: Login, buy Premium content, whatever. Is this the case here? I honestly don't know what to think. It would be nice if there was an innocent explanation for this. It wouldn't fit with the conspiracy theorities that we are all so fond of when it comes to Transnistria-related articles. But it would be satisfying to at least find out what really happened. - Mauco 00:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Tighina

You made these changes [12].

• Is not Transnistria a breakaway region? I am sure, not the word breakaway is your problem, Moldova also cannot be, so I guess it's region. What is your alternative? The word Moldova should be mentioned in the definition of the city, but ok, there are other ways to put it. What do you suggest?

Just a blue link: Transnistria. The Tighina article is not the place to fight about the status of Transnistria. The same policy is used on dozens of stubs and other article.

To both Moldova and Transnistria. Then agree.

• Population: 17,000 people is still a big number. It seems to you so small for a reason: ethnic cleansing, and I think that ought to be mentioned in the article of the city as well. Just compare with the population of the city from the Soviet time. I don't have any reference for ethnic composition now, can you give the exact numbers and sourse (directly into the article), please. :Dc76 20:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the figure I have is from 1989. There was no "ethnic cleansing" at that time. I also would look VERY closely at any source which suggests a planned campaign of ethnic cleansing since then. - Mauco 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone critical of the separatist autorities was forced to leave the city, if only by intimidation and fear, but also there were persoanlly directed violent attacks and threats. Regarding the article Tighina, when you get your hands on ethnic data for census years, please put that in the article. I will do the same, although not too soon. :Dc76 22:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well. The number of refugees that I have seen is 80,000. Most of them were Russians and Ukrainains. Most of them went to Ukraine, although some went to Moldova and some went to Russia. I do not agree that "Everyone critical of the separatist autorities was forced to leave the city" not even by intimidation and fear. The war forced almost everyone to leave. Both those who supported unification and those who supported PMR independence. The fear was generalized, and not just in the pro-Moldovan population. It was due to the war, and not due to a planned campaign of ethnic cleansing. Many Russian speakers left Chisinau, however, out of fear or intimidation. The current Minister of Foreign Affairs of PMR was one of them. - Mauco 22:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Chisinau is full of former refugies from Transnistria, thousands and thousands. These are only those who did not have relatives in other localities of Moldova to go to, so they went to Chisinau to ask for housing. For example, over 80% of Tiraspol University faculty and student body moved to Chisinau, where the university was re-established and still exists. This happened not only during the war, but also for about a year after. During the war there were temporary displaced people, but the Russians from Tighina went back at the end of the war, while very few of Moldavians did. Please, there is no pro-Moldovan population, there is Moldovan population! It was due to the war only in part. The cleansing was based on political, not ethnical basis: a Moldovan who agreed to support (at least tacitly) PMR and never speak Romanian in public could stay; while a Russian who was anti-communist and wished to speak Romanian as well - had to go. Those who left Chisinau, did so much later (1996-99), and went not to Transnistria, but to Russia. As for the "minister of foreign affairs" of "PMR" - he was completely different from ordinary population. His case shows that those who are leaders now in Transnistria were communist bosses in Chisinau before 1989, and found a heaven in Transnistria. They will hang to power as Hitler did, no matter how much hardship they cause for ordinary people, b/c it's survival to them. Those individuals (max. 200) know they have blood on their hands, and they know that noone on earth can absolve of that.:Dc76 23:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather black and white picture, you know. As much as I blame the MPF and Snegur for the war, I don't believe that all of them have blood on their hands. Snegur does, though. --Illythr 23:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the PMR Minister of Foreign Affairs (Litskai) was not a Communist boss either. I think that Dc76 is misinformed. He was just a school teacher. When he took refuge in Tiraspol, he started to work as a self-taught journalist. Then he worked his way up from there. The girl he married was someone he met there while he worked in the press office during the 1992 war. - Mauco 00:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "thousands and thousands" of refugees: The latest United Nations report on this subject puts the IDP figure at 1,000. It was written by Oazu Nantoi. The total number of refugees from the war is said to be 100,000 (other sources). What this tells you is that the vast majority did not go to Chisinau, but to Ukraine and elsewhere. - Mauco 00:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have sources for both 80,000 and 100,000 refugees. I guess no one knows for sure. I am certain that they didn't have a census officer counting them at the border as they left. Regardless of the figure, it overwhelms the 1,000 from Transnistria which Nantoi lists as being in Chisinau. And if you know anything about Nantoi, then you know that he never reports anything which is remotely favorable to Transnistria. - Mauco 00:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Re : Heaven of Transnistria

What has happened is that the editor has userfied a copy of the deleted page. In this situation the article in userspace cannot be deleted outright because AfDs does not cover it; they have to be MfD-ed seperately. If you believe that the editor is merely placing a copy and has no intention of improving it or/and other encyclopaedic purposes, go ahead and nominate it for Miscally for Deletion. - Mailer Diablo 14:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. This is now done.[13] The history log of the page shows not a single edit since he placed the copy. It would be quite easy to assume that this was done in spite, simply because he was angry with the results of the AFD. - Mauco 14:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

Hi, were did this (or simmilar) stuff go from the article Transnistria?

