|
== check what I write ==
{{talkheader}}
I have add a lot of reliable source.I am not going to enter any war.But the section should be appeard.check it and see that I have supplied everything needed.Plus I removed my older link to the wikipedia article.
{{controversial3}}
{{Off topic warning}}
__NOTOC__
{{todo}}
{| class="infoboxmessagebox" widthstyle="270pxbackground: AntiqueWhite;"
|-
|This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by [[User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto|Werdnabot]]. Any sections older than '''14''' days are automatically archived to '''[[User talk:Jpgordon/Archive 2]]'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
!align="left" colspan="2"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|}<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-14 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Jpgordon/Archive 2--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
|
*[[/archive 1]]
*[[/archive 2]]
*[[/archive 3]]
*[[/archive 4]]
*[[/archive 5]]
*[[/archive 6]]
*[[/archive 7]]
*[[/archive 8]]
*[[/archive 9]]
*[[/archive 10]]
*[[/archive 11]]
*[[/archive 12]]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
==Is Transnistria a sovereign state?==
I would also like to say something about '''Political status''' chapter:
Mauco, introduced:
<blockquote>Transnistria is [[List of sovereign states|sovereign]] according to article 1 of the [[Montevideo Convention]]. It has a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and capacity to enter into relations with the other states.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=97251722&oldid=97240109]</blockquote>
just before he blocked the page.
His edit summary was:m (→Political status - sentence on sovereignty. Uncontroversial: Moved textually from List of sovereign states's existing definition of Transnistria)
The text he ''moved textually'' is:
<blockquote>Five states, neither UN members nor recognised by any states that are, but sovereign according to article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, South Ossetia and Transnistria.</blockquote>
I find it unacceptable: at [[List of sovereign states]] it is written clearly:'''The listing of any name in this article is not meant to imply an official position in any naming dispute'''.
[[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] also introduced unsourced and biased material at Economy chapter.[[User:Dl.goe|Dl.goe]] 10:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:: I agree with Dl.goe. i still have to see which other state entered in relations with Transnistria. [[User:Dpotop|Dpotop]] 10:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::: Reality check: Montevideo does not require relations with foreign states. It merely requires the '''"capacity"''' to enter into relations with foreign states. - [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 15:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Who cares? Montevideo convention was signed only by some countries from America. No European country signed Montevideo convention, and Moldova also didn't sign it. Montevideo is only one of hundreds obsolete treaties of history. As a general rule, Mauco, don't introduce changes not agreed by other editors and not disscussed here.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 16:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::::: I would assume good faith, but it is a fact that you know better. Because you appear as one of the editors of [[Montevideo Convention]] in that page's edit history, so I know for a fact that you are familiar with the convention or at least with Wikipedia's article on the convention. But here is a reminder, just in case: As a restatement of customary international law, the Montevideo Convention merely codified existing legal norms and its principles therefore do not apply merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole. In other words: Worldwide. - [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Sovereignty means a legally internationally-recognized (but not necessarily independent) state. Transnistria is not legally a sovereign state. Moldova's legislation, for exmaple, gives to Gagauzia autonomy, and the right to claim sovereignty should the sovereignity of Moldova be changed. Moldova's legislation gives to Transnistia the right to claim large autonomy, subject to agreement on the closing of the conflict: 1) enter the legality, 2) democratization, and 3) the withdrowal of foreign troops. There is oppinion inside Moldova whether Trasnistria could be given even sovereignty (but not independence), should there be agreement. The majority believes that that would be too much, but there are those who think that if that brings a complete end to the conflict, it could be accepted. Transnistrian self-proclaimed autorities do not agree to any solution that leaves open the posibility that their leadership could be challenged (by free ellections).
:::::While there is a notion of "de-facto independent", noone has yet introduced the notion "de-facto sovereign". This would be like a person which does not hold a driver license claiming that he has a "de-facto right to drive". Of course, until is cought.
:::::Examples of sovereign, but not independent states: former USSR republics, former Yugoslavia republics, Bavaria (the only land in Germany that is sovereign), Athos Mountain in Greece, the states of USA. I don't know if all Canadian provinces, but Quebec - yes. All these are/were recognized in the legislation of the bigger state. Transnistria is obviously not in this category. :[[User:Dc76|Dc76]] 18:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::: This is of course what the [[Disputed status of Transnistria]] is all about, and a big reason why we have frequent edit wars over this highly contentious page. So I will cut to the chase: Is there anything in the current article which is incorrect in how it describes Transnistria's sovereignty or lack of same? If so, what? And what are the grounds on which it should be removed or changed? - [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 20:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::: Yes, there is incorrect info in this article: Transnistria is not sovereign according to the Montevideo convention. At best, no reliable source says it, so that anyway saying it here qualifies as original research. [[User:Dpotop|Dpotop]] 20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: OK. We'll just add a source or two, then, and that is that. Do not remove the statement just because you don't agree with reality. I also notice that your attempts [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_sovereign_states&diff=101636714&oldid=101623734] within the last few hours[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_sovereign_states&diff=101560931&oldid=101215195], with help[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_sovereign_states&diff=101583376&oldid=101582871] from MariusM, to erase[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_sovereign_states&diff=101583744&oldid=101583376] all mention of Transnistria from Wikipedia's long-standing stable version of [[List of sovereign states]] have ended in constant, repeated reverts from the established editors of that article. - [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 21:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::I am no expert on international law, and cannot give my view on what exactly the status of the territory is in international law. Nevertheless, I have seen diverse publications with radically different takes on the subject, all of which claimed the support of reputable sources. I believe that the sentence regarding sovereignty in its current form, does indeed constitute original research by Wikipedia standards as no source