Talk:Transnistria

Archives
/archive 1 /archive 2 /archive 3 /archive 4 /archive 5 /archive 6 /archive 7 /archive 8 /archive 9 /archive 10 /archive 11 /archive 12 /archive 13

New Changes

can somebody explain why is alaexis keep undo my posting on the mainpage? if there is no link about investigative stories about Transnistria, why was my post deleted? I understand that a russian doesen't want critical posts about transdniester but this wkipedia section is for international use - is not even the russian version of wikipedia.

You should've noted that not only I have reverted your contributions. They are highly pov imo, besides in wikipedia you don't just put links in the article and say that all the interesting info is there. Alaexis 19:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

define "pov imo" . they are journalistic articles. so, please be so kind and tell me where to post links to an interesting serie of investigative stories on transdnniester. done on the field by journalists living in the area. could you give me similar examples to those articles, russian boy? or could you give me an example of a similar investigation into transdniester?

It isnt nice to call someone "Russian boy", the editor has a name, you can use that if you want to address him directly, but he is right, you should read about wiki-pedias rules for links, they are here: WP:EL Pernambuco 20:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks in future. If these links deserve to be put in the article (which I doubt) they should go to the 'External Links: Romanian Sources' section. Regards. Alaexis 21:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulation Mauco

Please join me on congratulation to Mauco for his new article on http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/670 Viva Highland!!! Catarcostica 06:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark Almond on Weapons

In his article via link 54 it says "...Despite admitting that Iraqi WMD in 2003 were an invention of febrile conspiracy theorists in the US government and their willing propagandists,". Who admitted to this, I don't recall that happening and it doesn't say in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathanpops (talk • contribs) 11:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Recognition

I believe that if a sovereign country exists and functions independently and possesses all the modern virtues of a state,it is not right to just say that such a country does not exist. In the time before the middle ages, a country would be proclaimed and be sovereign and it would not need any "recognition" by another country, so Transnistria is in fact a sovereign, independent nation, only not recognised because of politics. I also believe that if a region or a people of a region wish to become independent,then independence is a fundamental right of their and no one can surpress this in any way. New Babylon 17:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In the time before the middle ages the notion of sovereignty did not exist. Sovereignty, as it exists today, is a modern concept. Dpotop 13:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria is not sovereign. The PMR has de facto control. That's what it is. There is no such thing as "de facto sovereign." And please explain to me how the PMR is an expression of the people of the region when the authorities record who voted and for whom and the authority in place is supported by the presence of Russian troops. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the middle ages they used to burn people for being witches and claim countries by going to live there and building castles and telling everyone else to get lost... things have moved on a bit since then, in most parts of the world at least. I do agree though that if a country and its people want to be independent, and are running their system independently, then what other countries think shouldn't really matter too much. The only thing is that lots of people have doubts about the people controlling Transnistria, their motives, and how many people are just toeing the line for fear of gaining difavour from their superiors, govererners and police etc. In out modern world of mass media, air travel and the Global Community a lot of the more developed countries like to care (some may say, stick their noses in) about the affairs of other, lesser developed countries. Jonathanpops 09:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW: nobody has doubts about who's ruling Transnistria. It's Russia. But Russia is a great country, and few governments dare criticize it on such a minor subject as Transnistria. Dpotop 13:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as Russian troops continue their presence, nothing in Transnistria can be objectively represented as the will of the people. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Come on, get real. There is a multilateral peacekeeping force. It is not just Russian. Troops are also supplied by Moldova, Transnistria and Ukraine. And the OSCE participates in the management of this peacekeeping force. If Moldova hadn't attacked with MIGs, carpet bombing residential neighborhoods, none of this would have been necessary and the international troops would most likely have left a long time ago. - Mauco 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Vecrumba's probably referring to the 14th army and Socor's articles. I understand that the MiGs were used only about once or twice with minimal results (bombs missed and fell into the Dniester). --Illythr 18:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mauco, you misread my intent. As long as Russian troops remain... is exactly what I meant. I was not referring to any aspect of multilateralism. I meant Russian troops (and all related Russian presence) in particular. And you "get real" about troops otherwise leaving "a long time ago."  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you perhaps elaborate how exactly do the ~1500 Russian troops strangle the free will of the people? A link to the corresponding Socor's (I'd wager) article will do. --Illythr 11:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been itching to ask the same thing for a while, but I restrained myself. Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use this page as a discussion forum. Vecrumba is from the Baltics where, for better or worse, they here a very special phobia involving Russians in uniform. His comments are par for the course for Baltic political discourse, but they are rarely shared with the same level of zeal by non-Balts. - Mauco 12:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro change

I think I haven't added anything new with this changes. Does anyone disagree that Transnistria is a republic? If it's not DFI it must be de-facto part of some other country and it has to be proven. Alaexis 05:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What was the change? Maybe I missed it or someone else reverted you? To answer your question: Transnistria is de-facto like an independent republic but it is part of Moldova in the eyes of the international system. It is not clear from the introduction but that is actually the current situation. Ştefan44 12:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was indeed reverted but I'm going to change it back in a few minutes. The only change is 'breakaway territory'->'de-facto independent republic'. The words 'within the internationally recognized legal boundaries of the Republic of Moldova in Eastern Europe' remain and make it clear for anyone that Transnistria is considered part of Moldova by other countries and international organisations. The wording proposed by me is kind of unofficial standard on wikipedia - it has been adopted for almost all other unrecognised states. Alaexis 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"de-facto independent republic" is a POV how about "under de-facto military occupation". Pleace read WP:NPOV EvilAlex 11:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that "de-facto independent republic" is POV. Look at the de-facto article. It's written there that:

A de facto government is one that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof.

ps. This definition is taken from the Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504. Alaexis 12:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a disagreement whether Transnistrai is an independent republic. Transnistria curently is under de-facto military control of Russian 14-th army. Vast majority of transnistrian government officials are not native born transnistrians. Smirnov itself was born in Kamchatka. If you insist on including your POV in the main article then everyone should be able to include their opinion too. EvilAlex 14:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have statistics about the birthplaces of Transnistrian officials? Yevgeni Shevchuk, the speaker, was born in Rybnitsa, for example. Anyway the fact that Igor Smirnov was born in Kamchatka does not prove that Transnistria is ruled by Russia.Alaexis 15:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've found these statistics in the Parliament of Transnistria article. It's a bit weird but it's not a direct proof of total Russian control over Transnistria. After all only 9 of 43 mps were born in Russia. Most of those who were born outside of Transnistria moved there dozens of years before the war as a result of the industrialisation of Transnistria. Some were born in the areas of Ukraine adjacent to Moldova (like Chernovtsy or western Odessa region) so it's no wonder they came to Transnistria. Alaexis 15:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

who cares if you are Russian who was born in Eastern occupied Germany or in Kazakhstan and then migrated to Transnistria. What i am saying is that i seriously dough that Transnistria is a Independent Republic. When natives will be represented in the government only the i will belive. Only 15%+ of government officials where born in Transnistria. All others are emigrants, the nation have been ruled by forefingers. Look at Smirnov and sons, litskai... EvilAlex 17:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

no, it is more than 15%. Even so, would you say that the governor of California is a representative of an occupying force because he was born in Europe, and not in the USA? Get real. These people were elected. If Moldova won't recognize the election, that is Moldova's problem. They are recognized by the people who live there, and that is what matters. Anyone is free to vote for whom they want. - Mauco 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between California and Transnistria: In California people are free to choose their leaders. In Transnistrian people are ruled by dictator for 15 years now. 172.207.17.95 18:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides, lots of these folks came to Transnistria when they were kids. It strains credibility to think that Moscow would send two-year olds to Tiraspol twenty years in advance of a planned takeover, in order to maintain control of Moldova. Oops, I take that back: Historically, Transnistria was never part of Moldova. But it was populated by South Slavs, and it part of Kievan Rus, more than a thousand years ago. And it has been a formal part of the Russian empire since 1792. Compare this to Moldova: A traditional part of Romania. The Dniester river was the border. - Mauco 15:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the definition of de facto, it fits. The question now is: Can anyone document how Transnistria is NOT a de facto independent republic within the internationally recognized borders of Moldova? - Mauco 15:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple: Government officials does not represent the nativ population. that is the formula for occupation. EvilAlex 17:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No. They are recognized by the population as valid, legal representatives of the will of the people. If you do not want to agree that Transnistria is a de facto independent republic within the internationally recognized borders of Moldova, then you must state how this is not so. Document with reputable sources, please. - Mauco 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The facts says the opposite: Not a single country recognize Transnistria as an independent country. The reality is quiet opposite: many countries (including Russia) stated that they recognize territorial integrity of Moldova. EvilAlex 20:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the intro change, but it wouldve been better if Mauco and Vecrumba could tell is they agree too, well Mauco said yes, what does Vecrumbas say? the reason I ask is because these two made the original compromise, but of course I can see that the compromise already has been forgotten, because the compromise between them did never include the word 'breakaway' and it also had the word 'officially', and that word is left now, so maybe it doesnt matter and we just need to forget about the compromise and instead put in the article what is the best and most accurate description. Like I said, I support the intro change, it is the same way all the other unrecognized countries have it in the articles Pernambuco 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the original compromise proposal broke down a long time ago and Vecrumba never did much to defend it. Go ahead and use the factually accurate Aalexis version instead. - Mauco 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No i dont support the intro changes. EvilAlex 20:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

When you reverted the article you've also reverted the valid changes Ştefan44 had made. Besides you haven't answered to the arguments raised on the talkpage. Alaexis 20:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont see arguments i see POV. There is no agreement on removing this line:Its independence has not been recognized, and its legal status continues to be an issue of contention. EvilAlex 20:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This line is still in the article. It has never been removed, and nor should it. However, you are trying to remove nearly a whole month worth of work by a dozen other editors without any prior discussion here in Talk. Please don't do this, EvilAlex. - Mauco 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We had an agreement: between region, territory, state, republic,... we choose territory. Now you try to change it. Be a man of your word, stick to the previously achieved agreement.EvilAlex 20:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As part of a much larger compromise on the intro, which we all know is no longer observed by anyone anymore.

Short reality check:

In early 2006, TSO1D and I developed a convention on the naming issue, starting with the following words:

* "Transnistria, officially Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica, PMR (short form: Pridnestrovie), is ..."

This was respected for most of the year, until MariusM / EvilAlex / others objected.

In late 2006, Vecrumba and I instead developed an alternative compromise, starting with these words:

* "Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie, per the PMR constitution) is ..."

If no one can even respect something as basic as conceding that Transnistria officially calls itself Pridnestrovie in its own constitution, we had better start off from scratch. In doing so, it is admirable that several other editors (including Alaexis and Stefan44 who is not pro-Transnistria) looked to other Wikipedia articles to find out how these issues are dealt with. Meanwhile, it is clear that "the previously achieved agreement" is only invoked by EvilAlex when it suits his own purposes. - Mauco 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't agreed to anything with you guys :). De facto independence has nothing to do with formal recognition by other states. Alaexis 21:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Alaexis, we are not here to make make new states and republics. We are here to write the chronology of the history. EvilAlex 13:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that EvilAlex was referring to me with his "be a man of your word" comment. However, as I just pointed out, the so called "previously achieved agreement" that he refers to (which you weren't part of) is no longer in force and should not be a barrier to factual accuracy in Wikipedia. If he wants to invoke it, the first thing he could do is to start the article with the words "Transnistria, officially Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica, PMR (short form: Pridnestrovie), is" ... but somehow I think he won't do that. - Mauco 21:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Maco is a lier. Shame on you. How easily you withdrew your words and promises. EvilAlex 13:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is abusive behavior, besides being wholly incorrect. It would be more credible if supported by DIFFs. - Mauco 13:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(Reindented) The PMR is a de facto independent TERRITORY. Republic is beyond POV. The word "republic" absolutely must be stricken from the intro. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And P.S., I did defend the compromise. Ironically it was the editors on my side that thought I had gone too far in compromising. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So far only you have the problem with the word 'republic' (afaik). What are your arguments? Alaexis 17:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the word "republic". Contrary of Abkhazia, which was an autonomous republic during Soviet Union recognized even by Georgian (Soviet) authorities, the status of "republic" for Transnistria is only self-declared.--MariusM 17:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw man argument. The United States was also "only" self-declared, and it is a republic too. In fact, unilateral declarations of independence are the most common method in the world for creation of new states. In this context, any former or historical status has very little bearing on the legitimacy of statehood. - Mauco 17:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Being a republic does not require recognition by the international community. Consider the following definition:

Republic (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president.

It's from Webster's dictionary - http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary . Alaexis 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And, at the risk of bursting someone's bubble, may I also point out that even the USA, a separatist movement par excellence, was itself an unrecognized country for many years. - Mauco 17:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Mauco, how I've missed our spirited exchanges as I have been tending other Wiki-fires. The United States was de facto independent until the Peace Treaty of 1783 with England in which England ceded sovereignty over American-held territory. Republic, just like "country," signifies a level of recognition by the international community which does not exist. "Republic" is wholly unacceptable. Making a case for "republic" can't be based on the endless uninformed comparisons to "America declared itself free" or the simplest web-available definition one can find and interpret to their individual POV. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've presented a definition from the most widely known (American) English Dictionary. Transnistria clearly fits in it. Since wikipedia does not have a special policy about which countries should be called republics the standard definition could be used. Alaexis 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong interpretation of republic. Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.[1]. Now according to official PMR data, only 15 members of the parliament out of 43 were born on the territory of Transnistria. Now we have a state that does not represent the Transnistrian people. We have a state that represent the will of foreign power - majority of government officials are foreigners - not natives. It is not a republic it is an enclave. EvilAlex 18:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

EvilAlex, check the 3rd meaning of the word 'republic' in your own reference. Transnistria is surely a republic in this meaning. Alaexis 18:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK! To understand What is a republic you will have to look much dipper that few line sentence interpretation. I will advize to read (and if possible to understand) the interpretation of republic that was given by Niccolò Machiavelli. The 1st meaning much closer to Machiavelli interpretation of the republic. The rule by many... EvilAlex 18:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a nice book, the best book of his imo. However it's not very relevant. The word is now used as it's used and the dictionaries confirm it. Alaexis 19:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong answer. Parliament elected by the people. All members of parliament are Transnistrian citizens. And among the foreign-born component, you are forgetting something: When they were born, they were born in the same country. It was called the Soviet Union back then. They are not foreigners. - Mauco 18:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:"Parliament elected by the people" - Are you sure? Is there a freedom of speech? is there an opposition newspaper? is there an independent opposition MPs? - NO,NO,NO... pro Smirnov left OR pro Smirnov right. They are not Transnistrians they dont share our common culture and values. They dont share our problems and fear they support Mother Russia. When the members of parliament will represented the people of Transnistria, then and only then it will be a republic. But for now it is an enclave. EvilAlex 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria, where the authorities produce lists of voters' names and who they voted for in order to "prove" they are a "democracy." No election can be considered democratic until the Russians leave. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to see what real encyclopedias call Transnistria, see this [2].--Tiraspolitan 20:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed!!! Citation from Britannica:
Transnistria (secessionist territory)[3];
Moldova's breakaway Transnistria region[4];
the separatist enclave of Transnistria[5]
EvilAlex 20:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits by EvilAlex

Did anyone see what EvilAlex did today, he showed up and undid a whole month of work, and it is something like 25 reverts on the page, does anyone mind if I restore the page to the normal version? This is similar to the bonaparte-person, why can these people not propose their changes and discuss them first???? Pernambuco 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone else apparently already restored to the pre-EvilAlex version, but if EvilAlex insists, just go ahead and restore the page again. Meanwhile, he will be blocked for 3RR.[6] He was warned (twice) but decided to ignore it. He never discussed any of his changes here, or sought consensus in any way, shape or form. - Mauco 17:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not exactly a great fan of Alex' work, a few of his (reverted) changes were actually valid, if made in a rather aggressive way. For example, did some EU countries really send humanitarian aid to Transnistria? And if yes, then what countries? I am only aware of the aid that came from Russia. --Illythr 18:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

yes i agree but in that case why dont he ask about it, for instance check with the person who introduced it (not me), or put a fact-tagging request, and then if there is no source for it, delete it later as unsourced Pernambuco 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Illythr. The fact that EvilAlex reverts idiocies in a blunt manner does not mean he is not entitled to do it. I am sincerely happy he is here, because I don't have the time myself to undo all the pro-Transnistrean propaganda of some of you, guys. It's disgusting, frankly. Dpotop 19:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Fighting fire with fire, eh? Unfortunately, if Alex keeps doing this in such a way, he'll discredit his cause just as Mark Street did his own. --Illythr 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

EvilAlex was blocked only because he tried to show you the factual errors in article. That is what i call injustice. --TraliValy 19:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you used and open proxy for this one. Circumventing a block is a punishable endeavour. Anyhow, I think that presenting your issues with the text on the talk page instead of constantly reverting to your preferred version would've been a much better idea. --Illythr 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

POV

I added a POV tag. The article does not follows wikipedian guidance on WP:NPOV.
Here is my proposal to make it neutral: [7]. EvilAlex 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Taking a quick glance at it, it actually looks even more POV. For starters, you open with the words "breakaway territory". None of the other unrecognized countries are described this way in their respective Wikipedia articles. Shouldn't the Transnistria article follow the NPOV standards used in the rest of Wikipedia? - Mauco 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV standard reflects those like you who insist only they are "neutral." I thought we agreed a long time ago that because of the so-called controversy over the so-call legitimacy of the so-called democratic regime of the self-called PMR we would source only externally to Wiki. There has been a veritable Wiki-cottage-industry seeking to impart legitimacy to breakaway territories within the former U.S.S.R. Please leave those POV contentions in those articles. PMR = territory or region, not republic, in intro. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

we could change that to:
Pridnestrovie) is a region within the internationally recognized legal boundaries of the Republic of Moldova in Eastern Europe.
How is that? EvilAlex 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The last version could be applied to, say, Gagauzia, as it's a region within the internationally recognized legal boundaries of the Republic of Moldova without any doubt. The important thing is that Moldova has no control over this territory currently and that it (Transnistria) considers itself to be independent. This should be reflected in the first sentence of the intro imho. Alaexis 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We already have that line:
Transnistria declared itself a separate republic of the U.S.S.R. on 1990-09-02 (as the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic) and subsequent to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 has exercised de facto control over most of the Transnistria region
EvilAlex 13:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I fear that EvilAlex may be missing the point: The current intro is simply standardization to match how other unrecognized countries are dealt with in their respective Wikipedia articles. Alaexis said as much in his edit summary when he first introduced the change. See the logs. - Mauco 14:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't push POV "standardization" in other articles into this article. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That IS actually a GOOD point. Each case must be decided on its individual merits. Now, I happen to believe this one has merit, but I also understand the need for open debate and why it is good that we reach a compromise that everyone here can live with. You are making some sense here, Vecrumba. I am listening. - Mauco 01:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a disagreement whether Transnistria is an independent republic or under the foreign military occupation. We simply cannot call it a country or independent republic. we can call it a region, territory, whatever.. EvilAlex 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct, Alaexis. Insofar as the same phrasing is used on other Wikipedia articles dealing with unrecognized countries, I fail to see how it can be POV to do the same (not more, not less) when it comes to Transnistria. There is nothing wrong with EvilAlex adding a POV tag in good faith, providing he does not do so to be disruptive and is in fact willing to discuss his concerns in order to make the article better. - Mauco 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Temporary protection

Temp protection has been applied to stop edit war, expiry 48 hours, at 0200 UTC 6 March 2007. You can still edit this talk page.Rlevse 02:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I personally have an issue with the graveyard information, which I find poorly sourced, from one side only, and thus biased. It frankly does not reflect reality, based on my knowledge of the nearly one year development of the events related to this Bender cemetery. But I will look for more sources before I bring it up here. I believe the issue of international relations (and lack thereof) ought to be covered with three or four sentences. I will propose them here to get feedback from others before they are incorporated into the article. I also support TSO1D's desire for a copy edit, but none of that is urgent. I can't see how an edit war could develop as long as others remember that deep reverts, such as the serial attacks by EvilAlex blanking and overwriting the past 100+ edits, should not be done without prior discussion and a semblance of consensus. - Mauco 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is what could happened if Maucos dirty hands get hold on Transnistrian page. The article now reflects the Maucos personal views. Wikipedian policies? What Wikipedian policies? Mauco has truly showed his intention to continue long lasting tradition of a true Soviet NKVD followers to: disrupt, to lie and to deceive ordinary readers in order to enforce his ideology on entire Wiki community. Bravo comrade Mauco! Bravo! EvilAlex 12:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not inclined to respond to ad hominem argumentum ad personam by EvilAlex or anyone else. Most of my edits to the page this year have been very minor. And unlike EvilAlex et al, I usually discuss major changes first. If there is anything factually incorrect in the article, it should of course be fixed. - Mauco 13:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Alex, you're really discrediting yourself with this kind of rhetoric. Drop the personal attacks and stick to the facts, sources and diffs if you want to further your point. --Illythr 14:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK! Peace. EvilAlex 14:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion Mauco is using unfair methods of editing Transnistria related articles. He said I usually discuss major changes first false. He didn't discuss the changes in which he removed human rights content. Further more, he removes Romanian sources based on Transnistrian ones, giving full credit to Transnistrian and no credit to Romanian ones. I would say Mauco has an insulting and inhuman conduct. I note here how he responded when I added the paragraph about Transnistrian authorities destroying and profaning a cemetery: Emotional outbursts are uncalled for in an encyclopedia.. The context is here:[8]. Personally, I don't want peace, and I am less and less willing to speak to Mauco.Dl.goe 20:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Opposition parties or publications banned?

I propose to change this :

No opposition parties or publications are banned. Political candidates in favor of unification with Moldova are allowed to stand in elections,In Transdniester, presidential candidates disagree on common state with Moldova Tiraspol Times. Dec. 3, 2006. Retrieved 2007, 2-19 although they rarely achieve more than 5% of the votes from the electorate.Transdnestr Central Election Commission announces final results on presidential election Regnum News Agency. Dec 13, 2006. Retrieved 2007, 2-19 Likewise, unionist political partiesTransnistria: New Social Democratic party wants union with Moldova Tiraspol Times. Feb. 6, 2007. Retrieved 2007, 2-19 and newspapers are legally registered and operating freely.Man and His Rights (in Russian)

to this:

n November 2006, the Moldovan press reported that the offices of the Rîbniţa district committee of the Communist Party in Transnistria were closed by the local Transnistrian authorities.PCRM indignant at Tiraspol’s decision to hinder Transdniestrian Communist Party’s work. The Communist Party of Moldova condemned the act and claims it was closed under false pretenses.Transnistria.md report of Communist office closure

Some parties and publications were banned. People's Power Party led by Supreme Soviet member Alexander Radchenko was banned in May 2001; after an appeal the ban was lifted but was reintroduced in December 2001, again the ban was lifted to be reintroduced in August 2002 and confirmed by the "Supreme Court" in December 2002.Mihai Grecu, Anatol Ţăranu - The policy of linguistic cleansning in Transnistria, page 26-27.

"Power to the People" Party led by Nicolae Butchatsky was banned in February 2002 Mihai Grecu, Anatol Ţăranu - The policy of linguistic cleansning in Transnistria, page 27.

On November 14, 2001, the Transnistrian customs service banned the distribution of the publication "Glas Naroda", as it contained Radchenko's electoral platform. Radchenko said in a press conference that "Glas Naroda" has been published outside Transnistria because all the printing houses had refused to print it after having discussed the issue with representatives of the Ministry of State Security Mihai Grecu, Anatol Ţăranu - The policy of linguistic cleansing in Transnistria, page 27.

EvilAlex 13:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The first line correctly summarizes actuality. The proposed replacement does not. Besides being old and outdated, and not relevant to the current political reality of Transnistria today in 2007, the proposed information is one-sided and highly biased. All of this comes from only two sources. Both are pro-government Moldovan. A cursory look reveals that both of them are full of numerous factual errors and highly misleading. Can you find any independent sources that confirm the same? Maybe something oppositionist or from outside Moldova? And, more importantly, why should the article remove a brief, snappy summary of the current status (2007) with a longwinded essay on past misdeeds which have since been corrected? Unless drastically improved to qualify for Wikipedia's standards, I for one must reject your suggestion. Sorry. - Mauco 14:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So if i understood you correctly: you would like to erase entire Transnistrian history and start from the scratch. In your case the references point to a highly controversial portals as regnum and tiraspoltimes. EvilAlex 14:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you did not understand me correctly. You misunderstood me. Please read my response again. It states my position and my requests quite clearly. - Mauco 14:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it state that:No opposition parties or publications are banned where in fact the opposite is happened. This line is a clear POV. You just closed your eyes. "snappy summary of the current status (2007)" - you erased the past. You started from the scratch! That is not the way how wiki should be written. EvilAlex 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's true there's no reason to ignore the facts listed by EvilAlex. However the references should be to more neutral sources since Moldovan ones are likely to be biased. Alaexis 14:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Lets compare the references:
My references - Moldova.org: Moldova.org is a non-political, non-governmental and non-commercial portal that provides Moldova's and international news. Moldova.org was launched in February 1997 (and sustained by their volunteer efforts through 2003) by Vlad Spânu (then a senior diplomat at the Moldovan embassy in Washington, DC). It became the best and most comprehensive information source about Moldova in English language. In 2003-2006[9]
Mauco References - tiraspoltimes.com: Tom de Waal, a London-based journalist and author, was outraged to see an article under his name appear on the "Tiraspol Times" website.
The article, which the site says was "adapted" by a journalist named Michael Garner, appears to support Transdniester's claim to independence.
"I've certainly never been to Pridnestrovie, Transdneister, or Moldova, and I am certainly not arguing, as is written under my name, that Pridnestrovie has a better case for independence than Kosovo," de Waal says.[10].
Conclusion Refs provided by me are more reliable than Maucos. EvilAlex 15:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never written I'm a great fan of Tiraspol Times. It could be useful sometimes but it ceratainly is not an example of ideal objectivity. Nevertheless the references to Moldovan sites (even to non-governmental ones) are not any better. Alaexis 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to let the argument get sidetracked. It is not about any particular source (in this case, the Tiraspol Times) but about a very basic question: Are there any banned parties in Transnistria today? The answer is no. Earlier this year, the Social Democratic party was legally registered and its candidates are allowed to stand in any election despite the fact that the party advocates unification with Moldova. Are any publications banned, closed down or prohibited in any way? The answer is no. There is a strong opposition press, some of it even partly funded with money from Chisinau. The opposition has both an online presence and full, legal distributions at newsstands in Tiraspol, Bender and some of the other major cities. - Mauco 16:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Great speech! The only things that are missing are references. EvilAlex 17:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiraspol Times is only one out of a number of references. It was chosen because it is in English. Dozens of other sources back up the same claims, but most of them are non-English. EvilAlex is arguing that just because something is published in a Transnistria newspaper, it is automatically untrue. I am surprised that I need to say this, but the mere fact that something appears in Tiraspol Times does not mean it is not factually correct. Barring evidence to the contrary, I stand by the following statement of fact: There are no banned publications in Transnistria at this point in time, and no banned political parties. - Mauco 15:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reputation is everything! Basic physiology: if someone lied ones - there is a great chance that this will happened again! There is a huge black spot on the face of Tiraspoltimes. Tiraspoltimes is not reliable anymore. EvilAlex 15:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reality-check: There are no banned political parties in Transnistria today and opposition parties are allowed, even parties which advocate unification with Moldova. No publications are banned either, and an active opposition press exists. End of story. You are referring to an outdated 2001 incident which was later overturned (twice, no less). And if you introduce factual, non-biased sources you will discover that the situation - even back then - was a lot more nuanced than EvilAlex's proposal makes it out to be. - Mauco 14:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki should be build on a history brick by brick. Not the way you want - start from the scratch. EvilAlex 15:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You are attributing wrong motives to me. Please focus on the edit, and stop with the ad hominem. May I kindly ask that current, factual and fully sourced information be allowed to stay in the article. Do not remove it, only to overwrite with a long tirade of dubiously sourced, outdated information which no longer presents an accurate picture of the current political reality of Transnistria. - Mauco 15:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Politics of Transnistria may be a better place for this (upd: Oh, it's already there!). I see no reason not to mention a short summary here as well. I mean, a banned party no longer officially exists, so you can't really say that there are any banned parties today. And it doesn't overrule the fact that some of those parties were banned. --Illythr 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but before this happens, EvilAlex is obliged to provide better sources than the Grecu book. From my own knowledge of the situation, the case always centered on just one single party. It slightly changed its name to circumvent the on-and-off ban (from 2001 to 2002), similar to what Kommersant did in Moldova when it was outlawed and instead became Kommersant Plus. Note also that a banned party can still exist even after a ban: Some Communist Parties were banned in parts of Eastern Europe for some years in the 1990s, but existed illegally as underground parties. In this case, it was much less draconian. The "banned" politicians have been active in politics throughout, with no restraints. One was a full member of parliament until 11 December 2005, when he failed to get enough votes for reelection. He since relaunched his political career with a new come-back initiative, the PMR Social Democratic Party. It is pro-Moldova, is legally registered, and plans to field candidates in the next election. - Mauco 18:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:"EvilAlex is obliged to provide better sources than the Grecu book"
All of the sources that have been provided by me - meet Wikipedian standards.
Re:"Note also that a banned party can still exist even after a ban"
Mauco you are trolling... It is a rubbish you talking now.
Re:"From my own knowledge"
Bla-bla-bla... We need sources, we need citations. We dont need your fairy tales.
EvilAlex 22:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Alex, I know it's really hard, but do try to stay civil. You seem to have some success in this, don't give up the effort!

Grecu's and Ţăranu's research is very POV and includes a lot of weird claims. It's may be a useful source at times, but stating anything in it as fact requires further scrutiny and, preferably, direct attribution.

A banned party can indeed exist, just not "officially", as I stated before.

The names of the two parties look pretty much the same indeed... --Illythr 23:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Grecu's and Ţăranu's research is very POV - could you point their errors? Could you discredit their reputation (the same way as Tom de Waal did to Tiraspoltimes). If not then they are reliable. EvilAlex 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

POV is not necessarily false. In this particular case, the report defines its goal quite clearly: to show how abhorrently evil Transnistria is. To that end, it does not employ lies. Instead, it picks up all sources, no matter how questionable, that have (or can be interpreted to have) something bad to say about the region and its authorities. I'm kinda surprised they didn't include your site a source as well. This basically means that information provided in that report should be attributed directly to whoever provided it, otherwise you can just as well state that Al-Quaeda has got training camps in Transnistria and the republic is providing every terrorist group in the world with weapons (page 20). Here I pointed out some more issues with it. --Illythr 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to respond further to EvilAlex if he can not respect the most basic talk page guidelines. This, effectively, handicaps him - not any of the rest of us - as it means that he can no longer justify any of his edits by claiming that they were discussed in Talk first.

But be that as it may. Before EvilAlex introduces the proposed change, more appropriate sourcing and a fuller understanding of the actual events at the time would be required. Mauco 23:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please do the same? In particular i would like to see replacements of all Tiraspoltimes references in this article. Lets fallow the steps of your logic and apply it to your sources too, after all i have more prove in unreliability of your references[11].
EvilAlex 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

For me is looks like this. Its is true that I did something to your mother, like 2-3 years ago, but now I'm a good guy. OK, I did that also 1 year ago...but I'm a good guy now. So, why your mother don't want to come to my party? She's afraid of something? (mother=opposition, guy=smirnov)Catarcostica 21:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ukraine-Transnistria border customs dispute

I would like to add some statistic data on "blockade":
According to the data of Moldovan Ministry of Reintegration , during the two days of the partial border de-blocking by Tiraspol, various companies had managed to import nearly 1,400 tons of chicken meat into the Transnistrian region. And since the beginning of the year, Transnistria has already imported 12,600 tons of foodstuffs, including 9,700 tons of meat, 890 tons of fish, over a thousand tons of sugar, 18 tons of medicines.Moldovan Ministry of Reintegration statistic on food import in Transnistria Despite that in the following months Russia desided to send a humanitarian cargo's "to uphold vital sectors of society".
EvilAlex 13:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is my own impression, too. The "economic blockade" argument rings a bit hollow, at least compared to REAL trade blockades and economic sanctions like those imposed on Iraq before the second Gulf War. "Border customs dispute" is a more accurate term, which is what Wikipedia quite correctly calls it. At the same time, there is no denying that the move did have an effect on the economy. Exports dropped massively from both Transnistria and Moldova in 2006. (In the case of Transnistria, because of Moldova's and Ukraine's move. In the case of Moldova, because of Russia's retaliation - which of course a direct result of the move). So in retrospect, the March 3, 2006, customs rules didn't do anything good for anyone. To declare a winner here is wholly inappropriate. - Mauco 14:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:"In the case of Transnistria, because of Moldova's and Ukraine's move"
This one is a POV. How do you know that the vine embargo on Moldova didnt had the negative impact on Transnistria? EvilAlex 14:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Such POV does not appear in main article space. POV is of course allowed in Talk pages, as you yourself have amply showed us. - Mauco 14:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think that Alex' version is any better than the current one. The latter should stay imho. Alaexis 14:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct, and notwithstanding another somewhat important detail. When Mikkalai (who is not Russian) developed this section, he added a note in the source which is still in place and which includes the following instructions: "Please do not expand this section beyond the very basic summary. Edit the "main article" instead". - Mauco 15:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The article wrongly mislead readers. It used such words as "economic blockade", Ukraine declared, Ukraine imposed. falsely misleading reader about the true state of affairs. In reality negotiation on normalization of the border crossing procedures have been discussed a few ears in advance. And Transnistrian government have been fully aware of that. (5tv.com.ua interview with Valeri litskaia)

The current version is not at all misleading. EvilAlex's summary of it, however, is quite so. To clarify: The article states that "Transnistria and Russia termed the act an "economic blockade". " Note the scare quotes around "economic blockade" and note that the article correctly attributes this to Transnistria's and Russia's definitition of the event. Wikipedia does not call it that, but merely reports, with sources, the term used by these two. This is not misleading in any way, shape or form. As for the use of the words "imposed" and "declared" they are also correct in the context of the article and the events that the article deals with. - Mauco 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It sound like Ukraine is some kind of aggressor. That is a POV. What is Ukrainians have done to you now? Where is your slav solidarity?. Mauco remember article should be written in NPOV - it should be neutral. We should categorically avoid use of that words. instead of imposed we should say introduced. instead of blockade or rules we could say "border crossing procedures" EvilAlex 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Rules" (or the equivalent word "regulations", which is the one that appears in the article) is the most neutral word. And as for me, I am not Slav. - Mauco 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mauco ...he is not a slave. Catarcostica 05:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Kozak memorandum

I would like to add this line:
On 21 November Sergei Ivanov (First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia) stated that "as guarantee for an independent intended federation, Russian troops would remain in Transnistria for the next 20 years." Moldavian President Vladimir Voronin refused to sign it.Netherlands Institute of International Relations - The OSCE Moldova and Russian diplomacy

EvilAlex 13:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Please spellcheck it and then add it to Kozak memorandum (an article to which the main article already links). Transnistria is merely an overview article and not to be clogged down in minutiae, least of all about a memorandum which never made it past the discussion stage. Remember the golden rule: "Summary here, details there." - Mauco 14:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think that a detail of Kozak's memorandum (that never got implemented) hardly deserves to be put in the main article. Overall this is quite a minor issue imho. Alaexis 15:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understand that this was presented as one of the main reasons of why Voronin refused to sign it, so it may be worth a mention somewhere. But what is a "guarantee for independent federation"? Sounds weird. --Illythr 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re"Sounds weird." Welcome to realty. EvilAlex 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Sounds weird" as in "Where did the word "indepedent" come from? Could you provide the source of the quote?" Maybe the original word was "neutral"?

sorry misspelled page 109. indepedent -> intended. EvilAlex 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just read the report and it says that it was Transnistria, that demanded the "guarantee", as well as many other interesting details (I liked the the "don't do it" part most :-) ).