At the end of the War of Transnistria, three buffer zones were created between the two sides: Moldovan central government, and Transnistrian separatist autorities. The created Joint Control Commission has overriding powers in these areas, which were used to deter the escalation of local armed incidents into a re-emerging conflict, as late as January 2007 in the Dubăsari-Cocieri area, when clashes between Moldovan and Transnistrian forces occured, without casualities, or in 2006 around Varniţa. The administration of the localities within these buffer zones are subordinated to one of the two sides:

• the city of Tighina (Bender), and the surounding villages of Gîsca, Protiagailovca, Chiţcani, Mereneşti, Zagornoe, Cremenciug are controlled by the Transnistrian autorities, but are claimed by the central government to be outside the region which it agrees to hand autonomy to. The nearby villages of Varniţa, a suburb of Tighina, and Copanca, south of Tighina remain under control of the Republic of Moldova, but are claimed by the separatist autorities. This zone is situated on the right bank of the river Dniester, opposite Tiraspol, the capital city of Transnistria
• the villages of Coşniţa, Pîrîta, Pohrebea, and Doroţcaia form a bridgehead controlled by Moldovan government on the left bank of Dniester, south of the sity of Dubăsari
• the villages of Cocieri, Molovata Nouă, Roghi, Vasilievca form a similar pocket north of Dubăsari. The village of Corjova, birthplace of Moldovan president Vladimir Voronin, is divided between Moldovan and Transnistrian areas of control.

The villages of Cocieri and Doroţcaia own land, and the village of Vasilievca is situated east of the Tiraspol-Dubăsari-Rîbniţa road that interconnects Transnistria. As Transnistrian autorities try to block the crossing of the road by peasants from these villages going to their farmland, tense situations have frequently surfaced, such as in 2005, when Transnistrian forces entered Vasilievca, but withdrew after a few days.

I think that this is crucial information that has to be present in the article. Of course, copy-editting is welcome. Please note that I have erased the stuff that says that the two northern pockets consist of villages that rebelled in 1992 against the separatist autorities, and other stuff that you would object I reformulated the best (to fit you) I can, maybe too much. :Dc76 02:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This of your changes is were I disagree with you, and I think all other editors do. They (including me) make distinction between the territory and the regime. When one criticises the regime, and you ascribe by ommision that critics to the whole population of the territory, then it is not fair. About the second thing, if you cite Mark Almond as an Oxford scholar, then you have to give reference to an article in a peer-reviewed journal. If you give reference to a newpaper article, than that is him as a politician or member of the civil society. One person can have one reputation in one situation and different in another. There were physicists and mathematicians (Starck, Teichmuller, etc) who supported nazis, and their works to this day are cited and noone disregards that just because they were nazis. On the other hand their pro-nazi discorse noone endorces. Do you understand the problem with ascribing different quality to a person? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dc76 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC). :That is correct. :Dc76 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mauco, I answered you on my talk page.:Dc76 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

Please see Talk:Transnistria#Marius/Mauco and User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington#Block Logic for information about your's and Marcus' blocks and why I've taken this decision. --Robdurbar 13:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Defend your edits

I am Pernambuco, I have defended your intro compromise with Vecrumbas on Transnistria, but where are you, I saw that you were back two days ago, but I am tired of doing this for you and I dont care about Transnistria, not anymore, there is a man there who calls me a liar ("MArius-M") and even reported me, he wanted to get me blocked, so if you want to fight the battle then come back on wiki-pedia and do it yourself Pernambuco 16:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Appreciate your work. I check in from time to time but I am still on a sort of wikibreak. Mauco 04:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

you should check in more, I just reverted back to restore some excellent edits that you had made, and this man Marius-M deleted them, but he is an edit warrior with a long series of bans, and I dont want to start to fight with him, it is best that you defend your own edits, I am warning you, I dont want to do it for you Pernambuco 15:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo

You've put a photo in Media in Transnistria article. As I am a doubting Thomas, may I ask you: how do you know this photo was taken in a street in Tiraspol, and not somewhere else (in Dublin for example)?--MariusM 20:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Check the other newspapers in that photo. They are all from Transnistria. - Mauco 23:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Catarcostica

Blocked. Khoikhoi 01:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Human rights

I've added information about Transnistrian authorities destroying and profaning a cemetery in Tighina.

You reverted "I don't mean to sound crass, but: do dead people have human rights? Not sure... however, prob'ly best to talk it over first (in talk)".