is currently provided to support this information. However, I would not object to the inclusion of this information provided that an independent and reputable source can be found (i.e. not from Olvia or Pridnestrovie.net), and provided that the opposing viewpoint is also mentioned to ensure balance. [[User:TSO1D|TSO1D]] 02:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::: How about bringing in some experts on international law to set the record straight? [[User:Osgoodelawyer]] has sometimes participated in this talk page, and he is active on [[List of countries]] and [[List of sovereign states]]. Likewise Electionworld, if I recall correctly. The contested statement is very simple and straightforward. It merely says: ''"Transnistria is sovereign according to article 1 of the Montevideo Convention. It has a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and capacity to enter into relations with the other states."'' All of these four facts can of course be fully sourced. - [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 13:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::: please put the sources, and I agree with the outside expert opinion, this is a complex field international law, it is good to hear from the experts from the two lists, [[List of countries]] and [[List of sovereign states]] first [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 14:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Osgoodlawyer is an well-known POV-pusher from [[List of countries]] and [[List of sovereign states]]. Why you nominate him as "expert of international law"? You often like to pick a mediator, while you are reluctant to accept transparent [[WP:DR]] procedures. I have an open mediation with you where you are not active, probabily because the mediator was not selected by you, he was a neutral mediator from Mediation Comitee.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 02:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the controversed paragraph.[[User:Dl.goe|Dl.goe]]
: discuss it first, mauco has offered to give sources and I like the suggest of an international law expert opinion, maybe not osgoodlawyer if he is a POV pusher (I do not know if it is true) but instead someone else. Why, becuase Transnistria is already in [[List of countries]] and [[List of sovereign states]], this is something which both Mariusm and Mauco agrees on, it is not something you can just remove if you dont remove Transnistria from those two lists also I think........ [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 14:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::I think Wikipedia is meant to inform, not decide. An expert opinion would be useless, as long as we are speaking about a Wikipedia editor. If sources are found, we can write: "X considers Transnistria a sovereign state", or "According to X Transnistria is a sovereign state". The status of Transnistria is disputed; some say that Transnistria is a region of Moldova, some say it is a state. Claiming it is a sovereign state is POV. At [[List of countries]] and [[List of sovereign states]], it is clearly written:'''The listing of any name in this article is not meant to imply an official position in any naming dispute.''' I understand both lists contain all countries which may be sovereign/ all territories which may be countries, including the ones with uncertain status. In my opinion, if we remove Transnistria from these lists, it is taking side.[[User:Dl.goe|Dl.goe]] 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::: I don't know if you will think this meaningful or not, but this is a snippet from the Guardian (a veryy well respected UK newspaper): "The breakaway British region of Scotland could be among the beneficiaries of this week's expected UN recommendation that Kosovo be granted provisional independence from Serbia, leading in time to full sovereign status...." [http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldbriefing/story/0,,1996276,00.html Full Article]. So, going by this viewpoint, if Kosovo or even Scotland is not a sovereign state, how on Earth can Transnistria be? [[User:Jonathanpops|Jonathanpops]] 20:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::: Unfortunately I left the source in my briefcase at work ("light" reading), but I can provide a reference (from the first critical comparative analysis of the "frozen zone" conflicts) that specifically speaks to this point and says that meeting the first three Montevideo criteria does not confer the fourth (ability to conduct foreign relations--clearly the PMR can't if it's not recognized by the world community), nor does meeting them confer legitimacy--which is clearly what is/was intended by the presence of the paragraph. <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — [[User:Vecrumba|Pēters J. Vecrumba]]</span> 04:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
== Page protection ==
I would like to get the page protection lifted but it is obvious that we are not ready yet. What can be done to speed things up and get resolution on some of the key issues? Mind you, not all. Just as many as possible, so that we avoid a renewal of the tiresome revert warring in the main article.
Who wants to take the initiative to perhaps wrap up some of the conclusions we have reached, and try to find closure on some of the others? Maybe Vecrumba? - [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
: Or TSO1D? - [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 13:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Or Pernambuco? Anyone? I don't want to be the one to add new things, and I certainly don't want to be the one to revert others. But in view of the history of the page, it is important that we don't slide into the same bad old habits. Please just summarize some of what we have agreed on so far, and only add or delete those things. Then let us '''constructively''' discuss the rest. - [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 14:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::: I guess that my request here is in vain. [[User:MariusM]] took advantage of the lift of the page protection just now. He was nearly absent from this Talk page for the past week. But as soon as the page got unlocked, he made 9 edits within 7 hours [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&action=history] (with hardly any Talk page participation). This is edit warring. Uncool. - [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 23:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::: I've been PC (personal computer, not political correctness) building, still straightening out years of files/backups/etc. I'll put my thinking cap on over the next few days. <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — [[User:Vecrumba|Pēters J. Vecrumba]]</span> 04:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
== Transnistria in popular culture ==
I think that it was generally agreed that this section could just go. Both myself and MariusM agree on this.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=prev&oldid=101787999] Is that OK with everyone? Or is there somewhere we can move it to? I thought of moving it and turning it into a 'See also' stub but I fail to see how it would meet [[WP:NN|notability]] criteria at this point in time.- [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 14:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:I fully agree, there is no need to have such a section full of trivia. [[User:TSO1D|TSO1D]] 20:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:: It is now gone, since we are in agreement with MariusM on this. I wish we could get the same level of consensus on other issues (adding as well as deleting). Let us try. - [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
==Suvorov==