Based on the report, I'd suggest "Vladimir Voronin was initially supportive of the plan, but he refused to sign it after Russia had endorsed the Transnistrian demand to maintain a Russian military presence for the next 20 years as a guarantor of the intended federation, as well as due to pressure from the OSCE and US." --Illythr 00:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

we could include this citation in that article too. EvilAlex 00:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the whole "Secession to the present" section is already longer than it ought to be. At some point in the future, EvilAlex or someone else might want to try to trim it a bit, and then leave the deeper level of detail for the main History of Transnistria article. - Mauco 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the Kozak Memorandum is the closest they came to a resolution, I think it should therefore be mentioned together with the reasons of why it failed. --Illythr 00:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That does make sense. I am not against adding it, but just concerned about the length of the section compared to the others in the History part. But later someone will hopefully find a way to trim the section by doing copy-edit in a way that just removes unneeded words without taking away any of the meaning. I took a look at the current four paragraphs in that section, and they are all good/useful. Removing one or more would do damage to the article, but careful copy-editing could probably shorten it by about a fifth without losing any meaning. - Mauco 02:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

International aid

There's currently a citation request on the following sentence: "In the months following the regulations exports from Transnistria nosedived and cargos of humanitarian aid were sent from Russia and some EU countries to uphold vital sectors of society." From the editsummary by EvilAlex, only the last part seems to be in dispute. I believe we all know that exports nosedived and Russia sent aid, so the issue is if EU countries did the same.

Even though the edit wasn't mine, I did some research into this and found that it is somewhat true, but only a half-truth. Apart from Russia, aid in the period following the March 3, 2006, was received from OSCE (made up mostly of European countries) and from USA (not a EU country!), as well as from a few individual NGOs in EU countries, most notably Ireland. But here's the rub: An NGO is not a country. Thus, a more correct formulation would be "were sent from Russia and from NGOs in the United States and in the European Union to uphold vital sectors of society."

There is also some official involvement in the U.S. part of the aid, with the deliveries to Tiraspol having been organized by the U.S. State Department. However, I am not sure how we can include this in the article since I have no source for this information apart from internal State Department documents which are not public and can not be used for Wikipedia purposes. In view of WP:OR, it might be best to leave out any mention of this until such time it can be better sourced.

Finally, I also propose removing the words "to uphold vital sectors of society." While this was indeed the stated reason for much of the Russian aid, such reason is less clear in reference to the aid from OSCE, the USA and the NGOs in Europe. In fact, in the case of the OSCE aid, the purpose had to do with health and with prison conditions, and at least the latter is hardly a "vital sector of society."

If there are no objections, I would like to make these edits when the article gets unlocked. - Mauco 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My version:
In the following months cargos of humanitarian aid were sent from Russian Federation.
Regarding "aid from OSCE, the USA and the NGOs in Europe" i would like to see references, surely you dont expect me to believe in your words?! EvilAlex 22:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess that means that you agree... :-) --Illythr 23:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I write only the true! Yes cargos from Russia were send but: there wasnt a Ukraine imposed blockade, there wasnt a humanitarian catastrophe. Why did Russia sent this cargos? The answer - lets look at timing. At there same time there was an election in Ukraine and if any of you guys watched Russian TVs then you know that it was a show time!. EvilAlex 23:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources state that the Russian aid was sent in response to the hardship caused by the customs rules. No sources indicate that it had anything to do with "show time". But the "uphold vital sectors" bit should be left out anyway, IMHO. Just to make it clear: I am proposing to modify the disputed sentence to instead read as follows: "In the months following the regulations, exports from Transnistria nosedived and cargos of humanitarian aid were sent from Russia and from NGOs in the United States and the European Union."

This will of course be fully sourced. If the sources do not meet Wikipedia standards, feel free to point it out so I can either provide more or remove the content thus insufficiently sourced. - Mauco 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:"hardship caused by the customs rules"
during the two days of the partial border de-blocking various companies had managed to import nearly 1,400 tons of chicken meat into the Transnistrian region[12] hardship? What hardship? Do you know what is 1,400 tons of chicken meat per small Transnistrian population? Well it approximately 2 kilo per person per day. Do you know what will happened if you will it so much meat? (Pardon me just scientific data) You will have a hemorrhoids.
Re:"from NGOs in the United States and the European Union" This one is not good. We need refs to support this statement.
EvilAlex 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, how importing foodstuffs is supposed to show that Transnistrian heavy industry is doing fine? Mauco agrees that "uphold vital sectors" should be removed and I see no "humanitarian catastrophe" in the article either. Although I think that the "humanitarian aid versus PR action" part could be expanded - in the respective article --Illythr 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK! then following your logic let me ask you the opposite question: How humanitarian aid is supposed to help Transnistrian heavy industry? EvilAlex 00:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, good point. By feeding the workers, I suppose. :-) Then again, maybe they were stockpiling it or something? Anyhow, here are the facts: exports did drop, a humanitarian catastrophe was declared and aid was sent. The Moldovan Ministry of Reintegration qualified this whole event as a planned PR action. --Illythr 00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the great 'Chicken Smuggle of 2006': http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/search/node/frozen+chicken - Mauco 02:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, this was a lot of debate over just one sentence. I am not surprised that other editors are staying out of this one. Anyway, I don't see major opposition to my proposed changing and trimming of the disputed sentence (apart from EvilAlex's request for sources, which of course will be present in mainspace as promised by me and as required by Wikipedia). For expansion of the summary, I again remind everyone of Mikkalai's posted request: "Please do not expand this section beyond the very basic summary. Edit the "main article" instead". - - Mauco 02:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:"from NGOs in the United States and the European Union" - no agreement on this! OK regarding your refs:cmi.homestead.com does not support your statements. Also your refs to TiraspolTimes are questionable too[13] Could you provide alternative references? EvilAlex 13:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The CMI ref is ok. Look here. Alaexis 13:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont have anything against CMI. But in this particular case the link doesnt say that because of economic blockade CIM group decided to sand medical aid. No. As i understood it is a Christian group that helps prisoners, children, unfortunates people... it is nothing to do with "blockade". how Mauco wants to present. EvilAlex 13:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

EvilAlex wants to say that because something appears in http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/ it is by definition untrue. He has tried to do the same with references from Olvia Press, and anything else from Transnistria. He is wrong. - Mauco 13:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Mauco, reputation is everything! tiraspoltimes has damaged reputation.[14] EvilAlex 13:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to me. It is the most complete source for updated news from Transnistria which exists in the English language. Your mileage my vary, but I have already done independent factchecking on www.tiraspoltimes.com (including on the item that you keep dragging up). My conclusion is that, while somewhat biased, I find it to be more correct and accurate than the opposite side in the debate. TT often prints articles critical of the PMR government as well. As for your own link, please note that it is produced by an outfit which is funded by the American government and which Wikipedia lists under the following two categories: "United States government propaganda organisations" and "CIA front organizations" - Mauco 13:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

From my POV tiraspoltimes is just propaganda. Correct and accurate ?????? Can somebody move this paper under "Comic book" category ?? Catarcostica 21:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

weapons trade

This section should really be removed. Yes it had its place in a moment of time many years ago. Fears and allegations are no longer enough to support such a section. There are much more important articles such as Russian privatisation of Transnistrian industry and Offical Corruption and Russian political influence.Buffadren 09:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Official corruption? If you have the sources, go ahead and post them. I don't think there is more corruption in Transnistria than in Moldova (or in Ukraine for that matter), yet that word - corruption - is not given much space in either article. Mauco 10:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No offence but I can assure you I know quite a lot about this weapons area, When the curtain fell there was wholesale grey market weapons sales much of it went tfrough Ukraine. There was real fears back then that Transnistria was involved and this would cause disruption , not to mention that it would hurt legitimate American arms sales. It is only now we know that the only region that didn't sell weapons was Transnistria, They had a paranoid fear of Moldova and clung onto theor stockpiles like a vice grip. Everything they had , they still have, it seems they wouldn't sell a bullet. . Buffadren 11:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

But it has serious corruption problems, that is a proper issue for the region now Buffadren 11:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, one of the administrators a while back suggested that crime should be dealt with in the Crime in Transnistria article. That article can have a section on corruption, if the sources merit it. If we then use the same principle that we do for other content, this means that we still ought to have a summary in the main article. Along the lines of: Summary here, details there. - Mauco 12:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, get rid of the weapons article because doesn't hold water. The crime section is a bit weak too. However corruption does exist and is a much more serious problem. Also how Russian 'investment depletes Transnistria and how the Transnistrians are being turned to the Russians by outsiders. Look at this {{http://www.crji.org/news.php?id=85&l=2]]. Buffadren 12:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I against removing weapons trade section. Wiki should be build on a history brick by brick. If you have something new to add be my guest, but erasing it - it the same as to erase history.EvilAlex 12:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I think we understand each other. Do remember Transnistria is a changing place. We all need to change how we view it. What do other editors here think ? Buffadren 13:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm also against the removal of 'weapons smuggling' section. It's well referenced and relevant. Btw the report on the CRJI site (http://www.crji.org/news.php?id=85&l=2) is definitely POV imo. We should remember it's a Romanian site. Alaexis 13:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be Romanian, so what ? It is true.The weapons section is not a fair portrayal. Buffadren 13:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Let us not remove anything drastical for now. I suggest that anyone who has new information to add can do so on Crime in Transnistria. As that page grows, we can then re-visit the issue of perhaps including a more representative summary in the main Transnistria article. But for now, I support EvilAlex and his position on this issue: Let it stay. - Mauco 13:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine by meBuffadren 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Of EvilAlex

Mauco, I've seen your message saying that I should not help EvilAlex because doing so is turning him into a bad boy. I find your suggestion quite immoral. Somehow, you ask me to give up my oppinions and let you and your pro-Transnistrean propaganda group just to keep EvilAlex out of trouble. As if he were not smart enough not to overstep the rules. I remind you that you were grounded, too, on Transnistria-related subjects. You have 4 blocks, whereas EvilAlex has 5. And this difference is probably due to the fact that he is a bit loner than you are. Dpotop 13:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, my edits are prompted by the simple remark that EvilAlex's version is better (clearer, more NPOV) than yours. Dpotop 13:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Who are Mauco's group. I am no part of his group, indeed Mauco had reverted me more times than anyone here and even reported me for 3RR with a request to have me blocked. Evilalex is one person the really cares about Transnistria and is respected here. Buffadren 13:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted EvilAlex' last edit because (contrary to what he claims) the consensus about the first sentence had not been reached. Alaexis 13:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop: Edit warring is of course bad, whether engaged in by EvilAlex, by me, or by anyone else (including you). But "His version", as you call it, is basically a page where he overwrites and undoes a month full of edits and the work by a dozen people on the page, as the edit log of the past month shows. I was not the first to point this out, but if we are discussing what is "immoral", then such blatant disregard for the procedures of Wikipedia would fit the bill. I am not imposing a version, but merely - as others have also done - restoring the page from what I see as blatant, undiscussed blanking which is bordering on vandalism.

There should of course be an open, valid debate of POV and NPOV, and which intro is better. And this can naturally not be limited to the intro. But please note: The place for such a debate is here, in Talk. Nothing is achieved by seeing who can revert the most (and get blocked first) in mainspace. - Mauco 13:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

you have introduced the changes that haven't been agreed in the talk page. EvilAlex 14:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please seek consenus here first, but Mauco you have to give others the right to edit too. Evilalex behaves like this because he feels he is not listened to. Do I understand you Alex? Buffadren 13:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits are OK. Overwriting / blanking the improvements made by a dozen editors during the past month? That is hardly the same. When I and others have reverted, we have not undone any new work but merely restored the integrity of the page. - Mauco 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just pointed few factual error in the article. The article does not follow NPOV guidelines. Just read it: Ukraine imposed; Ukraine declared; Economic blockade,... author - Mauco! EvilAlex 14:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not write this. Mikkalai did. Anyway, it seems that Illythr is addressing your concerns. Personally, I believe "imposed" is a correct, descriptive word because the move was certainly introduced without any OK from the Transnistrian side. - Mauco 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Customs dispute trimming

This section is getting "longish". I propose a couple of small trims.
1. Change "The Moldovan Ministry of Reintegration had expressed concern over this declaration and called it "deliberate misinformation"." to "Moldova called the declaration "deliberate misinformation"." Half the size, and no meaning is lost.
2. Change "Of the major mediators of the conflict in the region, the United States, the European Union and OSCE approved the Ukrainian move" to "The United States, the European Union and OSCE approved the move" since EU and US are not mediators. They only have observer status. - Mauco 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This sentences just have been added and already you want to remove it on a false pretends! EvilAlex 14:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not remove, trim. In a way that makes the article shorter, more readable, and still preserves the full meaning. No context is lost. See copy-edit if you do not understand the concept, and please tone down the personal attacks. - Mauco 14:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I have no objection to that, except that "had expressed concern over this" should stay, IMO, as without it, the Moldovan statement looks kinda bad.

2. Perhaps a mention should be made, that they're in fact observers and not just some interfering foreign entities? --Illythr 14:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Has that ever stopped the United States from expressing its opinion anywhere? Oops, sorry - this page is not a political discussion forum. I agree with you, Illythr, but I try to keep the "summary here, details there" principle in mind. I have a lot of respect for what Mikkalai has done for Wikipedia over the years. - Mauco 14:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Its o.k. to "trim" but not take away meaning Pernambuco 05:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK dude, I'm in USA. And I will ignore you this time. But don't push your luck!!! Catarcostica 21:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey alex

Evilalex, I am rverting your last edit. There is a potential libel and its only inter media stuff. Buffadren 14:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I did it for you. Some of this is covered in the archives as well, and in the edit log. Besides, now we have a later, more updated and fuller link from the same source, which gives the complete background to the conflict. - Mauco 14:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Mauco I see you deleted my text again removing 'separatist' Can we agree to practice what we are preaching.?Buffadren 15:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is really only one context where the word "separatist" is appropriate: During the time of the separatist struggle. Anything after that reflects the point of view of one side to the conflict, since the official Transnistrian position does not consider itself separatist. - Mauco 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea! Self-restraint.

Since everyone here claims to be of good faith, I have an idea to reduce edit warring on this page. We can all exercise self-restraint by:

1. Making at most one edit per user every day (including minor changes).
2. Making an edit after describing it on the talk page and then having at least 3 other editors agree upon it.

Of course, the agreement would fail the first time one editor does not respect it (but then, we would know who is the bad guy). As a token of good faith, I would ask we start from EvilAlex's version. :) Dpotop 15:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since the moment of your proposal, EvilAlex was the only one to edit the article more than once, so he's the first one to violate it. :-P --Illythr 17:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That could have been by mistake Buffadren 17:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

His unrestrained actions today show otherwise. - Mauco 16:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want, Im fine with just one per day, in fact I am sometimes not online every day, but can others limit? there has to be the same rules for everyone, if someone can make ten edits in one day, someone else can do the same....... Pernambuco 05:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

war changes

The edits I made were only made to make the paragrapgh more easy to understand. Mauco reverted me and inserted his own extra twists Then Alex blasts off calling the Transnistrians 'rebels'. I feel like reverting the two of you.Buffadren 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

At that point Transnistrian side was a 'rebels' site. And after reading that paragraph i've got an impression that Moldova is an aggressor where in fact the opposite is happened. The rebel forces have been attacking police stations in Dubosary and in Bendery. Moldova responded by attacking rebels with Moldavian police and volontiry force (at that time Moldova didnt even had its own army - an aggressor without n army, interesting!!). EvilAlex 16:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not what I was doing, and it is wrong to call or infer that either side were Rebels or Aggressors when dealing with the Civil War. Buffadren 09:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference. I am not changing your meaning, Buffadren, but making your edits easier to read by doing copy-edit. In contrast, EvilAlex added a big section of non-encyclopedic language talking about one sided attacks by rebel forces, and re-adding - twice - a part which has no place in a summary and which is already present in the detailed article on the customs conflict. - Mauco 16:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Trolling edit summary. EvilAlex 16:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Where?

Alex, if you want the part about the chickens to stay, you should at least link it up with the rest of the section somehow. The current version looks strange, jumping from one thing to another like that. --Illythr 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. EvilAlex 01:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

no, i have to say, it is out of place, it is something very detailed, and the part in this article is just a summary. So really, the details need to be in the article that deals with the customs thing, and I checked, and it is already there, so it can go from the overview Transnistria article, dont repeat all the details both place, if people want details they go to the second one Pernambuco 05:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Alaexis 08:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Article: "in work"

I will spend a lot of time for improving this article. --Verynever 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'll have to revert your changes.

Looks like something familiar, btw. Alaexis 22:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Fake Photo at Tiraspol Times Website?

Is it just me or does this photo of "Anatoly Semerenko, the country's #1 bodybuilder, stands in front of Pridnestrovie's parliament" look totally fake? http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/636 Jonathanpops 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It, uh, looks like a painting, actually. Or at least heavily Photoshop'd. Shouldn't you be posting this over there? --Illythr 00:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Illythr is right. This page (here) is for dealing with edits to the article. But since the thread is already open, my own 2 Купон's: Scroll down to the end of the text of http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/636 and look for a link which says "On the web: » Anatoly Semerenko photo gallery" and links to http://fbb.land.ru/foto/index_p3.htm, then scroll down to the end of that page, and the same photo appears. Click on it to see a VERY large version. Then look for Photoshop artifacts. I am no expert, so I'll not venture to give a verdict. But Illythr or anyone else with time could also write to Anatoliy Semerenko and ask him, since he just happens to be president of the federation whose site his picture appears on. - Mauco 00:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

well, the Tiraspol Times page already suggests that the content may be dubious, but this pages uses the website as a reliable source - it has a badge that says "Get the Facts", clearly "The new Arnold: Anatoly Semerenko, the country's #1 bodybuilder, stands in front of Pridnestrovie's parliament" is not a fact. I guess I'm just adding to the list of false claims found at Tiraspol Times in a attempt to discredit the site as a useful external link, or perhaps hoping we may one day label it as having some dubious content? Jonathanpops 11:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it quite as harshly. It is a photo caption, and if it is falsified in any way, then clearly Tiraspol Times did not do the falsification. The photo is from Semerenko's own site, and they make no attempt to hide the link which leads directly to it. Besides, the background IS the PMR parliament building. It could be a painting, as Illythr suggests, or it could just be that it is out of focus due to the photographer focusing on Semerenko. If this is a concern to anyone (it isn't a concern to me), then why not just ask Semerenko himself instead of double guessing? I have both his email and his work and home phone numbers, for anyone who wants. They are from the "Kontakt" page on his website. - Mauco 11:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't really call it a major concern, just another example of dodgy reporting. It is NOT a picture of him in front of the parliament building, like it says, but a picture of him in front of a picture of the parliament building. I'm not interested in Semerenko, he has no control over what a website writes about one of his pictures I'm sure. Jonathanpops 21:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't WHAT it is (or if is a painting) until someone asks Semerenko. - Mauco 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a bid deal. I agree with Mauco this time. Catarcostica 21:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Johnathanpops claims this is a fake photo and then it is then proven the photo came from the politician's own website. The Tiraspol Times clearly lifted it from the site as any paper would do and do. Johnathanpops is the one reporting false information to discredit Tiraspol newspapers. The question is why? Perhaps he has his own media interests. Johmathanpops who is very concerned about press transperancy should state clearly now if he has any connection with any publishing outlet. Scrapersky 16:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok Mark. I must admit I didn't realise that it was leeched from another website until Mauco pointed it out. Still, it's patently obvious, to me at least, that's it's not a photo of somone in front of a building but rather a photo of someone in front of a picture of a building (behind some trees, way in the background). So I think it's just bad reporting rather than bad reporting and photo manipulation on the part of the website called Tiraspol Times. I already stated my reasons pretty clearly in my last message. I'm not comparing the Tiraspol Times to any other website, I'm just saying I think the content is of a highly dubious nature. I don't have any other websites to offer up as being any better. Jonathanpops 17:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Referendum

This article on Portalul ONG-Moldova talks of "a national referendum on independence". An official statement by the United States Dept of State talks of an "independence referendum" in headline and body text. And, of course, the site we all love to hate has something like a hundred references to the same term (some are quotes from neutral third parties).

Looking inhouse, we even use the term for a similar event in a very similar setting. - Mauco 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no "transdnistia" nation. You can use " independence referendum". Catarcostica 05:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Independence

Now, really, how should we go about PMR's independence? It declared itself a separate SSR, so it's certainly not "from the USSR". During the declaration there was no Republic of Moldova, so, technically, it's not "from Moldova" either. Maybe from MSSR? Uhh, *confused*. ---Illythr 01:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

September 2, 1990, is the official date. On that date, they declared independence from the Moldavian SSR. Not Moldova, not Soviet Union either. However, it is easy to get confused. They keep declaring independence all the time. They have done it in 1991 again, in 1995, and in 2005 with the new foreign policy objectives. Arguably, the referendum of 2006 could also be seen as an independence declaration since it was followed up with an official request by the PMR Supreme Council to a number of CIS parliaments for statehood recognition. It is sort of like a Monty Python skit: They keep declaring independence, again and again, but no one cares... They also declared independence from the Soviet Union (in 1991) but never from the Republic of Moldova since they don't consider themselves to have been part of Republic of Moldova in the first place. Remember that today's Republic of Moldova only came into being on August 27, 1991. - Mauco 01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

First time I hear USSR didn't recognize Pridnestrovie as its part (via MSSR)... --Illythr 21:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Viktor Neumoyin Assassination

I guess we should add this http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L13136774.htm to the violent incidents, or somewhere in the article? Jonathanpops 09:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. It is also here and here, with his photo. But please add it to Crime in Transnistria or else the main page will grow unwieldy over time. - Mauco 12:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not know that page existed, I'll move my section on the Border Corruption into that. Buffadren 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you added that a while back. It is good, but it is better in the detailed part. You didn't know it existed? It has been around for a while now. But I guess we forgot the 'See also' line. - Mauco 16:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does his name have different spellings, is it a language thing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathanpops (talk • contribs) 21:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

New site suggestion

I found this site http://www.transdniestria.com It is very informative. It should be included ? Buffadren 09:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes.For moment its just a bit better than tiraspol.com Catarcostica 05:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardly better.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Recognition?

How can Russia recognize PMSSR as a a part of its territory yet recognize the Moldavian SSR's succesion?

The PMSSR was within the Moldovan SSR, so not part of either the Russian SSR now Federation nor of the Ukrainian SSR now the Ukraine. The PMSSR (whether it existed or not--its declaration was rejected by central Soviet authorities) would have ceased to exist with the demise of the Soviet Union, so there is nothing there for Russia to now recognize. Nor does Russia recognize sovereignty of the current PMR (Duma declarations supporting the "democratic aspirations" of the Transnistrians notwithstanding). ... unless there's new news? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dragalina cemetery

I think this should be included in the article:

According to the Moldavian and Romanian press, in February 2007, Transnistrian authorities destroyed and profaned the Dragalina cemetery in Tighina (also known as The Romanian cemetery), thus violating the Geneva Convention. The Transnistrian authorities did not exhume the bodies; they only removed the crosses and leveled the terrain with bulldozers.319 identified Romanian and 14 unidentified soldiers, as well as 13 Soviet prisoners were buried at this cemetery.

References

Mauco removed the content writing: "This analysis puts the Ziua article into perspective."[15]

I don't understand Russian, and I don't know what the analysis he found contains. Ziua was not the only newspaper to publish this news: [16][17][18][19][20]...Dl.goe 01:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

can anyone read Russian and maybe just put a quick summary here or something, like D1.goe I have the same problem, cant read Russian but it would be nice to know, just the main points. The other item, about the geneva convention, well that is something you can delete at least, the reason is this, how can Transnistria violate a convention that it is not part of, or did it sign this convention, probably not because how can it sign a convention when it is just an unrecognized country and has not yet membership of the International organizations Pernambuco 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The gist of the article is that:

• The authorities in B/T are to reinter the exhumed soldiers outside of the city.
• Authorities have take steps so that the identities of exhumed soldiers are not lost.
• Another graveyard was moved recently as well, this one comprised of mainly ethnically Russian soldiers.

jamason 16:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I assume that Transnistria authorities didn't think they went against the Geneva Convension, but we aren't talking about what Transnistria authorities think are we? I think the main question is, is Moldova covered by the Geneva Convention, as Transnistria is part of Moldova in the eyes of other countries involved, the same countries that no doubt would see this as a violation, if it's true. Jonathanpops 09:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There have been some questions wether profaning a cemetery is violating human rights[21][22]. I think refering to Geneva Convention as international law is appropriate.Dl.goe 10:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we add this to the previous text:

"While according to the Romanian edition of Deutsche Welle, the Transnistrian authorities announced that the crosses will be smashed up with explosives and, in a mixture with asphalt will be used to repair the roads of the city[23], according to PMR News, the authorities in Transnistria are to reenter the exhumed soldiers outside of the city, authorities have taken steps so that the identities of exhumed soldiers are not lost.[24]"

Dl.goe 18:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've introduced the new paragraph in the article. I will remove the content template if no one opposes.Dl.goe 05:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

i dont oppose Pernambuco 14:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with Pernambuco. I do oppose. But since I wasn't here, and in fact didn't make an edit to the article in nearly 2 weeks, I will let the active editors decide. Personally, I feel that this level of detail belongs in the detailed article Human rights in Transnistria. If it then merits an inclusion here, it should be a oneliner overview with a wikilink for those who want to see the full story. Details here, summary there. - Mauco 13:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

PMSSR recognition

Russia could have not recognized the PMSSR as sovereign of the Moldovan SSR yet as territory that did not want to leave. Any SSR that did not leave would probally be attacked to the Russian SFSR anyways so they could recognize the internal succesion then not recognize the PMR's since that would be like leaving after they went thru the trouble to join. Check out my presidential graph. Vital Component

I added a headline because i dont think this comment was about the graveyard, also theres an article about it, it is Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic ......Pernambuco 14:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm back and astonished

I didn't have enough time for Wikipedia in the last period and I took a wikibreak of more than one month. I am astonished of the changes the Tiraspol Times team made in this article in the last period. May I kindly ask few questions:

• Why the link http://conflict.md/ which was agreed in all discussions about external links and is a daily source in English/Russian/Romanian about Transnistrian region dissapeared from this article?
• Why is mentioned in this and many other Wikipedia articles about Transnistria that "oposition party Renewal" won election in 2005 while this party officially registered only in 2006 (it existed only as an unofficial movement before and its oposition status is unclear cosidering that it didn't submit a candidate against Smirnov in presidential elections).
• Why we need to comment US Department of State position about Human Rights instead of just presenting it?
• Why was removed the mention of the banning of some political parties?
• Why dissappeared the mention about the unsolved killings in Chiţcani village?
• Why no mention was made about the recent arrest in Tiraspol of people who tried to organise a protest against Smirnov regime? http://transnistria.md/en/news/0/230/5
• Why no mention about the arrest of Ştefan Urîtu, leader of Moldovan Helsinki Comitee of Human Rights, in 19 March? http://www.conflict.md/comentarii.php?ID=2303
• Why no mention about confiscation of cars with Moldovan registration numbers? http://transnistria.md/en/news/0/233/--MariusM 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

welcome back man! before you do these whole changes of the work of a lot of other people, just look at the page, maybe you dont agree with it, but at has developed in peace with the help from many, look, I didnt count, but something like twenty different people have helped, and discussed, and each has an edit summary ........ why dont you go back and look at each edit summary and then you can see the reasons and the answers to the "why" that you ask. Also in talk page of course, a lot of it was talked about Pernambuco 23:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would add to MariusM list the introduction, why and who changed it? I restored the old compromise version of introduction, and made many other changes.Dl.goe 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

like i said to marius-M please dont change everything without discuss, it is best to do one change at a time, and get consensus first, or else everyone will just revert and this is not good for you or the page Pernambuco 15:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

When Alaexis or Mauco modify the page without consensus everything is OK, but when I modify, I am reverted and requested to ask consensus. I feel this is not fair. To stick on the subject, Alaexis said de-facto independent republic is not POV, providing the definition of a de facto government, which I think is something different. Dl.goe 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

well none of these men have made whole-sale and added 4,000 chars without discussion, if they did, i will revert them of course .... the changes that are large must be discussed and you cant make them without talking about them first, that is only for small changes but not big ones. some free advice: propose each change one at a time, and discuss it first, o.k. please Pernambuco 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My edit mainly consists in:

• restored an acceptable introduction
• at political status I've started a new line for border issues (not changed anything else)
• at Internal Politics I entered back the birthplaces of the Transnistrian "Parliament members" and I made a two column section, as Romanian and Transnistrian sources contradict (kept Transnistrian sources and restored Romanian ones)
• at Referendum, the result should be judged only according to the fairness of the referendum, so it is better to say first who recognised it and who didn't and second to say it's result. I changed the order of the paragraphs.
• at Ukraine-Transnistria border customs dispute, added a link and few words ("Russia's interests are directly affected" is restored) and deleted what I think is biased information: the article should not suggest Ukraine should stop requesting Moldovan documents because Transnistrian block was lifted. Also removed the details about humanitarian aid- if we add such content, than, to be neutral, we would have to add the background and everything which is now included in main article.
• at History and Human Rights, I partly restored old versions, which I think were wrongly modified.
• at crime, I restored some old content, changed what I think was POV content, and added back travel warnings compromise version

Dl.goe 08:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Definition from wikipedia: De facto is a Latin expression that means "in fact" or "in practice" but not spelled out by law

Dedinition from Webster's: ACTUAL; especially : being such in effect though not formally recognized

The second part of the first sentence tells us what the "law" says about Transnistria - ...within the internationally recognized borders of Moldova.... Alaexis 05:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Than I agree to de facto separate republic. Dl.goe 08:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out the exact difference between 'separate' and 'independent' in regard to this issue in your opinion? Webster's considers them as synonyms - see the third meaning here. Alaexis 15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

separate means existing by itself, distinct; independent means not subject to control by others, free. And, according to some Romanian sources, Transnistria depends on Russia.Dl.goe 17:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide these sources? I'm interested in the arguments. Alaexis 18:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

When I look at the articles of countries that are definitely independent, as France, Germany, USA, Russia, China, are described as countries. When I look at Transnistria, I see independent country. Isn't this word POV, as long as we put it just because of the disputed status of Transnistria? By the way, I noticed that any mention about the Russian army in Transnistria disappeared from the article.Dl.goe 05:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You see 'de-facto independent republic within internationally recognised boundaries of Moldova'. Quite a big difference imho. If you don't agree with the word 'independent' provide the arguments that it's not true. Alaexis 05:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If I could have proven Transnistria depends on other country, I would have put that in the article. If you want to put Transnistira is independent, you have to prove it is true.Dl.goe 06:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Transnistria has the formal attributes of independence like own army, currency and so on. Transnistrian authorities (President and Parliament) are elected by its own people and not appointed by Russia. Alaexis 06:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"In Transnistria the right of citizens to change their government was severely restricted"(U.S. Department of State).[25]Dl.goe 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It could be the proof that Transnistria is not very democratic but not that it's not independent. Yes, Mauco is right here. It's written there that "The government does not control this region. Unless otherwise stated, all references herein are to the rest of the country" so the citation about the restriction of voting is about Moldovan goverment and not about Transnistrian one. So this is not an argument against independence. Alaexis 07:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this particular sentence requires a fuller understanding of the context. The report (which I have read) refers to ability of Transnistrians to change the Moldovan government. This right is severely restricted, but for logistical reasons (to vote, they must go to Moldova). The right to change the Transnistrian government is not restricted. But the United States doesn't consider it a valid government. The US position is that Transnistrians are citizens of Moldova, and thus "their government" is the government of Moldova. The report is not very clear on this point, so it is easy to misunderstand. However, this article clarified it: Tiraspol Times: "Transnistrian authorities harass opposition lawmakers, US report says". A surprisingly PMR-critical article, by the way, from http://www.tiraspoltimes.com which is normally very pro-PMR. - Mauco 07:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a PMR-critical article, is an US Department of State critical article. The article is following the debates we had at Wikipedia regarding U.S. Department of State report about human rights in Transnistria. Nothing surpriusingly, we know that Tiraspol Times is following closely all Transnistria-related debates at Wikipedia and they are trying to discredit the critics of PMR government, in this case, the US Department of State.--MariusM 08:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Come on, be serious. It is balanced and objective. And PMR-friendly? Hardly. Start with the headline: "Transnistrian authorities harass opposition lawmakers, US report says" and then the intro: "The US State Department has harsh words for Pridnestrovie in its latest human rights report. It says that human rights "remained poor" in 2006, but mentions improvements compared to previous years" and the first lines of the article: "Authorities continued to discriminate against Romanian speakers, although to a lesser extent than in previous years" says the United States in it latest State Department report on human rights, published this week. According to the US report, "authorities reportedly continued to use torture and arbitrary arrest and detention." How on earth is that PMR-friendly, MariusM? The article points out some flaws in the report, but it also point out the flaws in Transnistria. Fair and balanced, IMHO. - Mauco 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that battling with the political edits in this article is more or less futile. I've been watching, and taking part a bit in the discussions, for a year or so and nothing has really changed in the ebb and flow of edits and counter-edits. My vision of who is mad, who is biased and who is neither of those things has blurred considerably over the last year. I was under the impression that Marius M was a bit of a lunatic for a while, but when you read this article's disccussions for a long time you see patterns repeating where, a lot of the time, Marius M is only made to look like he's mad by people like Mauco and, to a lesser extent Pernambuco who in turn has been treated a little badly in the past. Having said that Mauco gets a fair old amount of opposition when it's not always justified. I can see why Mauco gets the odd "oh, great God Mauco" jokes directed at him as it does seem sometimes like he's lording it over the place, like he expects people to accept he's the local officianado on all things Transnistria and everything must pass the Mauco inspection. Yet I have to admit, if you weed out his propaganda, he does know an awful lot of stuff related to this subject, probably more than most people here. Jonathanpops 09:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mauco appearance on wikipedia coincided with appearance of International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty ICDISS. I think this is some how related. EvilAlex 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Full support for MariusM. Under Mauco influence article become highly POV based. Article needs to be put back on tracks. EvilAlex 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

but please discuss the changes, you cant just overwrite a whole month of work, it is similar to page blanking and is a disrespect for the many editors (around 20) who worked on changes to this page over the past four or five weeks, ok Pernambuco 14:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not a new changes! All of the proposed changes have been previously discussed and agreed. We do not introduce anything new, we just restore those sentences that have been unjustly deleted without any notifications or discussions what so ever. If you would like to delete them, then please give us a reasonable explanation why EvilAlex 14:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Gallery

Some said that if we could have more photos it would be better, as many as possible, how about if we get a little gallery at the end of the page, like Kosovo and many other pages, I like it, do you? - Pernambuco 23:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice but, apart from political pictures, I think there are only seven (slight under-exaggeration) pictures of Transnistria in existance - a building, a tank, a Lenin statue, a river, a main road (with banners), a church, and a painting of a park. Jonathanpops 09:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are thousands of photos of Transnistria. Four large sites alone have 250 to 350 photos each, and three of the these four have put their photos in public domain. Bendery.md, The Times (also here), Photo-Tiraspol, and Pridnestrovie.net Transnistria photos. If that is not enough, there are also photo albums on tiraspol.net, the Camenca site, the Dnestrovsk official ciy site, and a number of smaller sites, like the Tiraspol photo blog. The only sites which DON'T like to show life in Transnistria are the Moldovan-produced websites. - Mauco 14:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

ok well I waited until november 30, and i dont see anyone who is against, so i´ve started the gallery. It only has two pictures, i hope others can add more, the ideal size would be around 10 or like in the example I gave, maybe Jonathanpops is right and there are not enough pictures, we´ll see. I just want to say that the gallery needs more than 2, I will look for more. these that I started with are from the article about Tiraspol in the wiki-pedia Pernambuco 01:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

others, please learn: you propose something first, you dont introduce it first. First, you ask, then if there is no one against, you can put it in the article, but wait 2 or 3 days for everyone to have a chance to give their opinions or you will just be reverted Pernambuco 01:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

For this particular article it's a wise sequence of actions. Regarding the gallery I think that these pictures could be incorporated in the article: the one with the Dniester to the Geography section and another one somewhere else. Alaexis 05:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Count me in: Support for a limited gallery. See links to some sources above. - Mauco 14:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's brilliant if there are lots, we need to be sure it's ok to use them though don't we? Mauco, how do you know we can use those pictures you linked to, does it say they're all free to use somewhere on the site? Also, considering some of the sites, it might be wise to make sure (though I don't know how) that the sites we get them from have permission to use them in the first place. Then again, I suppose the owners can always ask Wikipedia to remove them if that isn't the case. Jonathanpops 15:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Each site HAS to say that the photos are public domain / GDFL, or else we are now allowed to use them. There can be exceptions, but it is cumbersome. It will require a Wikipedian contacting the site owner for a photo release. In the case of Marisha, this has been done but it must happen on a case by case basis. - Mauco 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The best way is to upload pictures from places you are safe about, license-wise, and NOT put them straight into the page. If you can wait, keep them on your talk page for a few days until others have had a chance to check the licensing terms and you know that their usage is allowed. Then, when they are here to say, put them in the article. Oh, and asking first (here in Talk) is not a bad idea either. A photo is content just like everything else. - Mauco 18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions that are already in Wikipedia but not part of the gallery yet:

• 
  Transnistria's flag
• 
  Rybnitsa, northern Transnistria
• 
  Tiraspol and the Dniester
• The fortress in Bender/Tighina
  The fortress in Bender/Tighina
• 
  Entrance to Tiraspol
• 
  Transnistria's Central Bank
• 
  Tiraspol at night
• 
  Transnistria's Parliament
• 
  Transnistria's Parliament

OK? And: Let's see if we can't find a few more. - Mauco 18:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

31 March update: Found a few more. Not all should be used. I am merely listing them to show variety. Some (like parliament building) are overlaps. We can pick and choose which ones are best, but ALL should not be used. - Mauco 01:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we should have a gallery of pictures at the end of the page. There are no such galleries at other articles: Germany, France, USA, Russia. The custom is to have a link to Wikimedia Commons, which we actually have.Dl.goe 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The lesser known places are interesting to see photos of. Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somalia and Abkhazia already have galleries. But not too many photos in our case. I would oppose anything beyond 8 or 10. - Mauco 19:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

These are not arguments. Look at Aruba Dl.goe 08:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, they ARE arguments. While you can of course always find exceptions to the rule, the article is enhanced by this sort of clickable visual content. Or not? Or what is the big deal? I have never wanted a gallery, but when someone put it in, I found that it added something so I support its stay and helped enhance it from the original two photos. It is useful, and it does no harm. - Mauco 12:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring

Will everyone please stop reverting back from one version to another, the changes can be done one by one and by talking about it, these large changes of 4000 or 5000 characters at a time will just not work, I can see that Buffadren agrees with me, and Khokhoi whos an admin, and several others.

To Di.goe and EvilAlex: I are not against your changes, but you can not impose them, you need to propose them one at a time and talk about it, and reach agreement and consensus, that is the spirit of how the wiki-pedia works Pernambuco 14:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

All of the proposed changes have been previously discussed. Please see archive talk. Also what amaze me most is that there is no agreement and no discussions on removing them. Why did entire paragraphs how been removed, changed, trimmed without any notifications or discussions what so ever. What is this vandalism? POV? Or maybe simple ignorance towards wiki contributers? EvilAlex 14:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Khoihoi and Pernambuco. The blanking of the intro represents the undoing of over 300 edits from 20 different editors, Evilalex can hardly be an honest person he deleted the Blanking warning on his user page dismissing it as 'rubbish'. Buffadren 14:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The changes that you try to preserve have newer been agreed by majority of users. Article is highly POV biased and need considerable reviewing. If you disagree with some restored data then please state clearly what is your objections. On my part there have not been a breach of 3RR - that is why i dismissing your warning as a 'rubbish'. EvilAlex 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you counted the users who are for and against your version to claim the majority is on your side? Even if you did it is not very relevant as the opinion of majority is not necessary true. Alaexis 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the question to EvilAlex actually )). It is he who claims that the majority of users are for his version. Alaexis 05:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

alaexis, I am against some of these edits, and I support some of them, and some of them I am neutral, but do you want to know why I revert EvilAlex and Mariusm and Co? its because they dont wait for consensus, they dont talk, they just impose themselves, this is why I even revert things i agree with ........they need to learn to seek others opinions first, its only fair Pernambuco 01:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Pernambuco, please explain:

1. When was a consensus to remove the external link http://conflict.md which was accepted unanimously when we disscussed about external links?
2. When was a consensus to remove sourced info about killings in Chiţcani village?
3. When was a consensus to remove sourced info about baning of some political parties in Transnistria?
4. When was a consensus to comment negatively U.S. Department of State position regarding Human Rights in Transnistria instead of just presenting it?

You should not tell "I am against some of these edits, and I support some of them", you should tell exactly which edits you support and which you don't, and what arguments you have. If you support some of those edits, why you reverted all of them?--MariusM 01:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I explained my edit here.Dl.goe 17:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In the part "I'm back and astonished" I put a list of 8 changes (some of them are only restoring old info which disappeared from the article without discussion). Anybody who don't agree with my changes please explain here why.--MariusM 23:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I submitted the list of information that I added to the article (most of it old info which was blanked) in 27 March, until now nobody argue why we don't need this info in the article, I saw only a lot of reverts. As I told, I restored link to http://conflict.md which was agreed by everyone in the past, I also restored old info in the Human Right section. New info which I added is only events of March 2007 - arrest of people who tried to organise a rally in Tiraspol against Smirnov regime, arrest. of Ştefan Urîtu and confiscation of cars with Moldovan registration numbers - all those are recent info and sourced.--MariusM 23:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

One more change I added - the assasination of local politician Victor Neumoin, with the source. As result of this adition, I changed also the subtitle "Deadly explosions" to "Killings". I wonder if we should not use the title "Terrorism", as this was clearly a terrorist act, and considering the court findings of the bus explosion it was also a terrorist act.--MariusM 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So every time someone gets shot it has to be included in the article? What about Kosovo? Don't they have explosions there everyday? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kertu3 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Pernambuco, may I ask you not to use sockpuppets? You consider assasination of local politicians as a normal thing? Then we should include in the article a statement "Is a habit in Transnistria to have local politicians assasinated". I don't believe in Kosovo there are explosions "everyday", but if this is the case, please mention it in Kosovo article.--MariusM 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

thats not me, I was going to revert you, but kertu3 did it (not me), so I was just watching the two of you, but you know my opinion: if someone cant discuss the changes first and get the consensus, then I revert, I have done it with you before and with Bonaparte and his alias users, and will do it again, Pernambuco 01:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You should disscuss your point of view (if you have any), I stated my point in 27 March, now we are in 30 March and I didn't see any argument against the inclusion of the info I wanted to include. How long I should wait, 3 days without any argument against my edit is not enough?--MariusM 01:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

heres the problem: you said what you wanted and then immediately, in 1 minute, you made your change (and a lot of other changes). then you got reverted, many times, and doesnt that give you an answer? Heres what you should do, what is good wiki-pedia politics: Do you see above, when I suggest a gallery? See, i put it here, then i wait, I let others give their opinion,and after a few days, if no one is against I made the edit. the free tip I give you is this, you dont make the edit at the same time you talk about it, you talk about it first and wait some days, maybe 2 or 3, so others can discuss, and if no person is opposed, you go ahead, or else you find a phrase or a version that everyone likes Pernambuco 01:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert without explanation is not Wikipedia normal policy. I saw that many editors agreed with me (see above talk), you and Alaexis and sockpuppet Kertu3 reverted without explaining what you don't like. There are 9 changes (8 explained in "I'm back and astonished" + Neumoin assasination), please explain for each of them what you don't like. Explanations please, not personal attacks like "edit warrior". 3 days after my first opening of disscussion are already gone.--MariusM 01:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So you want to impose your version and let us amend it in due process - one edit at a time after the consensus had been reached about it. I think it's not very fair.

It is probably true that some of the edits you don't like were made without any previous discussion (which is not itself a violation of wikipedia policy). However they were made one at a time and you could've raised this issue at that time. I advise you to start the discussion about all the proposed changes. I think some of them will be accepted. Alaexis 05:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

However they were made one at a time and you could've raised this issue at that time That is assuming real life lets us the time to do this.Dl.goe 05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not an excuse to make a ton of changes at a time. Imagine what would happen if everyone acted like this. Alaexis 06:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, and I think it would be a lot easier for us, and the article a lot better if we would all seek consensus before making any change to the article, but Mauco made lots of changes without any discussion, and my edit is mainly reverting his edits.Dl.goe 07:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

When Mauco, in this edits changed Human Rights, and presented Ilie Ilascu as a common criminal, removing the fact that he was unjustly sentenced, when he replaced

THIS
Transnistrian local authorities insist that public education for ethnic Moldovans in their mother tongue is taught using the Soviet-originated Moldovan Cyrillic, having restricted the usage of the Latin script (the norm) for the Moldovan language to only 6 schools. In the summer of 2004, this issue sparked into yet another political conflict between Chişinău and Tiraspol. Four schools (of the remaining six) that taught the Moldovan language using the Latin script were forcedly closed by the authorities, who claimed this was due to the refusal of the schools to apply for official accreditation. The schools were later reopened.

WITH THIS
Public education for ethnic Moldovans in the Moldovan language is taught in Moldovan Cyrillic, but in July 2005, under an OSCE-negotiated formula, Transnistrian authorities allowed Latin script schools in the region. In the summer of 2004, four schools were closed for failure to register locally. The schools have since reopened.

as if there are no abuses whatsoever ? Did he seek consensus on Talk page? No. But I need to have consensus to revert him.
And how would you describe the text: (Transnistria)It functions as a sovereign country with its own postal system and stamps, police, military, currency, constitution, flag, national anthem, coat of arms, and has its own parliament and government. other than propaganda? And such texts are not present in any other article. Just in Transnistria to present Mauco's point of view.Dl.goe 05:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't make it about me. I have not been very active lately. My last edit to this article was 12 days ago, and was just the restoration of a link which someone removed. Before that, I had been gone for another four days prior. Most of the 200 or 300 edits to the page have been made by others. Everyone had a chance to edit, but no one objected until now ...when all of a sudden EvilAlex and MariusM show up at the same time (coincidence or collusion?) and start undoing five weeks of work by others. - Mauco 06:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that I've edited the article doesn't mean I approved your edit.Dl.goe 06:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of giving a diff which omits intermediary edits, why don't you deal with each edit one by one? I would like to hear your criticism, and have a chance to explain further (in addition to the edit summary already given in the logs). For instance, on the human rights issue, at the date when my edit was made, a new annual report had been issued by the US State Department. This year's version is milder on Transnistria than the previous year's version. It is natural that if our article references the report, which it does, then our article must be updated when the report is updated. My edit log summary explained that. But if you have specific complaints, do two things: raise them here and consult the source. You will see that what is currently in the article is a closer match with the latest source than what was previously in the article. In short, it is a better article now. Not because it is pro- or contra something, but simply because it more closely adhere to the contents of the underlying sources. - Mauco 07:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't find any difference between 4 consecutive edits in 30 minutes or one larger edit, if they contain the same changes. I haven't observed in Wikipedia policy anything against large edits. About USA Department of State annual report, indeed, I haven't noticed the new one. Here is what I would extract from the new report:

The human rights record of the Transnistrian authorities remained poor. The right of citizens to change their government was restricted and authorities interfered with the ability of residents to vote. Authorities reportedly continued to use torture and arbitrary arrest and detention.[...]Authorities limited freedom of speech and of the press.[...]Authorities usually did not permit free assembly.[...] In the separatist region of Transnistria the authorities continued to deny registration and harassed a number of minority religions groups.[...]The separatist region remained a significant source and transit area for trafficking in persons.[...] Homosexuality was illegal, and gays and lesbians were subject to governmental and societal discrimination.USA Department of State report referring to year 2006

Dl.goe 09:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am waiting for arguments against my edits

In 27 March I explained in this talk page the edits I've done [26]. After that I saw only reverts of my work, no arguments against my edits. All those who opose my edits, please explain why.--MariusM 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Inclusion of external link to http://conflict.md. This was agreed in archived discussion about external links. Who is against this inclusion and why?--MariusM 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Mentioning March 2007 arrest of opponents of Transnistrian government who tried to organise a meeting in Tiraspol. Who is against this inclusion and why?--MariusM 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Mentioning of Ştefan Urîtu's arrest in 19 March. Urîtu is the leader of Moldovan Helsinki Comitee of Human Rights. Who is against this inclusion and why?--MariusM 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Mentioning of confiscation of cars with Moldovan registration numbers. Who is against this inclusion and why?--MariusM 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Mentioning of previous ban of political parties. Who is against this inclusion and why?--MariusM 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Mentioning of Victor Neumoin assasination and changing the subtitle "deadly explosions" in "killings" (as this assasination was not through an explosion). Who is against this inclusion and why?--MariusM 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Presenting U.S. Department of State position regarding human rights without derogatory comments. Who is against this and why?--MariusM 08:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Mentioning unsolved killings in Chiţcani village. Who is against this inclusion and why?--MariusM 08:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Avoiding claim that "opposition party Renewal" won December 2005 election as this party officially registered only in 2006. Also avoid POV label "opposition" as this party didn't submit a candidature against Smirnov in December 2006 presidential elections and didn't participate in any movement targeted to remove Smirnov from his office. December 2006 election results, if correct (which I doubt) show that the majority of Renewal voters supported Smirnov.--MariusM 08:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What 'derogatory comments' are you writing about (number 7)? Alaexis 18:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was reffering at the phrase "The United States State Department stated that the right of Transnistrians to change their government was restricted; however, in December 2005 the opposition party Renewal won Transnistria's parliamentary elections and took control of parliament", which was in Pernambuco's version. The part with "however" was added with the purpose to pretend that US Department of State is wrong. Anybody can have this opinion, but is against Wiki NPOV policy to include in the article, we should just state what US Department of State told. My opinion is that Renewal is not an oposition party, as the majority of its voters supported Smirnov in last presidential election, and in December 2005 was not even a party, as it registered officially as a political party only in 2006.--MariusM 19:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I see your point. However it's the Moldovan government the people of Transnistria are restricted from changing. It's written in the beginning of the report " The government does not control this region. Unless otherwise stated, all references herein are to the rest of the country." (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61664.htm), so the word 'government' applies to the Moldovan government.

So, I think that this sentence should be broken in two as its two parts are unrelated. Like this: The United States State Department stated that the right of Transnistrians to change the Moldovan government was restricted. The ruling party Respublika lost the December 2005 elections to the Renewal Party. What do you think about it? Alaexis 20:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, is not what US Department of State was telling. I quote: In Transnistria: the right of citizens to change their government was severely restricted; authorities reportedly continued to use torture and arbitrary arrest and detention (...) Transnistrian authorities interfered with residents' ability to participate in elections. Internationally recognized election observers were not present during the December 11 elections to the Transnistrian Supreme Soviet, and the elections were not considered free and fair.. Is very clear, the subject is the election for PMR authorities. I also remind you that both Renewal and Respublika registered as political parties after 2005 elections.--MariusM 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

They wrote it clear enough - all the references are to the rest of the country (that is, Moldova) unless otherwise stated. It's otherwise stated only in the very last sentence of your quote. Adding this info (that Internationally recognized election observers were not present during the December 11 elections to the Transnistrian Supreme Soviet according to the ...) is ok. The rest is about Moldovan elections. Alaexis 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It was "otherwise stated". ""The elections were not considered free and fair", and the subject was PMR elections. Regarding Moldovan elections, they were considered free.--MariusM 21:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's then write that the elections were not free and fair according to the US State Department. The Renewal party existed as a NGO before the elections, afaik. Alaexis 15:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is called obfuscation, MariusM. Pure flim-flam. Notice how the get around the fact that they didn't want to send their own observers by calling all the other observers "not internationally recognized". What is "internationally recognized" anyway? And who defines that? The rest of the report is more of the same. There is are no documented cases of torture and no arbitrary arrests, so they say "reportedly" without giving the source. This sort of weasel wording wouldn't stand a chance in Wikipedia. - Mauco 20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mauco and Alaexis don't trust US Department of State. Is their right. However we are allowed to include in Wikipedia quotes from this report, we will mention exactly the source and the readers will decide if they will believe or not. US Department of State is a more credible source than Tiraspol Times, I guess.--MariusM 21:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I do support you on this. If you make the changes I'll support you (I'll do them myself, but I do have a job different from editing wikipedia, which is different from Mauco and the likes). Dpotop 09:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Full support for MariusM.Dl.goe 10:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Full support. EvilAlex 13:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting how all the Romanians come out of the woodwork as soon as MariusM is back. Do you have an email alert system? MariusM was gone for over a month, and we hardly saw EvilAlex, Dpotop or the others here either. Your concern is touching, but where were you when everyone else worked in peace and consensus on developing the page? - Mauco 13:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There's this funny thing called Special:Watchlist. Very useful. Dpotop 14:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was always here. And if your remember i did try to contribute to Wiki with well supported and documented date. But you was so bloody high and mighty that the only voice that you listen to was your own. And when i did get the support of majority on some sentences you removed,trimmed,or took their meanings. Mauco you are PEST here. I would like to see at list some reflections of the true, not your POVs. At list try to stick to the WP:NPOV guidelines. EvilAlex 14:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, EvilAlex, don't attack Mauco. He's just doing his job, nothing personal. Dpotop 14:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the ad hominen and slimy innuendo... WP:AGF everyone. - Mauco 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn’t agree because:

1. Conflict.md gives one-sided information. 2. The arrested members of opposition were arrested, because they tried to cripple militiamen. Look this http://tiras.ru/en/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1173650950&archive=&start_from=&ucat=25& Helen28 14:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Helen, conflict.md didn't give ANY information. All they did was reprint a Moldpres article which is the ofifical state mouthpiece of the Voronin regime in Chisinau. The article was onesided and based entirely on a press release by Stefan Uritu. Apart from your link, the same thing is also covered in English here: Released opposition leader: "The Moldova Helsinki Committee is full of sh*t" from which I quote: "Supposedly the victim of arbitrary arrest, Oleg Khorzhan comes out swinging against the way his case was twisted in a PR stunt. He calls the leader of a self-styled human rights group "a sick liar". The opposition politician says he was treated better by police than by those who claim to defend him."

As follow-up, no comments or corrections from Uritu. Also no apologies or corrections from Moldpres or Conflict.md who distributed the false information. - Mauco 15:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder: when we disscussed external links http://conflict.md had 6 vote for and only one against. Even Mauco and Markstreet voted for this link. I think Moldpress or conflict.md don't need to apologies for their news, Tiraspol Times is the source which deserve the label "sick liar" and need to apologies.--MariusM 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflict.md is a good reliable source. This web-page was created with the support of OSCE Moldova. EvilAlex 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not to add conflict.md to the Moldovan sources list? I don't see any problem with it. Alaexis 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I told long time ago (check archived talk) that this site is not kept by Moldovan government, however, in order to achieve a compromise I will accept to list it under "Moldovan" label. In fact, this is the best non-separatist site focused on Transnistria, the other sites we have, like azi.md or moldova.org are about general problems of Moldova and sometimes (quite often) are publishing news about Transnistria, but conflict.md is ONLY about Transnistria.--MariusM 16:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please state your positions in the other 8 issues.--MariusM 16:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Pernambuco's sockpuppetry confirmed

It was confirmed that User:Kertu3 was a sockpuppet of User: Pernambuco. He used it to breach the 3RR. See RCU confirmation.--MariusM 14:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder: I told already that Pernambuco is a sockpuppeteer and he denied. He is just a liar. I know, after this some people in Wikipedia will hate me even more.--MariusM 15:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, I am going to defend Pernambuco (and now you'll say that I am his sockpuppet, too). If you look at history, you yourself broke 3RR as well. So don't be so quick to accuse others. In fact, I am almost going to give Pernambuco an anti-vandal barnstar here, because at least he/she restored the page while you were busy trying to blank the work that took place by lots of people over the past month. - Mauco 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Plain fallacy. I am not going to say now that you are Pernambuco's sock. Also User:Kertu3 appeared before I broke the 3RR, and when I made the 3rd and 4th revert I've put in the edit summary "rv sockpuppet", I'm sure reverting a sockpuppet is not against Wikipedia policy. Pernambuco himself was forgiven when he broke 3RR reverting a sock. Just a reminder: Kertu3 wikilife started with accusations against me about using sockpuppetry [27]. Is like the Romanian saying: The thief is crying most loudly "catch the thief". Not surprisingly Mauco want to give a barnstar to a sockpuppeteer.--MariusM 15:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry for purposes of evading 3RR is bad.--Tiraspolitan 15:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Edit warring is bad, too. I just checked the history of the page and looked at some IPs. EvilAlex did 6RR's through his UK AOL dial-up. Somehow MariusM didn't seem to mind, or request an IP check of his friend. - Mauco 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dont you touch my clear name with your dirty hands. As i explaned on my talk page: "AOL is one of the top broadband providers around the word and millions of people using it on a daily biases. Also UK is preferred destination for many ex:USSR citizens. Maybe we have a new contributer? Lets wait. Lets not make groundless accusations."[28]. I am clean as an unmuddied lake. I am clean as azure sky of deepest summer. EvilAlex 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please stop accusing others without proofs? You should request an IP check if you have doubts. In all debates about Transnistria all the proven sockpuppetry cases were discovered by me MarkStreet - Henco, Mark us street - Esgert - Truli, Pernambuco - Kertu3, this is the reason I am hated so much. As I told, the thief is crying most loudly "catch the thief".--MariusM 15:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Check the history and the known IPs of EvilAlex. That'll give you all the proof you need. Of course, I don't expect you or EvilAlex to agree. Ever. - Mauco 15:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sory, I don't have the list of known IPs of EvilAlex. This is your job to keep this list. Why you didn't ask a RCU and you just throw accusations (like you did against Urîtu, against conflict.md and against everybody who want to tell the truth about Transnistria.--MariusM 16:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mauco - i already replied to your accusations. Please read sentences above. I am clean. Please do not make groundless accusations. And in contradiction on your part i see you & Co - playing dirty ;( EvilAlex 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Anyone here wants to discuss edits to the article? I was away from this page for nearly two weeks, and when I came back, I checked the History log. The logs speak for themselves: Our "clean" friends have engaged in a lot of blanking, reverting, warring, etc. - Mauco 16:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

From 27 March I am expecting reasons for rejecting my proposed changes. I saw 3 people supporting me (EvilAlex, Dlgoe and Dpotop), you made a comment only regarding conflict.md link (should I assume than in the other issues you accept my proposals?) which contradict your own previous position. In fact, there are no reasons against the proposed changes, all are sourced info, only the desire to hide the truth about Transnistria for Wikipedia readers.--MariusM 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dont you touch my clear name with your dirty hands. The only proven sockpuppetry cases were: MarkStreet - Henco, Mark us street - Esgert - Truli, Pernambuco - Kertu3. And guess what? They are all your friends. Mauco's supporters. EvilAlex 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Mauco, do you still remember how you reverted me in the past under edit summaries like rv rubbish or rv POV hijack? Here are the diffs:[29][30]. I think everybody has treated your edits much better than you have treated others. I find stunning the fact that we need days, if not weeks or months of discussions to correct the edits you've made in a few minutes without discussing. You have removed most Moldavian sources and replaced them with Tiraspol Times, pridnestrovie.net or olvia press. Please look at references. I can only wonder if these discussions are useful. I mean, we discussed much about the intro, and now it is worst than ever.Dl.goe 17:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean it is worse than ever? Anything factually incorrect? It gives a clear overview of the actual situation. I notice that when you guys tried to remove it, 7 different editors + 1 sockpuppet reverted you. If I had been around for the past two weeks, I would have reverted you myself, too. - Mauco 17:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:"it gives a clear overview of the actual situation" through a periscope. Maybe there is few more sockpuppets emm? EvilAlex 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I dare say that Wikipedia's overview of Transnistria is more factually correct and enciclopedic than the distorted picture that you are trying to promote through your propaganda/hate-site at transnistria.ru.ru - Mauco 18:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that if you NEVER was in Transnistria. EvilAlex 18:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. Anyone want to discuss edits now? - Mauco 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My fews have been based on the real life experiences. On the real events. I new what happen on the ground. EvilAlex 19:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just after you cease wanting to have the last word. You created this discussion by your try to clear Pernambuco. Dpotop 19:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone stop to look at what Pernambuco was actually doing? I checked the log. He/she didn't introduce anything new, but just kept restoring the page from over-zealous "editing" done in contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles. I am not in agreement with the methods, but I can understand the motivation. - Mauco 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course he didn't introduce anything. He reverted. And that means he used his sockpupet to break Wikipedia rules. I am sure you understand the motivations, as long as he was helping you.Dl.goe 19:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, how can he "be helping me"? The work he protected was not my work. I haven't had a single edit to this article in 12 days, and before that, I was absent for four days as well. Most of the recent work belongs to a dozen other editors. Moreover, I notice that Pernambuco supported (and protected) your graveyard edit. See above. I don't agree with it, but at least I play by the rules here. On the same day - yesterday - MariusM broke 3RR as well, as did EvilAlex (even though he denies it). - Mauco 19:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course Mauco you are innocent like usual. EvilAlex 19:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sort of. Hard to see what "crime" I've committed if I haven't had a single edit to the article for nearly 2 weeks now. - Mauco 20:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tell me Mauco, whose edit was I reverting , whose contribution was I modifying? Your's: you modified human rights chapter, and I modified it back. Pernambuco was defending your version of the article. Could you please tell me what do you mean with "but at least I play by the rules here"? Do you accuse me of something ?Dl.goe 20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't take it personal (unless you think you've broken the rules). I was referring to MariusM and EvilAlex and naming them specifically. The specific evidence is in the history log. - Mauco 20:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

name?

Am I out of my mind? I thought this place was called Transdnistria, or Transdniestr, or something like that...K. Lásztocska 20:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right. The name comes from the river, which is called Dniester in English (but Nistru in Romanian, and Dnestr in Russian). Different nationalities cohabit so there are different names. Wikipedia has chosen to use the name which a minority part of the population uses. You can read more in Names of Transnistria. - Mauco 20:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Transnistria" is the name most commonly used in English and is used by sources of this caliber [31] (who also designate it a "secessionist territory").--Tiraspolitan 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Most news organizations don't use "Transnistria" in English. You might also be interested in seeing the article on Transjordan, which got its name from the Jordan river. - Mauco 20:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. [32][33][34]. Also, see WP:NOR, it's wiki's place to describe what it is most commonly called, not to prescribe what it should be called.--Tiraspolitan 20:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, BBC uses Trans-Dniester. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/3641826.stm Alaexis 20:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, they also call it a "separatist region" and list it in the "regions and territories" category (not the "countries" category).--Tiraspolitan 20:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is amazing that a simple question on the name gets the Romanians on the defensive. Bonaparte, RFE/RL uses Transdniester, and The Economist uses Transdniestria. - Mauco 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And what else do they call it, "a fully independent state" or something along the lines of "separatist region"? By the way, I'm not Bonaparte. I knew someone would say something like that sooner or later.--Tiraspolitan 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet you admit to being a sockpuppet, and your only mainspace edit has been to engage in persistent revert warring. If you are not Bonny, you are doing a good job of following in his footsteps. - Mauco 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting a little too personal for my liking (which explains why I consider using a sockpuppet account necessary in the first place). To my knowledge what I have been doing is within policy (including the reverting of unexplained edits), if you have anything which indicates I am wrong I'd be pleased to hear about it. This discussion page is for discussing the article alone, let's stick to that, shall we?--Tiraspolitan 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe there are other things more important in this article than a letter in the name. It was this way for a long time, why to open such a discussion.--MariusM 20:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

:)) EvilAlex 20:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, I should have known this would set off a war--I was just confused, I didn't know about the multiple names. No harm intended. K. Lásztocska 20:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggest changes

I would suggest a de facto separate republic within the internationally recognized boundaries... phrasing. I think it would be a good compromise version.

I prefer to leave word territory unchanged - Transnistria is a territory within the internationally recognized boundaries of the Republic of Moldova. Britannica call it: secessionist territory [35] EvilAlex 21:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I changed it.--Mr. Sure Entry 21:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I prefferits legal status continues to be an issue of contention. than sovereignty over Transnistria continues to be an issue of contention. as the end of the introduction. Because Transnistira is not recognise as a country; not just it's sovereignty is disputed.

I removed biased content like Despite some efforts to enhance the democratic process in recent years election results in the past were considered suspicious, as. And I've let simply the facts In 2001 in one region it was reported that Igor Smirnov collected 103.6% of the votes. I think we should not judge uppon facts; just present them.

In the article there was a strange paragraph: The OSCE and European Union officials state that there is no evidence that Transnistria has ever, at any time in the past, trafficked arms or nuclear material. I think this is like responding to accusations never said if we do not add just before it the accusations which were given to Transnistria. I've added: <In 2002, the European Parliament's delegation to Moldova named Transnistria "a black hole in which illegal trade in arms, the trafficking in human beings and the laundering of criminal finance was carried on" In 2005, The Wall Street Journal called Transnistria "a major haven for smuggling weapons and women" >.

Also, I've modified

This
"Although unnamed community leaders were initially reported as claiming that the authorities had not helped clean up anti-Semitic graffiti painted on the tombstones, this was later shown to be untrue when the local rabbi provided photos of Tiraspol's authorities assisting in the restoration effort."

IN
"According to Jewish Journal, local community leaders said the authorities refused to help clean up the anti-Semitic graffiti painted over the tombstones. According to Transnistrian press, the local rabbi provided photos of Tiraspol's authorities assisting in the restoration effort."

.

I think we should not assume one source is right and the other wrong. We should present both sources.

I've also introduced the new USA Department of State report for 2006 with the text:

The human rights record of the Transnistrian authorities remained poor. The right of citizens to change their government was restricted and authorities interfered with the ability of residents to vote. Authorities reportedly continued to use torture and arbitrary arrest and detention.[...]Authorities limited freedom of speech and of the press.[...]Authorities usually did not permit free assembly.[...] In the separatist region of Transnistria the authorities continued to deny registration and harassed a number of minority religions groups.[...]The separatist region remained a significant source and transit area for trafficking in persons.[...] Homosexuality was illegal, and gays and lesbians were subject to governmental and societal discrimination.

Dl.goe 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

DoneMr. Sure Entry 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Why isn't in the article any information about the 14 Russian Army in the region?Dl.goe 21:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

DoneMr. Sure Entry 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Sure Entry ! Well done ! Dl.goe 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte alert... The edit style should be painfully obvious by now. Dl goe, you've got yourself set up again... --Illythr 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am forced to ask Dl.goe to please reconsider. These are not small changes, like adding a few extra photos to a gallery. Rather, they change the meaning of important parts of the article. The only serve to make the article worse, not better, and more confusing for the reader. As you yourself note in your edit summary, Illythr, "Now it looks kinda self-contradictory. Cleanup is required..."[36]. The editing should be done here, in Talk. When there is a version which works - and is not self-contradictory - it goes into the article. Why were these changes forced into the article 10 minutes after they were introduced here in Talk? Why not wait a while to give everyone a fair and equal chance to discuss them first? - Mauco 00:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Now it looks kinda self-contradictoryu. If the sources contradict, we present both of them. You would like to have only Transnistrian sources in the article? Dl.goe 09:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I meant that some European reports in that section contradict each other ("Reports Of Smuggling From Transdniester Likely Exaggerated" etc). I'd say that in such a case later reports should override older ones. --Illythr 11:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dl.goe: Illythr is right. Things change over time. In the case of smuggling, they didn't know what was going on. So they, for lack of information, used the "black hole" term. Black hole doesn't mean something bad is actually happening - it just means "we really don't know, we have no info". So, in 2005, they put a $20 million border monitoring program in place. Now, they DO know. The later EU statements are therefore, and quite naturally, much more informed than the previous. - Mauco 12:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Especially when telling reports of ... likely exaggerated we must also include fragments of those reports. Or else we wouldn't know what is exaggerated. Also, in the same article it is mentioned However, Western officials are quick to note that absence of evidence does not mean dangerous activities are not taking place. Also: He(An EU official working in Kyiv) said illegal Russian exports from Transdniester would be impossible to detect, since Ukrainian border guards lack the necessary equipment. Also, in another article,[37]:" Moscow and Tiraspol, capital of Transnistria, would split profits from the sale of "unnecessary weapons, ammunition, military assets and materials," according to the 1998 agreement that bears their signatures. There seems to be no public record of the deal, but Russian and Western officials confirmed its existence in a one-page memo on what to do with Europe's biggest Soviet army weapons cache.[...]Moldovan police four years ago halted a truck leaving Transnistria. Inside were anti-aircraft missiles made in Russia, detonators and plastic explosives, members of Transnistria's army — and Lt. Col. Vladimir Nemkov, a deputy commander of Russian peacekeepers in the enclave." I don't know if the situation is now settled, but even if it is, that doesn't mean wrong things didn't happen in the past. That is why we also need old reports.Dl.goe 13:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why cleanup is needed. The section currently just lists the reports and allegations in no particular order. I have removed the anonymous statement of the "EU official working in Kyiv", because what he said amounts to speculations (compare: "We know John Doe is a paedophile, but we can't prove it because he does it when noone can see him."). I personally think that the whole issue should be trimmed to something like "Transnistria has had a reputation of being a haven for weapons smuggling in the past (link,link, link), but recent investigations performed by (link) states that ...yada-yada... likely exaggerated." --Illythr 13:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be very good, but we currently have no investigations showing they are likely exaggerated. We have only other speculations. In the article it is a text: "However, Western officials are quick to note that absence of evidence does not mean dangerous activities are not taking place." which shows that Transnistria's innocence was not proven. And in cases of weapons, it has to be proven. Dl.goe 14:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't prove a negative. The best you can say is that there has never been any evidence of these claims being true, whatsoever. - Mauco 14:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

<Major General Nikolai Babachuk, deputy head of the Ukrainian southern border guard command, told RFE/RL of limited weapons seizures at the Transdniestrian border. "In terms of weapons, we have seized grenades -- this year twice already at the Kuchurgan railway station in the corridors of passenger cars," Babachuk said. "And in a few cases, guns were seized, and ammunition -- about 50,000 units.">

There are ways to prove innocence, like admitting inspectors and collaborating with other countries to catch the outlaws. I'm not accusing Transnistria, I'm just saying that Western officials can get wary even if there are no proves of trafficking of weaponsDl.goe 15:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the contradictions: Yes, it is called copy-edit. You can present both viewpoints easily in a way that does not sound self-contradictory. At the same time, undue weight should not be given to the older viewpoint superceeded by newer, more informed reports. - Mauco 14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected (again)

Sigh, the unprotection of an article is not an invitation to take your disagreements back to it and resume edit warring. You should be capable of discussing the issues here first. I have protected the page. This time it will not be unprotected until a consensus as to how the article should read has been reached. If you are unable to reach an agreement you may wish to consider avenues of dispute resolution:

• A third opinion from an uninvolved part
• A Request for comment from the wider community
• Informal mediation

Good luck with your discussions. WjBscribe 04:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion was underway fine till the page got prematurely unprotected. Then a few people here decided to abandon all restraint. - Mauco 04:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

To all: How about we do this - anyone who wants to change something in the current page, please introduce one issue at a time with a separate header. That will help keep the discussion less unwieldy, enabling us to hopefully reach some results. Be reasonable. No personal attacks or breaches of WP:AGF. It shouldn't be so hard, really. Just follow the instructions posted in the boxes on the top of this page. - Mauco 04:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I approve User:Mr. Sure Entry !

Dl.goe, just FYI: This is a now-banned sock of permanently banned Bonaparte. You are keeping bad company. - Mauco 12:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel discussing with Mauco leads to nowhere. For example, I explained my edit on talk[38], but he didn't discuss about it. He just removed it [39]. And look what happens with the article: any information about the 14 Russian army in the region disapared. Ilie Ilascu is presented as a common criminal, and the situation of Moldovan language schools is presented without Transnistrian authorities abuses being mentioned. Further more, he removes Romanian sources based on Transnistrian ones, giving full credit to Transnistrian and no credit to Romanian. In my edits I was willing to give equal credit to Transnsitrian sources and Romanian ones, even though Transnistria is described as a not free country[40]. And even if we agree on something, it will soon be removed. We agreed to have in the article

Certain countries, including the United States,[70] the United Kingdom[71] and Australia[72] announced travel warnings for its citizens traveling to Transnistria.

This compromise was accepted by Mauco.[41][42]But still, it is removed. Than what is the use of discussing?Dl.goe 09:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dl goe, what are you doing? Do not blindly revert to a compromised version like that, removing things like official names etc. Please, introduce your edits separately of any ultra-nationalist vandals you may sympathize with. --Illythr 10:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Illythr, I had to revert you.--Tiraspolitan 11:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Without any explanation? But that's okay, I just wanted a good checkpoint to revert to once the dust settles. --Illythr 11:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"I feel discussing with Mauco leads to nowhere" is really not the right approach to Wikipedia. I believe I have made it more than clear here - and so have others - that wholesale revisions en masse is not the way to handle Wikipedia. Moreover, we have a newly registered, self-professed sockpuppet involved. Dl goe, and the sock, don't like some of the changes. Fine. But just hours ago, I asked that we discuss this as civilized adults: One at a time. This was how the other changes were made ... and, may I add, most of them NOT by me. Check the log if in doubt. I have been mostly absent from this article over the past weeks. - Mauco 12:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thus, I repeat -

To all: How about we do this - anyone who wants to change something in the current page, please introduce one issue at a time with a separate header. That will help keep the discussion less unwieldy, enabling us to hopefully reach some results. Be reasonable. No personal attacks or breaches of WP:AGF. It shouldn't be so hard, really. Just follow the instructions posted in the boxes on the top of this page. - Mauco 04:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure but lets start from the version that have been agreed by all users (as per archive talk). Not with the version that you try to impose. EvilAlex 13:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Mauco, you already told me I keep bad company remember ? [43][44] I am sure you don't like the edits of Mr. Sure Entry: he removed official names, the picture with Suvorov, and Transnistrian sources.
But what about the other edits ?
What about the edits in which Ilie Ilascu is presented as a common criminal?
What about edits in which the compromise version of travel warnings was removed?
What about edits in which Romanian sources are removed because they have been denigrated in Transnistrian press?
And why was the information about the 14 Russian army removed? (it was in the article in the past[45][46])
Aren't these even more radical than those entered by Mr. Sure Entry? Dl.goe 14:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I will confirm that the moment you endorse (and revert to) a version by a permanently banned user who has been excluded for good from Wikipedia, then you are indeed hanging with the wrong. Add that to your DIFFs.

Having said that, you are bringing up a number of issues and some good suggestions for changes. They should be decided one by one, the same way they were introduced: Over time, and with everyone having a chance to revert, discuss, adjust the wording, etc. etc. Mass imposition of one version over another shows a blatant lack of respect for the contributions of others, and I hope you will consider this. - Mauco 14:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the names thing, the mention of the usage of the .ru domain (as well as every single Cyrillic letter) was removed from the text. Numerous details were deleted, even from Moldovan-side sources. It also introduced heaps of factually incorrect (Most people from Transnistria are Romanians (42%) Orthodox Christians) and hopelessly POV (Russian military forces (14th Soviet Army) conducted a military aggression against the newly created state of the Republic of Moldova and its eastern territories were taken over) data. Oh, yeah, the info about Russian and Ukrainian population was removed as well. Lame.

Frankly, if we will have to discuss such massive POV disruptions introduced by banned users every time someone chooses to revert to them because, together with all the vandalism, they also introduce some good info, this article will deteriorate to oblivion very soon. I say, delete all of the vandal's edits and then let us put whatever good edits he made back, after discussing them here, of course.--Illythr 15:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have done this now, Illythr. Your suggestions do make sense. Now, let us discuss what needs to be changed and added. Please do not change, and please do not add, or delete, without a bit of talk here first. The page is unprotected and I am sure that we would all like it to stay that way. - Mauco 15:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, apparently not everyone feels that we ought to work through consensus. User:EvilAlex reverted back to Bonaparte's POV-hijack instantly (again, I might add). See this little stunt, which he classified as "minor". - Mauco 15:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Civilized approach to changes

This is the third I am making this request. I hope to appeal to reason and common sense. We can't work from a page which is the result of vandalizing by Bonaparte. To reduce friction, the best starting point is a page resembles the one which was present the current rounds of edit warring.

Anyone who wants to change something in that version (the latest stable version) please introduce one issue at a time with a separate header. That will help keep the discussion less unwieldy, enabling us to hopefully reach some results. Be reasonable. No personal attacks or breaches of WP:AGF. It shouldn't be so hard, really. Just follow the instructions posted in the boxes on the top of this page. - Mauco 15:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this, EvilAlex. I see that my appeal to reason fell on deaf ears. I see that you side with Bonaparte. Why am I not surprised? - Mauco 15:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad we arrived at lack of respect for the contributions of others subject. Hope you still remember your edit summaries rv rubbish and rv POV hijack... I don't understand what are you accusing me of. I just don't accept what you want to impose here: you've made some changes, without discussing, and now you want us remove your changes one at a time and only after consensus is reached. But when I make an edit I am reverted and asked to seek consensus first. Dl.goe 15:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Friend, I never do any mass changes like. It is a lack of respect for the contributions of others. Please show me the single DIFF of "you've made some changes, without discussing" which even remotely resembles any of the undiscussed reverts and wholesale blanking of the work of others that this page has undergone in the past few days (since now-blocked MariusM re-appeared). - Mauco 15:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have never added +7,867 chars to the article singlehandedly in one major undiscussed edit diff This is a major change to the article and must be discussed, approved first. Please consider approaching the issue of edit changes in an incremental manner. Assuming you want others to respect them and agree with them. - Mauco 16:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand nothing : What is a lack of respect for the contributions of others: making contributions ? Reverting them? Dl.goe 17:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Name

There are many issues which need to be discussed, but Mauco asked me specifically about the names in the infobox. Doesn't everyone think it's more NPOV not to say "it's a republic" when no one (not even Russia) recognizes it as one? Its status is disputed, however its universally accepted that it's "Transnistria" (or "Pridnestrovie" in Russian); perhaps we should just stick with those names.--Tiraspolitan 12:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please handle one issue at a time. This header says name, so I will answer you on name. When that is sorted, we move on - from the top down. Now, as to name: With your latest edit in mainspace, you are endorsing a version created by a sockpuppet of permanently banned User:Bonaparte. Nowhere in the article does it include the word "Pridnestrovie" which is -

* the name a) by the constitution governing the territory, and which is in force whether or not we choose to consider it valid;

* the name b) as used in the language spoken by the majority of the population, a the language most commonly heard in the territory.

If you believe this name should not be included, let your edit stay. Otherwise, please understand that this article is the result of a lot of work by a lot of people over the course of several years, and that it should be as informative as possible. You are endorsing a version created by a banned user whose sole purpose in Wikipedia seems to be to vandalize. - Mauco 12:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't revert to Bonaparte, I reverted to Dl.goe (as I said in the edit summary), what is your problem with that version? The only official name of the territory is "Stânga Nistrului" which is recognized by every government on Earth. As for the majority of the population, they likely call it "Transnistria" with the Russian and Ukrainian minorities calling it "Pridnyestrov'ye" (Приднестровье) and Prydnistrov'ya (Придністров'я) respectively.--Tiraspolitan 13:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And Europeans call Europe "That place, over the Atlantic". Yeah, right. Anyhow, the names thing is a non-issue, really. I only pointed it out to Dl goe as a demonstration of why his reverting to edits of a banned sockpuppet was a Bad Thing. --Illythr 13:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to act in good faith here, and handle every item one issue at a time. I believe that discussion in the talkpage is the way to resolve differences, even with self-confessed sockpuppets like the anonymous Tiraspolitan. Naturally, I'll expect some give and take - and an equal amount of good will - on his part and not a wholesale endorsement of every single item in the Bad Thing. - Mauco 13:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the majority of the population - even the Moldovans - are russified. Russian is the most widely spoken language, even to the point of being in use among those who are not ethnic Russians. In addition, I should say that "every government on earth" has not made a decision on the territorial dispute. Those who have seem to support the Moldovan position. However, the majority don't lean either way. Shall I take it that you endorse the current version (as of timestamp) which, as you can see from the log, is created wholly by Bonaparte? - Mauco 13:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No sources.--Tiraspolitan 13:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So you believe I am wrong? Or is this a smart way to discard an argument where you know that I am right? - Mauco 13:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the same thing as adding a {{fact}} to a dubious claim in an article. For example "all Moldovans in Transnistria prefer to speak Russian".--Tiraspolitan 13:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not familiar with the on-the-ground reality in Transnistria. Very sad that you want to impose your POV on the article, then. However, rest assured that anything I support or introduce in the article will of course be fully sourced. This is a Wikipedia requirement. No such requirement is present for discussions in Talk. - Mauco 13:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As for every government on Earth, they certainly have declined to recognize the separatist puppet government of Smirnov and his "state".--Tiraspolitan 13:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The question has not been put to every government on earth (or rather, their foreign ministries). According to my sources at the OSCE, the PMR government has pursued a policy of not asking for general, worldwide recognition while the negotiations are ongoing. The Supreme Council (VS) of PMR has been less restrained, but even they have only asked six different countries. The majority of countries on earth have not made a decision either way, so it is wrong to make presumptions as to what their position will be if or when they are asked to consider the issue. But I thought we were discussion the name here. Do you support the position that the article has no inclusion of the word "Pridnestrovie" or variants thereof in the intro / infobox? - Mauco 13:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"The question has not been put to every government on earth", that's laughable. If all governments have declined to recognize it, then it's unrecognized, a choice has been made. Smirnov's government is still unrecognized, whatever excuses and explanations for this the regime gives. As for the Russian name, I have no objection, if a similar attitude is adhered to with respect to the official worldwide recognized name of "Stânga Nistrului".--Tiraspolitan 13:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Since they have NOT ASKED for recognition from every government on earth, this means that every government on earth has not ruled on the issue. Recognition must be asked for before it can be granted. Foreign relations 101 (or check your diplomatic history). - Mauco 13:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if what you say is true, it only proves my point further: it's unrecognized with all the implications flowing therefrom (there's a word I thought I'd never use).--Tiraspolitan 13:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The OSCE, in a position which is no doubt supported by other mediators and observers in the process, supports their restraint in refraining from a widespread diplomatic lobbying while the status talks with Moldova are still ongoing. You can hardly fault Transnistria for wanting to play nice, and it should not be to their detriment. - Mauco 13:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Either that or it has tried and failed to obtain formal recognition and is trying to save its face. Bottom line is it's still unrecognized so we can't pretend otherwise.--Tiraspolitan 13:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you support the inclusion of "Pridnestrovie" in the article, which has been a stable part of every version of the article for the past year, but which was removed by Bonaparte's sockpuppet yesterday? - Mauco 13:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Depends on whether you support including the Ukrainian translation and the official name of Stânga Nistrului.--Tiraspolitan 13:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My position is that all changes should be introduced gradually, one at a time, and that every significant change should be discussed. This is especially true when stable sections of the article are blanked, such as components of the infobox which haven't been controversial for the past year. The right way to go about this is to restore the page to the latest stable version, which was in existence immediately prior to the current bout of edit warring. Then, from that starting point, propose changes, discuss them, and introduce them one at a time. Am I being unreasonable? If so, please tell me why? - Mauco 13:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying no?--Tiraspolitan 13:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I am actually saying yes; but it is a conditional yes that fits with how Wikipedia is edited: What we need here is for the page to get back to its stable, pre-edit warring version. Then you add your suggestion, get a broad OK, and in-it-goes. Even if you do not like the latest stable version, the only reasonable way to make changes to it is to do it this way. - Mauco 14:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The stable version have been agreed by all users (as per archive talk). It is not the version that you try to impose. There is no discussions on removing some of the paragraph's however in your "stable" version they are missed. EvilAlex 14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm no troublemaker, if everyone else (including blocked users MariusM and Pernambuco) support it, I'm not going to dispute it.--Tiraspolitan 14:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So do you suggest that we wait 3 weeks and then decide? That is the length of one of these blocks. - Mauco 14:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The current version is pretty damn good it reflects both sided of the story. it just needs some minor adjustments. EvilAlex 14:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Such as? - Mauco 14:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Sure Edit's disruption needs to be purged first, anyway. Wasn't there a WP policy demanding the deletion of a banned user's edits - at least those he was banned for? --Illythr 14:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. If an existing, non-banned user reverts to those edits, then the edits of the banned user becomes "endorsed" - so to speak - by the user who chooses to revert to that version. This is why Tiraspolitan can claim that he was not reverting to Bonaparte's sock but merely to D1.goe. In the end, though, it amounts to the same. - Mauco 14:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion over the words 'de-facto independent' copy-pasted here

Definition from wikipedia: De facto is a Latin expression that means "in fact" or "in practice" but not spelled out by law

Dedinition from Webster's: ACTUAL; especially : being such in effect though not formally recognized

The second part of the first sentence tells us what the "law" says about Transnistria - ...within the internationally recognized borders of Moldova.... Alaexis 05:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Than I agree to de facto separate republic. Dl.goe 08:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out the exact difference between 'separate' and 'independent' in regard to this issue in your opinion? Webster's considers them as synonyms - see the third meaning here. Alaexis 15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

separate means existing by itself, distinct; independent means not subject to control by others, free. And, according to some Romanian sources, Transnistria depends on Russia.Dl.goe 17:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide these sources? I'm interested in the arguments. Alaexis 18:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

When I look at the articles of countries that are definitely independent, as France, Germany, USA, Russia, China, are described as countries. When I look at Transnistria, I see independent country. Isn't this word POV, as long as we put it just because of the disputed status of Transnistria? By the way, I noticed that any mention about the Russian army in Transnistria disappeared from the article.Dl.goe 05:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You see 'de-facto independent republic within internationally recognised boundaries of Moldova'. Quite a big difference imho. If you don't agree with the word 'independent' provide the arguments that it's not true. Alaexis 05:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If I could have proven Transnistria depends on other country, I would have put that in the article. If you want to put Transnistira is independent, you have to prove it is true.Dl.goe 06:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Transnistria has the formal attributes of independence like own army, currency and so on. Transnistrian authorities (President and Parliament) are elected by its own people and not appointed by Russia. Alaexis 06:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"In Transnistria the right of citizens to change their government was severely restricted"(U.S. Department of State).[47]Dl.goe 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It could be the proof that Transnistria is not very democratic but not that it's not independent. Yes, Mauco is right here. It's written there that "The government does not control this region. Unless otherwise stated, all references herein are to the rest of the country" so the citation about the restriction of voting is about Moldovan goverment and not about Transnistrian one. So this is not an argument against independence. Alaexis 07:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this particular sentence requires a fuller understanding of the context. The report (which I have read) refers to ability of Transnistrians to change the Moldovan government. This right is severely restricted, but for logistical reasons (to vote, they must go to Moldova). The right to change the Transnistrian government is not restricted. But the United States doesn't consider it a valid government. The US position is that Transnistrians are citizens of Moldova, and thus "their government" is the government of Moldova. The report is not very clear on this point, so it is easy to misunderstand. However, this article clarified it: Tiraspol Times: "Transnistrian authorities harass opposition lawmakers, US report says". A surprisingly PMR-critical article, by the way, from http://www.tiraspoltimes.com which is normally very pro-PMR. - Mauco 07:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a PMR-critical article, is an US Department of State critical article. The article is following the debates we had at Wikipedia regarding U.S. Department of State report about human rights in Transnistria. Nothing surpriusingly, we know that Tiraspol Times is following closely all Transnistria-related debates at Wikipedia and they are trying to discredit the critics of PMR government, in this case, the US Department of State.--MariusM 08:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Come on, be serious. It is balanced and objective. And PMR-friendly? Hardly. Start with the headline: "Transnistrian authorities harass opposition lawmakers, US report says" and then the intro: "The US State Department has harsh words for Pridnestrovie in its latest human rights report. It says that human rights "remained poor" in 2006, but mentions improvements compared to previous years" and the first lines of the article: "Authorities continued to discriminate against Romanian speakers, although to a lesser extent than in previous years" says the United States in it latest State Department report on human rights, published this week. According to the US report, "authorities reportedly continued to use torture and arbitrary arrest and detention." How on earth is that PMR-friendly, MariusM? The article points out some flaws in the report, but it also point out the flaws in Transnistria. Fair and balanced, IMHO. - Mauco 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am against the word independent. It is far from being proven that a country with Russian army on it's territory, not recognised by any UN member state, extremly poor, that has a debt of 231% of GDP, two thirds of this debt being with Russia, is idependent from Russia and can survive without Russian support.
There are countries which are certainly independent , but we don't see in the articles of France, Germany, UK or Russia being described as independent; just as countries. I think it would be POV to include the word independent exactly to Transnistria, with it's disputed status.Dl.goe 15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed a can of worms. Independence is always a matter of degree and, also, in the eyes of the beholder. There are few countries in today's globalized world which are truly independent of other countries, and the same goes for unrecognized countries (or territories, entities, call them what you will). How about we find some sources? Would that help? - Mauco 16:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, Transnistria is internationally regarded as part of Moldova. However, the region is not subject to Moldova's government, which has no authority there. Therefore, Transnistria is de-facto independent from Moldova. Russia has no territorial claims in Transnistria and the region is not subject to central Russian government either. Economic and political influence from Russia does not amount to "Russian sovereignty", only "foreign pressure". And we don't consider countries that yield to foreign pressure not-independent. Otherwise, we'd have to admit that the US control far more than 50 states ;-) --Illythr 16:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Independence means effective government control of the territory in question. Dl.goe agrees that Moldova does not have this control. He believes, however, that neither does Transnistria, and that the region (or whatever you call it) is not independent because it is under decisive Russian control. Sources would probably be good here, on both sides. Both from those who want the word to stay, and those who feel it is POV. - Mauco 16:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Transnistria have de-facto control over some of territory but not de-facto independent because Transnistrian government hugely depended on Russia and Russian force to maintain so called independence. Hence - Transnistria depended not independent :))
I would say 'de-facto dependent' EvilAlex 16:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

EvilAlex and Dl.goe, are you not willing to provide sources? And won't you see sources from the other side either? The right thing to do is to discuss this issue, and give everyone the chance to participate in the discussion. Then make a decision based on consensus, and on the merit of whatever sources are provided for the arguments. Can you do this. - Mauco 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Or do you prefer to short-circuit our attempts at reaching an amicable compromise through discussion? In a single move, our Romanian friend just added +7,867 chars to the article without posting here in Talk first.diff This is a major change to the article. Some of this is hopeless Bonaparte-POV, like "Russian aggression"... Care to explain? - Mauco 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Mauco nobody is trying to add something new NO!. We just restore the data that have been unjustly removed without consensus and any discussion what so ever. Data that have been agreed by the majority of users. Pleas see archive talk. EvilAlex 17:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a plain fallacy (to quote our temporarily departed colleague). When did the majority of users agree to include this sentence: "In 1992, the Russian military forces (14th Soviet Army) conducted a military aggression against the newly created state of the Republic of Moldova and its eastern territories were taken over". This was never discussed in Talk. Nor was the POV-hijack of the rest of the intro - starting with "Transnistria' (also Stânga Nistrului) is a secessionist territory ", and most of the rest of the 7,687 chars that you are now attempting to impose via brute force. - Mauco 17:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Because of the latest activity - there have been many changes from may different users. I dont say that the article is perfect, yes it needs some minor adjustments, but the base is right! If you would like to change something lets do it step by step - 1)discuss, 2)reach agreement, 3)edit. EvilAlex 17:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. The have been many disruptive edits by a single, now permanently banned, user (with a few additions by Dl goe). Then several other users just kept reverting to his last version, thus endorsing his vandalism (not even POV-pushing). So, the way to go is 1) revert vandalism of Mr. Sure Entry, 2) discuss needed changes, 3) reach agreement, 4) edit. --Illythr 17:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well in this case lets revert the confirmed sockpuppet User:Kertu3 of User: Pernambuco too. And we will have right base anyway. EvilAlex 18:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've watched the history log, and Pernambuco didn't introduce anything new. He/she merely reverted the page to the stable version. The page was doing fine, with normal edit activity and a peaceful climate, until MariusM re-appeared. Personally, I was hardly there either. I have nearly two weeks with not a single mainspace edit to Transnistria until yesterday. - Mauco 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria may depend on Russia economically and may have (and has) Russian army stationed there but it does not amount to anything imo. Otherwise we'd have to acknowledge that the countries where, say, American army is deployed and that are influenced by US in other ways are also not independent.

Again, Transnistria has the formal attributes of independence like own army, currency and so on. Transnistrian authorities (President and Parliament) are ... not appointed by Russia. Alaexis 16:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well but they are not elected by the people of Transnistria because only only 15 members of the parliament out of 43 were Transnistrians. Parliament does not represent the people, Parliament represent the will of the foreign power + Russian army is there + full support from RussLand. What independence are you talking about? EvilAlex 17:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Where's the proof that this parliament represents Russian interests and not Transnistrian ones? Alaexis 17:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ask yourself a question: why 15 members of the parliament out of 43 are not natives? Who should better known other than natives what life is best for them? Why the foreigners telling them how to live? EvilAlex 17:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And where's the proof that Russia installed it? Voters can elect anyone they want. Even foreigners, if that is what they want (although these MPs weren't exactly foreign born. They were born in the Soviet Union at a time when Transnistria was part of the Soviet Union. And when they moved to Transnistria, most of them were kids. They did not move to a foreign country. They stayed within THEIR country). - Mauco 17:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

EvilAlex, consider the Israeli government just after the creation of the state. It's a safe bet that most of the people in it had not been born in Palestine. Would you argue that they represented Israeli interests? So, this fact is not a proof of anything and you still have to find a proof that Transnistrian government acts in Russian interests (and against transnistrian ones, that is). Alaexis 17:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The government that act in its own interest is the government that not affrayed of its own people, the government that listen to its people. And in contradiction the government that act in favor of others suppress its own people. It is meant that freedom and suppressions are interconnected with government interest and foreign interest. Now lets look at the Freedom in Transnistria: Is there a freedom of speech? is there an opposition newspaper? is there an independent opposition MPs? - NO,NO,NO... pro Smirnov left OR pro Smirnov right. If the Transnistrian government act in the interest of Transnistrian people then why it is so affrayed of them. Give the power to the people and you will get the government that act in its own interest!. EvilAlex 17:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Say what? There are a number of freely published opposition newspapers in Transnistria. Two of the four presidential candidates in December 2006 happened to be newspaper editors, each one of them at the head of an oppo newspaper. There are also others. Some are small, but it is wrong to say they don't exist. And - unlike Moldova - no newspapers have been closed in recent years, and no journalists have been thrown in jail for writing against the government. It is not perfect, but I would rather be an opposition journalist in Transnistria than in Moldova... - Mauco 18:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:"There are a number of freely published opposition newspapers in Transnistria. " it seems to me that you have little knowledge of freely published. let me explain how they freely published: The newspapers are published in Moldova and then smuggled in to the Transnistria. Freely published. EvilAlex 18:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not true. Please don't use Wikipedia to spread false, unsourced information. As you may know, two of the three opposition candidates for president (Bondarenko and Safonov) also just happen to be editors of opposition newspapers. They are freely running their offices, freely publishing, and freely printing within Transnistria. Moreover, their newspapers are freely for sale in the newsstands. How much more free to do want? - Mauco 20:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:"How much more free to do want?" Just enough to criticizes the Smirnov regime. As little as that. criticizes - not glorify. EvilAlex 20:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you think Transnistria is not democratic. It has nothing to do with de-facto independence though. Where's the proof that Transnistrian government acts in Russian interests (and against transnistrian ones, that is)? Alaexis 20:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

what i am saying is that country cannot be independent if it is not supported by the people and definitely not if its so called "independents" depended on the presence of foreign troops. By itself it is already de-facto depended on the foreign power to maintain "independence". EvilAlex 20:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Blanket statements on a highly dubious assertation. Can we get some sources, please? Or do we just take the word of a self-confessed edit warrior? EvilAlex has said that he enjoys in edit warring, or else his life gets too boring (see his statement in Archives). He is also the owner of a hate-site, transnistria.ru.ru - Mauco 20:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is elementary logic. You simply cannot call a country independent if it has dependencies. EvilAlex 20:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We are going in circles as long as you refuse to give sources. Independence is always a matter of degree and, also, in the eyes of the beholder. There are few countries in today's globalized world which are truly independent of other countries, and the same goes for unrecognized countries (or territories, entities, call them what you will). How about we find some sources? Would that help? The purpose is not to argue for the sake of argument, but to solve the current content dispute. We must do that according to Wikipedia standards. - Mauco 20:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

For me, it is clear: The word independent is not normal here. It is not present in other articles. I think we can agree that the ones who want it in the article, want it especially because Transnistria has a disputed status; and this is POV. If Transnistria's independence is obvious, than the word independent is a trivia and shall not be in the article. If Transnistria's independence is disputed, than the word is POV.Dl.goe 17:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. True, for an established, recognized state, the word "independent" is not necessary (except when mentioning independence from a "parent" state). However, Transnistria's independence, while declared (sort of), is not internationally recognized. However, it's there (no Moldovan govt authority). This makes the place de-jure a region of Moldova and de-facto independent. That's what the word is supposed to clarify, IMO.

For example, Chechnya was de-facto independent in the interwar period. And so it is stated within the corresponding article. --Illythr 18:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference between Chechnya and Transnistria is that in Chechnya government was supported by people and in Transnistria it was supported be foreign military army. Do you see the difference now? EvilAlex 18:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Blanket statements on a highly dubious assertation. In the last referendum in Chechnya, the people (supposedly the same people) approved the constitution. Autonomy but not independence. - Mauco 18:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Because The People have been brutally punished by their Russian friends. Now there is no desire towards independence, now they just try to survive in the totally ruined country. EvilAlex 18:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And when Moldova sent airplanes and troops to Transnistria, did they bring flowers? Or were they received with flowers by the local population? I would love to discuss edits to the article, EvilAlex, but you are going off the deep end here. Sorry. Even you have to admit that most Transnistrians don't yearn for "liberation" by Moldova. - Mauco 19:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Moldova didnt fight against its own people. At that point of time newly created republic of Moldova didnt even have its own army - no troops, no army. An "aggressor" without an army!?!?! think again! When Russian solders first entered Bendery (a calm and quiet city) - first they robbed the jewelry store in the center of the city. Because of your Russian 'liberators' my town was engulfed in an bloody anarchy. Moldavian Police (not troops, not army) tried to restore the law and order. Thousand of refugees (Russians, Moldavians, Ukrainians) fled the city and Moldavian side gave money, accommodation and full support without any discrimination towards race or religion. EvilAlex 19:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide these sources? The OSCE acknowledges Moldova to have been the aggressor, and the Transnistrians as merely defending themselves. The role of the Russian forces are seen, in the conventional view, as that of a latecomer which intervened to stop the fighting from escalating.- Mauco 20:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sentence above is my testimony as an eye witness.
Could you provide these sources where the OSCE acknowledges Moldova to have been the aggressor? I dont think so. EvilAlex 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, so no sources. Just your word for it. And based on that we need to accept the current version? Sorry, Wikipedia does not work that way. Your unpublished eyewitness testimony is WP:OR. In comparison, I will of course provide full sources, as per WP:RS, for any edit which I wish to include in mainspace. - Mauco 20:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you will have to take into account my knowledge of Transnistria. And also in 1992 i was in Bendery. My testimony meets all of the criterias of Reliability see WP:RS. EvilAlex 20:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you for real? This guy takes the cake... - Mauco 20:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)