Are you saying that profaning a cemetery is not violating human rights? How would you feel if somebody would profane your ancestor's graves?Dl.goe 05:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would feel very angry. However, emotional outbursts are uncalled for in an encyclopedia. The issue is very simple: To what extent are constitutional rights and obligations applied after death? Stick to a technical/legal answer, and then make the edits accordingly. - Mauco 03:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you removed the content about Dragalina cemetery in Tiraspol. You provided a link to a Russian newspaper. Unfortunately I don't understand Russian and I cannot access the article in English or Romanian. Please provide an english version of the article, or, at least tell me what is it about.Dl.goe 07:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

independence

I understand the difference between the Moldavian SSR, THE USSR and how the USSR is structured to begin with, in practice and principal. I just thought you might as well list the USSR since 1, Transnistria succeeded from Moldavia without permission and 2, USSR did not recognize it becoming a Soviet Socialist Republic or even remaining in the USSR SO Transnistria effectively left the USSR since its aim was independence and that was in conflict with the Russians/Soviets yet they maintain it. You should probally list its independence as coming from the USSR and Moldavian SSR and that Transnistria is the succesor state to the rogue PMSSR. What do you know about whats stated on the President of Transnistria page in terms of past leaders? - Vital Component 4:40am 3/13/07

Template:Transnistrian elections

Hi. I have removed the municipal elections from the aforementioned templates as it is part of a set that covers national level elections only. I have created a new template for the local elections at Template:Transnistrian local elections. I would have added it to the Elections in Transnistria section of the Politics page, but is it currently locked! Number 57 09:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I was not aware of this set. But the referenda and election dates are at least complete now. - Mauco 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Urîtu

Thanks for your concerns about my credibility, you should care more about your own credibility as you rely mainly on discredited Tiraspol Times. You didn't prove anything you claim about Urîtu, you just repeated the accusations of Transnistrian propaganda against him. BTW the google translation link you gave is not working (and anyhow, are you really believeing that tiras.ru is a reliable source?). You are free to believe Urîtu is a bad guy (and ugly, too!), but this is not a reason not to mention his arrest in 19 March.--MariusM 08:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was in a wikibreak for more than one month, I hope you enjoyed it. There is life outside Wikipedia, I discovered, I want to share this finding with you.--MariusM 08:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The character got himself turned back (not arrested) on purpose. It was a media stunt. The press release was written in advance. What are we, babes in the woods here? - Mauco 14:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The caracter has a residence visa in Transnistria. It should be his right to enter in Transnistria anytime he want, independently of his political views. Deporting people which don't support separatism is not a sign of democracy (there are other such cases - like Alexandr Leşco, who was deported after his release from prison, while he should have the right to stay in Transnistria as his prison sentence was over).--MariusM 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, he's been visiting Transnistria often in recent years. Not just for protests and screaming matches. Even given lectures there. Personally, I choose to just not believe a word he says anymore. Even some of the people he defends call him a sick liar. Give me independent confirmations of these claims, and we can start taking him seriously. - Mauco 17:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

I'm not here to argue, but if you want to seperate from Moldova, why do you call your country for Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica? Why don't you get rid of the Moldavskaia part? --Thus Spake Anittas 15:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I am not from Transnistria so it is not "my" country. User:Helen28 is, but she is not very active in Wikipedia. - Mauco 15:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you seem to claim to know a lot about the region, so perhaps you could still answer the question. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's an official answer. But they consider themselves the successor state to the MASSR (which also had Tiraspol as capital). It had "Moldavian" in its name for aggressive, irredentist reasons: Established as a beachhead for the Soviet Union to grab Bessarabia. The name is a historical leftover from that 1924-1940. Compare it to the hammer and sickle, the Lenin statues, and the other stuff which they have, but which clashes with today's reality. - Mauco 21:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for disruption

CheckUser shows you to be identical to User:Pernambuco. This is in addition to your other two sockpuppets User:Ştefan44 and User:Kertu3. Carrying on two accounts simultaneously for the purpose of edit warring and abuse, especially to this extent, and using open proxies, is very serious. I have blocked you for 2 months, and will extend that to infinite if there's a whiff of you attempting to evade the block, or of the problem again when you come back. Dmcdevit·t 23:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC) This comment was restored after an attempt of partial deletion.

This sort of block serious. Can you email me the results of checkuser, if possible? The Transnistria page is quite an involved process, and other folks - not related to me - have been blocked there as well. It is turning into another Kosovo (as of last year) and it would be good for everyone to have a cooling off period. - Mauco 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Are Pernambuco and Stefan44 really your sockpuppets? A yes or no, please. --Illythr 01:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser does not lie. Mauco, never ever do it. This is my very strong advice. --Irpen 01:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

An unregistered user has mass-nominated images uploaded by you for speedy deletion as supposed copyright violation. I have reverted most of them, since the websites do in fact release their contents under free licenses. I have however speedily deleted four of them as screenshots of unfree web content, incorrectly marked as {{PD-self}}:

• Image:Mediafax15jan07.gif ("all rights reserved" online newspaper article);
• Image:Googlenews15jan07.gif
• Image:Googlenews15jan07-detail.gif
• Image:Googlenews15jan07-detailsearch.gif (Google search screenshots).

Mike Rosoft 21:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Aaaa. ha-ha-ha-ha..

Template:Sockpuppeteerproven
EvilAlex 20:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)