At Internal Politics section is writen: ''In the central square of Tiraspol there is a statue of Alexander Suvorov, who in 1792 founded modern Tiraspol as a Russian border fortress''. As I previously told, I consider irrelevant for this article, is relevant for Tiraspol article. If we want to make the article shorter we can take out this kind of sentences.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 21:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
: Yes, but before you rush quickly onto the page to remove it (as you did here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=prev&oldid=101867346]) it would be nicer to please wait for some of the rest of us to chip in. That is what the talk page is for. So the question is: Is a one-sentence mention of Suvorov relevant to this article? I have my own opinion, but maybe we should give other a chance to have a say, too, before we start mutilating the article... - [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 22:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::I first raised the issue of Suvorov in 1st January [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATransnistria&diff=97764905&oldid=97764587]. I don't think I rushed quickly to remove, I gave enough time for others to comment. The idea of removal came as i see a desire from other editors to shorten this article, to concentrate only in relevant things.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 22:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::: If you don't think we should ask others to comment, then at least give me a chance to put in my own 2 Kopeks:<br>
::: * Suvorov's statue is on the uniforms of the armed forces
::: * Suvorov's statute is given official flower tributes on at least five different occasions each year
::: * No single item has been the subject of more Transnistrian postage stamps than the Suvorov statue [http://www.pmrstamps.com]
::: * The Suvorov statue is the logo of the main TV station (First Republic channel, formerly TV PMR) [http://www.pridnestrovie.net/tvradio.html]
::: * Suvorov's statue is the main part of the Olvia Press ID [http://www.olvia.idknet.com] (state news agency)
::: * Suvorov is on the money, the PMR ruble[http://www.visitpmr.com/money.html]
::: In short, the Suvorov statue is practically the official image of Transnistria. He is much, much more prevalent than Lenin or the Soviet tank (which you insist on mentioning). Why does Suvorov not merit at least one single line in the Transnistria article? Why is an anonymous Soviet tank more important? Explain, but do not delete. - [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 22:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::::I am not against mentioning Suvorov, but I don't believe that the second sentence in the internal politics section should describe the monuments of Tiraspol. I believe that a brief summary in the caption of the photo should be enough, or if not, the information should be moved to another place. [[User:TSO1D|TSO1D]] 22:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::::: There is a big photo of Soviet tank in the article. Why is this more relevant than Suvorov? I am not pushing to remove the tank, but I respectfully request that we keep everything in perspective. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about Transnistria knows that Suvorov is '''the''' most important symbol. Forget Lenin, tanks, etc. The statue is important symbolism. Please keep the one single little puny sentence. MariusM has removed it twice today. I wish that he would discuss and seek consensus first, before dismembering the article unilaterally. - [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I don't understand why that image was deleted. I believe that the picture of Suvorov should be added to the history section, by the "Russian Empire" section, and the caption can give a brief explanation of who he was. He is also mentioned in the cap of the Ruble picture. Nevertheless, I don't believe that the presence of the statue should be mentioned in the internal politics section. I just don't understand how that monument fits into that section. Maybe the information could be presented elsewhere, and maybe the cap will be enough, I don't know. [[User:TSO1D|TSO1D]] 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: The image was deleted by MariusM. Twice today. I am very sorry, but I had to revert him. I do not like this constant revert warring. I wish that we could work this out in Talk, as I am trying to do. My point is that if we have a picture of a Soviet tank, and we claim that this is an important monument, then we must at least also have a picture of the Suvorov statue, which is a much, much more important monument. Please help me restore it if he deletes it again. - [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: As to the placement of the sentence, it can be moved. But read the preceding sentence. The two sentences should be moved together. I propose that they be moved into the geography section. - [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::: yes, the part about Tiraspol as the capital, the logical place is in Geography, also that it is landlocked and so on [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
: The statue of Suvorov belongs in there: he is the man who conquered Transnistria for Russia during the wars with the Ottomans and that's an important part in this region's history. But I think that the caption is not relevant here, as this is not the article about Tirapsol. [[User:Bogdangiusca|bogdan]] 23:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:: I agree with Bogdangusca about this, but the change is already made, and also i moved the part about Tiraspol into ¨geography¨ and the sentence of Suvorov is deleted already now [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 23:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
== Question ==
Why did [[User_talk:William_Mauco#Transnistria|this or similar]] stuff got erased? :[[User:Dc76|Dc76]] 02:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:Because there is an user who want to apply censorship here. Other 5 users: Me, Dpotop, Dl.goe, DC76 and TSO1D wanted the paragraph "border issues" to be part of the article, Mauco want it deleted. In my opinion the best solution would be to keep the entire paragraph in the article, for the purpose of achieving a compromise I accepted to have a shorter variant. I don't think the shorter variant is better (for example, it talk about Varnitsa but is missing Tighina from "border issues"), I just wanted to achive a compromise. We have a lot of other disputes regarding the article, I propose to have a poll, as a practical way to achieve compromise.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 10:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Yes, the paragraph should be re-introduced as in the previous link. Then, we can discuss changes. But it is absolutely necessary because it shows Transnistria does not have a clear territory, simply claims that go beyond its geographical area, and no control over parts of it. [[User:Dpotop|Dpotop]] 11:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::: The same applies to Moldova, you know. Except that the disputed villages constitute, like, 1% of the Transnistrian territory, whereas Transnistria itself is a relatively much bigger part of Moldova. If you drop the "control" part, that'll leave both Transnistria and Moldova with a "clearly defined territory".
::: In my opinion, the first paragraph (slightly reworded) of that section should be inserted here, with the village listings presented somewhere like [[Disputed status of Transnistria]].
==Poll==
:''Note that [[User:William Mauco]] has been blocked for 10 days whilst this poll has been running; his opinions will not be reflected in it.''
===Border issues===
I've changed "clashes" with "confrontation" and I added Tighina at one point of border issues, however through rephrasing the total lenght of the paragraph remained the same. Proposed paragraph:
''Some villages from the [[Administrative Region of Dubăsari|Dubăsari district]], including [[Cocieri]] and [[Doroţcaia ]] which geographically belong to Transnistria, have been under the control of the central government of [[Moldova]] after the involvement of local inhabitants on the side of Moldovan forces during the [[War of Transnistria]]. In the same time, some areas which geografically belong to [[Bessarabia]], not to Transnistria, including the city of [[Tighina]], are controlled by Transnistrian authorities. Tense situations have frequently surfaced due to these territorial disputes, for example in [[2005]], when Transnistrian forces entered Vasilievca, but withdrew after a few days<ref>[http://www.azi.md/news?ID=33404 Moldova AZI, Transnistrian Militia Withdrew Its Posts from Vasilievca, Accessed 2006-10-18]</ref>, in [[2006]] around [[Varniţa]] (a suburb of Tighina under Moldovan control) and in 2007 in Dubăsari-Cocieri area, when confrontation between Moldovan and Transnistrian forces occured, without casualities<ref>[http://en.rian.ru/world/20070113/59017865.html Novosti Russian press agency report about 2007 clashes]</ref>.''--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 11:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', as factually corect and relevant info, and it includes all observations done until now to this paragraph.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 11:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', as per MariusM. [[User:Dpotop|Dpotop]] 11:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', as per MariusM. [[User:EvilAlex|EvilAlex]] 13:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', as per MairusM. [[User:Dl.goe|Dl.goe]] 14:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' a synthesis of Marius', TSO1D's and Dc76's proposals, replacing the last sentence of the Political Status section. --[[User:Illythr|Illythr]] 15:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The only part about this paragraph that I don't like is the emphasis on geography. It implies that the PMR should have all Transnistrian territories, and Moldova all of Bessarabia. As I said before, I believe that this paragraph should focus on Transnistrian claims to land they do not control. The other way around, Moldova claims all of the land in the hands of the PMR, so we shouldn't single out only some locations because they are on the left bank. Besides, the lack of complete correlation between geography and political status is already mentioned in that paragraph. I believe that a version like the following might be better:
''"Some villages from the [[Administrative Region of Dubăsari|Dubăsari district]], including [[Cocieri]] and [[Doroţcaia ]] which geographically belong to Transnistria, have been under the control of the central government of [[Moldova]] after the involvement of local inhabitants on the side of Moldovan forces during the [[War of Transnistria]]. These villages along with [[Varniţa]] and [[Copanca]], near [[Tighina]], are claimed by the PMR. Tense situations have periodically surfaced due to these territorial disputes, for example in [[2005]], when Transnistrian forces entered Vasilievca,<ref>[http://www.azi.md/news?ID=33404 Moldova AZI, Transnistrian Militia Withdrew Its Posts from Vasilievca, Accessed 2006-10-18]</ref>, in [[2006]] around Varniţa, and in 2007 in Dubăsari-Cocieri area, when a confrontation between Moldovan and Transnistrian forces occured, however without any casualities."'' [[User:TSO1D|TSO1D]] 14:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I inserted the text. I took some of the former stuff and part of Marius's text and added that to geography, and the other paragraph to political status. Is everyone ok with this? [[User:TSO1D|TSO1D]] 15:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
: it is fine . [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' MariusM proposal, as more cleanup grammatically than mine. I understand Pernambuco's observation, but given the fact that Transnistria is both a geographical region and a political entity, I favour keeping all info from MariusM's proposal. How about changing ''"not to Transnistria"'' to ''"not geographically in Transnistria"''? Further proposals (from Pernambuco) about this detail, now or later, would be absolutely ok with me. As for TSO1D proposal, I only see two additional changes: "Varnita and Copanca" was added, and at the very end "however" was added. I agree with TSO1D' second proposal (adding "however"). But I prefer "Varnita and Copanca" in MariusM's form. The reason is that the paragraph would otherwise state from Tighina area only villages under Moldova's control and claimed by Transnistrian autorities, but not vice-versa. I think that all 5(+1)+4+9=18(19) localities from all three buffer zones must be mensioned somewhere, maybe in the geography section or in the article Localities of Transnistria. So I'll make the respective proposals at those respective places. :[[User:Dc76|Dc76]] 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' MariusM, Except for spelling :-) I like the original proposal better. Much has been made by the PMR of the natural dividing line/barrier of the Dniester. The territorial distinctions of what is on which side of the Dniester (and who controls) are very relevant and should be kept for clarity. "Left bank" and "right bank" would work as well, but then we would be adding yet another set of territorial terminology. <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — [[User:Vecrumba|Pēters J. Vecrumba]]</span> 04:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
For older history, check [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jpgordon&oldid=51591073] as well as the archives:
===U.S. Department position regarding Human Rights===
#[[/Archive 1]]
The proposed paragraph added imediately after "critics claim..." is:
__TOC__
<blockquote>
In Transnistria the right of citizens to change their government was severely restricted.<nowiki>[...] Transnistrian authorities harassed independent media and opposition lawmakers, restricted freedom of association and of religion, and discriminated against Romanian-speakers.[...] Transnistrian authorities regularly harassed and often detained persons suspected of being critical of the regime for periods of up to several months.</nowiki>[http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61664.htm U.S. Department of State referring to year 2005]</blockquote>
I mention that Mauco agree that we can have a summary of US Department position, the proposal is already a summary, however it was still deleted. I don't understand what can be sumarized more from a quite long document.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 11:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
==Flameviper==
*'''Keep''', as the proposal is already a summary.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 11:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I had a bad feeling about Flameviper from the get-go ... was wondering what made you think Two-Sixteen was his sock. He did a good job of hiding it--my spider-senses can usually spot a sock fairly easily.--[[User:Blueboy96|Blueboy]][[User talk:Blueboy96|96]] 16:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', [[User:Dpotop|Dpotop]] 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*I didn't. I simply assumed a known sockpuppeteer would continue to do so. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 02:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. [[User:EvilAlex|EvilAlex]] 13:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:Makes sense ... I had a hunch he wasn't going to change his spots, per [[User:Flameviper/socks]].--[[User:Blueboy96|Blueboy]][[User talk:Blueboy96|96]] 18:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' [[User:Dl.goe|Dl.goe]] 14:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', looks compact enough. --[[User:Illythr|Illythr]] 15:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', but I would prefer it to be inserted directly into the text using quotes, not "blocktext" (i.e. without the gray background) [[User:TSO1D|TSO1D]] 15:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', in the way that Ts1od says [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', both forms (separate or in-text quotes) are ok, so just through a coin :[[User:Dc76|Dc76]] 18:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
==Civility guidelines==
===Usage of word "officially" regarding the name Pridnestrovie===
*I would be grateful if you would confirm that:
Based also on JonathanPops opinion, I removed the word "officially" from the introduction. We already are saying that the name Pridnestrovie is according PMR Constitution, we should not present it more official than that. But let's see what other editors think.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 11:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:(a) [[WP:CIVIL|Civility]] and [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] (ie. respect) are a [[Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Key_policies|key Wikipedia policy]] and one of the [[Wikipedia:Five_pillars|five pillars]] of Wikipedia
:(b) There is no defense or justification for [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]]
:(c) Reporting an editor for incivility is part of the [[WP:DR|dispute resolution process]]
:(d) That reporting an editor of actual incivility (a core policy) is never classed as [[WP:WL|vexatious litigation]] (a guideline). --[[User:84.9.191.165|84.9.191.165]] 19:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
*Who are you and why are you asking me this? --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
:I'm 84.9.191.165, and I'm asking because you are an Arbitrator with more experience and knowledge of Wikipedia than most. --[[User:First Base|First Base]] 21:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Remove''', as inaccurate. Pridnestrovie is not official as PMR is not officially recognized, we can call this name "per PMR Constitution" which is factually correct and is showing accurately which is the officiality who is using this name.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 11:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*I'm always wary of questions with such obvious answers -- has he got a trick up his sleeve? By the way, thanks for getting a username; it makes it easier to remember who I'm talking to. (As you might imagine, as a checkuser operator, I deal with dozens of random IP addresses every day.) Anyway:
*'''Neutral'''. The word means nothing. [[User:Dpotop|Dpotop]] 11:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::(a) Of course, that's exactly what it says
*'''Remove''', [[User:EvilAlex|EvilAlex]] 13:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::(b) I don't believe in absolutes; it's possible to push almost anyone hard enough that they give an incivil response
*'''Remove''' [[User:Dl.goe|Dl.goe]] 14:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::(c) I've never really thought of it as such. It's certainly better than being incivil in response, but it's not really a dispute resolution issue, it's a behavior issue.
*'''Neutral'''. I just don't see what the big deal is one way or another. As it follows from the PMR Constitution, calling it official is justified. [[User:TSO1D|TSO1D]] 15:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::(d) I'll not say "never" about this. People's thresholds of what they consider incivility varies; I've known some editors who have complained about incivility any time someone spoke to them in stronger words than "yes, I agree completely". I'd say someone who made a habit of looking for incivility and then "reporting" it could easily become quite vexatious. Making an encyclopedia does come first.
*'''Neutral'''. As Vecrumba had noted above, as long as the PMR Constitution is mentioned nearby, the word is only as "official" as the Constitution. The same goes for "official PMR government position" etc. I also think the word actually strengthens Marius' position, as using the word "officialy" usually implies that the reality is somewhat different. --[[User:Illythr|Illythr]] 15:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:So, is someone giving you a hard time? --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 01:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
:::: but this was part of the compromise version and I remember from the last archive both Vecrumba and Mauco made an agreement, not to change anything now, because then it is not the cmpromise version any more, and then they wanted to change other things,and then it never stops, so it will be a big mistake to change it [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
* I missed this bit. I say '''Remove''' because I don't think it fits. I do think it has a point of view feeling, but if the majority insist on keeping it I will go with that. [[User:Jonathanpops|Jonathanpops]] 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
**I also wanted to ask if people think the meaning is lost, or if the article loses anything by not having the word in there? [[User:Jonathanpops|Jonathanpops]] 19:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' per Jonathanpops.:[[User:Dc76|Dc76]] 18:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
**As far as I know and see, nothing in meaning is lost. :[[User:Dc76|Dc76]] 18:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
**I prefer without the word officially, the compromise was that Mauco insisted that since the word had been in there so long, prior agreement, etc. that it must be kept; if so, then I insisted that we indicate exactly whose "official" term it is, hence, according to the PMR constitution. Of course, that's now just a longer way of saying official according to whom, so I would completely agree the presence of the term "official" is redundant in this context and it can be removed--and without changing the intended nature of the "officialness" of the Pridnestrovie name. <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — [[User:Vecrumba|Pēters J. Vecrumba]]</span> 04:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
==Question regarding ConcealMyIP IP addresses==
===Sentence and photo about Suvorov===
The sentence about the presence of Suvorov's statue in Tiraspol is not relevant for this article, I believe. It is relevant for the article Tiraspol. Same person who want to shorten the article in other parts is pushing his POV that Suvorov is the most important symbol of Transnistria and need to stay in the article. As a compromise, I propose to keep the photo with an explanation beneath it and remove the sentence.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 11:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Burntsauce&oldid=138281339| this is JB warning the user that one of his BLP edits has been reversed]. I looked up the IP that made that post using the RBLs option and found that the IP resolved to a pseudo-open proxy site called "Conceal My IP" (here's the [http://www.robtex.com/ip/216.17.109.121.html lookup for that IP]). Should that be blocked as an open proxy, and do you think it would be good to look up all IP's that resolve to that and block them? (I know you're tired of this stuff, and I figured I'd better resolve it informally than go through yet another checkuser request) [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] 06:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep photo''' and '''Remove sentence'''.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 11:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*Sure. But I think [[WP:OP]] wouldbe best equipped to handle that stuff. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 07:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep photo''' and '''Remove sentence''', [[User:EvilAlex|EvilAlex]] 13:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Remove*I sentence'''posted over there. Thanks. [[User:Dl.goeSirFozzie|Dl.goeSirFozzie]] 1407:1725, 2015 JanuaryJune 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep photo''' and '''Move sentence''' The photo is relevant to the text and Suvorov is mentioned in the caption of two images. I don't see why the monument should be mentioned in the internal politics section, though. Ok, I moved it partially to the history section. [[User:TSO1D|TSO1D]] 14:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''' [[User:Dpotop|Dpotop]] 15:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''' --[[User:Illythr|Illythr]] 15:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:: This is fine with me the way Tso1d made it. [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep photo''' and '''Move sentence''' (to the article History of Transnistria) and '''Remove sentence''' from here, per TSO1D: there is text below, there shouldn't be repetition.:[[User:Dc76|Dc76]] 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Remove both''', Suvorov already features (appropriately) on the Tiraspol page. (This picture looks better actually, I'd suggest replacing the Tiraspol article picture.) Also, at least one article, either Transnistria or Tiraspol, should feature the parliament building where you can actually see the statue of Lenin--both now seem to have the bucolic panoramic version where there's just an ever so slight hint by reference that Lenin is down there somewhere. I know it's been voted on before, but seeing the picture where Lenin is totally obscured twice really is rather like intentionally avoiding putting in a picture that matches the facts. <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — [[User:Vecrumba|Pēters J. Vecrumba]]</span> 05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
==Nazism==
===Referendum section===
Please explain your revert on [[Nazism]]. [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision Thing --]] 13:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
My proposal is: ''"A referendum was held on 17 September 2006 asking voters whether 1) they supported Transnistrian independence and a future free association with Russia or 2) wished to unite with Moldova. 97.1% voted yes on the first point, and 94.6% voted no at second point. Russia's Duma[10] recognized the vote but the OSCE and many countries[11] did not. According Helsinki Comitee for Human Rights, referendum results were falsified."''.
*You know as well as I do that the lede, and in particular the characterization of "nazism" as a ''form'' of National Socialism, has been deeply discussed on the talk page, and is currently under mediation. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 13:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
*:Just because the issue is currently under mediation Cberlet shouldn't have messed with it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazism&diff=138264020&oldid=138162681] "My" version of the lead was there since March, and was accepted as a compromise until issues are resolved by meditation. Also, if you know that this is a controversial issue why did you revert my edit without any explanation and marked it as minor? That is against Wikipedia policy. [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision Thing --]] 13:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
**Well, the marking as minor was an automatic byproduct of the reversion. You're right, the reversion was bad manners and out of policy. Please accept my apology. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 13:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
***No problem. Thanks for understanding and for being open minded. [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision Thing --]] 14:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
== Range block ==
Paragraph is short and is including all relevant info. In the same time we will have a link to the secondary article, where everything is better explained.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 11:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I brought up that a blocked user ([[User: Diluvien]])is using a /16 range to attempt vandalism (and in fact has managed to get Isotope23 blocked - improperly- for edit warring), and some people thought it might be a problem to block someone on that range because of the collateral damage. Thus I'm coming to you: don't you have access to subranges and to see who's logged into them? The problem here relates to at least the following:
*'''Accept''' above paragraph.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 11:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Accept''', [[User:EvilAlex|EvilAlex]] 13:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Reject''' I am sorry, but I cannot accept that. I still support the version reading: "'''A referendum was held on 17 September 2006 asking voters whether 1) they supported Transnistrian independence and a future free association with Russia or 2) wished to unite with Moldova. According to official results, 97.1% voted yes on the first point, and 94.6% rejected unification with Moldova. Russia's Duma[10] recognized the vote but the OSCE and many countries[11] did not.'''" The sentence about the Helisinki Committee is not included on the current page, and we are trying to find an acceptable synthesis of that information. The Helsinki statement reflects a minority view, and giving it such prominence in a three line paragraph would violate [[WP:Undue Weight]]. Besides, the version the version I put forward already states that many countries did not accept the referendum and called it illegitimate. [[User:TSO1D|TSO1D]] 15:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The remarks of TSO1D are pertinent, but the Helsinki committee must be put somewhere in the paragraph (maybe in a shorter version). [[User:Dpotop|Dpotop]] 15:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Reject''', per TSO1D. --[[User:Illythr|Illythr]] 15:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
He's used IP's:
About Helsinki, please look at the discussion we have had above, I don't want to repeat all arguments that were already mentioned there. Most active contributors at that time, including Johnathan, Mauco, Pernambuco, and Jamason, and Illythr stated that the Helsinki sentence shuould not be included here. The referendum has had many critics, but most organizations, such as the OSCE emphasized the unfavorable circumstances and the flawed way in which the questions were formulated, rather than direct falsifications. I don't deny that the Helsinki statement is not relevant, however it is more of a fringe view and should be added to a subarticle, but shouldn't compose one fourth of a summary of the topic. 15:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Illythr
*{{Userlinks|User:87.122.38.6}}
*{{Userlinks|User:87.122.58.60}}
*{{Userlinks|User:87.122.44.84}}
*{{Userlinks|87.122.54.178}}
*{{Userlinks|87.122.56.113}}
*{{Userlinks|87.122.28.40}}
*{{Userlinks|87.122.21.58}}
[[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
*Yeah, it's a big range, and there are a dozen or so legit editors using it. I don't think range blocking would be appropriate. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 02:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
:*Thanks for the information. That's quite helpful. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 00:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
== Just wanted to say ==
: Yes, I agree. It was the Illythr proposal. the most important statement is OSCE [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Er, did you confuse me with Mauco? I don't believe I'm deranged enough to refer to myself in third person yet. I also kind of wonder, how the HCHR acquired such definite results without sending anyone in there? --[[User:Illythr|Illythr]] 21:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I appreciated your comments [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive92#Selective release of incidental checkuser discovery of Tor usage|here]], on that Tor-release thread. Guess that's a silly thing to leave a talk message over, but I didn't see you around on IRC, and I'll be busy enough this weekend that I'd probably forget to mention it, later. That, and we all spend enough time dealing with vitriol and drama, so hopefully a little good will spreads more cheer. Anyhow, see you around. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#1E90FF">'''Luna Santin'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</span> 07:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' with modification ''the referendum was held in a flawed way'' instead of ''referendum results were falsified''. I don't agree that Helsinki Commeette brings undue weight [[WP:Undue Weight]]. This is after all, the most renouned international ONG, that is known for not compromizing truth for political stability. OSCE, on the other hand, being an organization that acts by unanimity is known to often do exactly this. Not mentioning OSCE would also be wrong, since it's the most autoritary international organization in Transnistria. So keep both OSCE and Helsinki Commeette. :[[User:Dc76|Dc76]] 19:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*Thanks! (Too much drama and vitriol, indeed.) --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 20:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
==Quick question==
===Vasily Yakovlev's opinions===
Hi, I saw your comment about my request for Arbitration on Elvira Arellano and wanted to ask, if a group of users simply agree to the content of an article, regardless of the facts in the case and regardless of an opinion of those facts and that they should not be deleted by an Administrator, (Admin Tony the Marine), you feel that's fine even if they do not follow Wikipedia guidelines for NPOV disputes etc? That does not really bode well for the integrity of content in Wikipedia articles if "mob rule" is acceptable. We've all here in this article gone the 3RR route, Third Opinions, RfCs, Requests for Mediation as well as the opinions of multiple Admins on the talk page. If after all that, the AC is not the place to go now, where is? I'm honestly not trying to be difficult. I simply follwed the dispute process to resolve this which was suggested to me by multiple Admins who have been involved in the case. At this point, I just think it needs to be taken out of our hands now. [[User:LordPathogen|LordPathogen]] 18:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
This generally-agreed (in November) sentence was removed in December by Mauco as not relevant. Disscussions above were inconclusive. I believe the opinions are relevant for the actual economical situation in Transnistria (more relevant than Tiraspol Times, IMHO) and if we are considering relevant the statue of Suvorov, why we should not consider relevant the actual economic situation?--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 11:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
== TingMing RfAr ==
The paragraph in discussion is: ''The extreme worsening of economic situation of ordinary people in Transnistria was in November 2006 the subject of an [[open letter]] of one of the founders and ideologists of Transnistrian Republic, author of the first PMR constitution, Vasily Yakovlev. In his letter he is asking penal persecution for PMR president [[Igor Smirnov]] and is calling for unity with the working people of Moldova.<ref>[http://www.puls.md/en.php?id=422 Vasily Yakovlev - Accusatory statement]</ref>''
I saw your comment on the above. If I were in full-throttle procedure mode, I would post a clerk note pointing out that a dismissal as moot is a substantive motion in the case that should require a majority vote, as opposed to a motion to close based on the decision, which requires only 4 votes. Since we want to minimize further expenditure of time on this case, though, I won't do that, but I hope we can get a quick consensus on what to do so we can get it finished. Regards, [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 14:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
This is already a summary, we are providing link to the entire letter.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 12:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*Is there really any issue that needs resolution in the case, or are we just concerned with technicalities of how to close a case that becomes totally irrelevant in the course of the case? --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 14:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
**Hey, if it were up to me I would have archived the whole thing last night, if not a week ago; but I think some of your colleagues would get cross if I did that, as WP:BOLD does not always go over well on the arbitration pages. The real question is whether the work that was invested in drafting the decision can be salvaged by issuing a decision that would have value as a reference in some later case. I don't really see that here, but the arbs who spent the time writing it might disagree. I certainly agree that everyone needs to focus on the more complex cases and not this one, at a time when the backlog is growing; I'm just trying to avoid later drama over a complaint that this was handled wrong. But if I'm coming off as a pain in the neck about the matter that's not the intention, and I'll back off and let someone else figure it out. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 14:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
***Oh, I don't really care one way or another; and the backlog doesn't bother me a bit. This one just seemed like an easy fix. There are others I'd just as soon see thrown out too, but they're probably harder to justify... --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 14:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
****Give me a list of the cases you want thrown out, and I'll close 'em all by lunchtime. WP:RfAr, meet, WP:IAR :) [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 14:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
*****Let's see. How can I establish plausible deniability? --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 14:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
******How about I move all the arbitrators who aren't online right this minute to "inactive," and then you're a majority and can do what you like? I never signed up for rouge admins, but the combination of a rouge arbitrator and a rouge clerk could probably get a lot done around here. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
*******You sure you're not a programmer? You seem to have a keen insight into the Programmer's Methodology for Avoiding Work. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 14:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
== Kosovo article probation query ==
*'''Keep'''.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 11:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', [[User:EvilAlex|EvilAlex]] 13:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You'll recall that a while back the ArbCom placed all Kosovo-related articles on article probation (per [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo]]) and you also participated in a mediation case regarding links to [[Francisco Gil-White]]'s self-published essays ([[Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO]]). An issue has come up which intersects with both matters, and I'm not quite sure how to proceed - I'd be grateful for your advice. Basically, I recently replaced the contents of [[Gazimestan speech]] with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gazimestan_speech&oldid=139045331 a greatly expanded and heavily sourced version]. Unfortunately [[User:Nikola Smolenski]] has rolled it all back to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gazimestan_speech&oldid=139023426 original version] (which he wrote). His version is a combination of [[WP:OR|original research]] - the bulk of it is his personal analysis of the speech - and the rest is "based on Gil-White's analysis" (in his words). From Nikola's comments at [[Talk:Gazimestan speech#New version]], it's plain that he doesn't accept the results of the earlier mediation on the use of Gil-White's self-published polemics.
: i forget, who is Yakovlev and why is his quotation so important.? [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:: can someone tell me this, why it is required......... [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 17:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to relitigate this and I see absolutely no point in doing so, seeing as the use of Gil-White's material as a source is clearly a violation of [[WP:RS]]. Nikola has suggested merging in his commentary but I'm reluctant to do that, seeing as it's pure original research. I think his actions probably count as a violation of the article probation, but what's the procedure for bringing an article probation issue to the attention of people who can actually do something about it? -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 08:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''':[[User:Dc76|Dc76]] 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::Vasily Yakovlev is one of the founders of PMR, perhaps the main ideological founder, while Smirnov was the practical one. If you read the whole letter, you'll see it is very critical of Smirnov, whom he calls criminal in reference to economic degradation of the villages in Transnistria. He critisizes the failure of the economy due to lack of care of government for people's daily life in general (not just villages), but in reference to villages he is very harsh. The letter was published in Triaspol media with significant deletions, which generated a surge of wondering, and Chisinau press, who was generally critical of people like Yakovlev published it in full, and without much comments, as the text speaks for itself as no comment can do. The fact puts into evidence, although not clearly to first-time readers, the crizis in Transnistrian govenrment, its search for new people and new ideological basis, as the old ones start leaving the boat. :[[User:Dc76|Dc76]] 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as per Dc76 [[User:Dl.goe|Dl.goe]] 05:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
== RFAr question ==
::: the conclusions that Dc76 makes, is this his own opinion or is it is a source, because I looked at the page history and also talk archivals, and the reason it was deleted was because it was just wrong and misleading information: the man's quote is about economic failure, and later the newest source is that the economy instead rose 17 per cent at the same time [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::The economic growth is 17 per cent according to what PRM officials said. Let's see other facts: In 1990, Transnistria had a per capita GDP 2.35 times higher than Moldova; now only 1.15 times higher; quite a decline... The debt of PRM is 285% of GDP, [[List_of_countries_by_public_debt|the highest in the world]]. [[User:Dl.goe|Dl.goe]] 08:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' - In absolute terms, the economy is still abysmal for the average Transnistrian. Unfortunately, quoting the "latest news" (for example, Mauco at various times insisting Smirnov and Antyufeyev were has-beens on their way out) is not a reliable indicator of the situation, so I would keep as it is (a) recent and (b) pertains to someone who has been in power continuously to the current day. <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — [[User:Vecrumba|Pēters J. Vecrumba]]</span> 05:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you with this, but there are several people at Badlydrawnjeff's RFAr that consider the remedy too harsh. In particular, BDJ's editing of ''articles'' has never been problematic. Would you consider limiting said remedy to, e.g., deletion discussions on BLP articles, rather than the articles themselves? The remedy as written boils down to banning one of our most prolific editors from a very substantial set of articles, and that seems hardly worthwhile. Yours, [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">><font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font><</font></b>]] 08:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
===External links: TT and transnistria.ru.ru===
:That concerns me, and the justification also concerns me. Perhaps more importantly, I should like to see cautions handed out on all sides; I really dislike seeing admins bullying their way to what they Know is Right; for the same reasons I dislike editors who Insist that WP must tell the Truth (their Truth, of course).[[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 16:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
While I don't consider Tiraspol Times as the kind of links we should accept in Wikipedia, in order to achieve a compromise and understading that this is a sentimental problem for Mauco (he loves TT and TT loves Mauco; he contributed with so many articles at TT, under different names) I am ready to accept TT link. However, considering the refusal of changing the headline of External links section, I believe is necessary to include also a link to transnistria.ru.ru, to show also the voice of anti-separatist transnistrians, not only the voice of Tiraspol regime. Is a problem of having balanced info.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 12:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
==Thanks==
*'''Keep''' link to Tiraspol Times and '''keep''' link to transnistria.ru.ru.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 12:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Don'tBut include''what I'm linkhere for is to Tiraspolthank Timesyou andfor '''keep'''restoring linkmy totalk transnistriapage.ru.ru [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:EvilAlexPmanderson|EvilAlexPMAnderson]]</small> 1322:0847, 20 JanuaryJune 2007 (UTC)
*Happy to help. Don't like rude people. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 22:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' link to Tiraspol Times but '''don't include''' link to transnistria.ru.ru. I am not the biggest fan of TT, but it does have daily news, and not many similar periodicals exist in Transnsitria. As for t.ru.ru, I'm sorry but I think the inclusion of that page contravenes Wikipedia policy on external sources. As for the titles of the categories, I wouldn't mind changing it to pro-Moldova and pro-PMR, or removing such descriptors altogether if there would be consensus to do so. [[User:TSO1D|TSO1D]] 14:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*:agree to the external links titles suggested by TSO1D:''pro-Moldova'' and ''pro-PMR''.[[User:Dl.goe|Dl.goe]] 20:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*: Hey, good call, I agree to these title names as well. Hmm, if voting is evil, then voting within voting must be evil squared! :-) --[[User:Illythr|Illythr]] 13:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' TT as a news site, '''don't include''' transnistria.ru.ru as a hate site. DNS ___domain spoofing is nasty. --[[User:Illythr|Illythr]] 15:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Don't include''' either of them. [[User:Bogdangiusca|bogdan]] 18:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*:why not, to hear the reasons....... [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure, the Tiraspol Times looks good at a glance but is actually pretty rubbish when you dig into it (in my opinion). Having said that I always think there is way too much obssessing over external links on this page, like some people believe that these links on wikipedia will somehow sway the political status of Transnistria outside of the internet, which I believe to be ludicrous. I don't mind zdub.hostrocket.com, which is the actuall address of the 'spoofed' (as someone here puts it) transnistria.ru.ru, because for one thing it doesn't pretend to be anything it is not (ignoring the name redirect of course). You can see by looking at it that it's a blatant anti-Russian site and it doesn't claim to be anything else really. Still, even though i do like it, I have to admit it is very poor as a website and wouldn't do much in terms of further info other than highlight that not everyone in Transnistria in pro-Russian. In short I think we should probably not include either of them, but don't really care that much either way. [[User:Jonathanpops|Jonathanpops]] 15:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
: It pretends to be a part of [[.ru]], for some strange reason. --[[User:Illythr|Illythr]] 00:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*transnistria.ru.ru link is broken, at least from my computer. In general I favour '''absolute freedom of speach, provided the sourse is named for what it is'''. So, include TT with comment "Tiraspol Times (Transnistrian propaganda site in English)". