User talk:William Mauco

Future RfA

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

Re:Vandalism

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

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

Reconfirm your strategy

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

Banned users

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

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

3RR

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

Dispute Resolution?

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

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

Crime in Moldova

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

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

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

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

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

Source, "Nachalo"

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

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

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

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

Tighina

You made these changes [1].

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

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

To both Moldova and Transnistria. Then agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re : Heaven of Transnistria

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

Thanks for the pointer. This is now done.[2] The history log of the page shows not a single edit since he placed the copy. It would be quite easy to assume that this was done in spite, simply because he was angry with the results of the AFD. - Mauco 14:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria

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

At the end of the War of Transnistria, three buffer zones were created between the two sides: Moldovan central government, and Transnistrian separatist autorities. The created Joint Control Commission has overriding powers in these areas, which were used to deter the escalation of local armed incidents into a re-emerging conflict, as late as January 2007 in the Dubăsari-Cocieri area, when clashes between Moldovan and Transnistrian forces occured, without casualities^[1], or in 2006 around Varniţa. The administration of the localities within these buffer zones are subordinated to one of the two sides:

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

The villages of Cocieri and Doroţcaia own land, and the village of Vasilievca is situated east of the Tiraspol-Dubăsari-Rîbniţa road that interconnects Transnistria. As Transnistrian autorities try to block the crossing of the road by peasants from these villages going to their farmland, tense situations have frequently surfaced, such as in 2005, when Transnistrian forces entered Vasilievca, but withdrew after a few days^[2].

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

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

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

[1] Novosti Russian press agency report about 2007 clashes

[2] Moldova AZI, Transnistrian Militia Withdrew Its Posts from Vasilievca, Accessed 2006-10-18

[1]

[2]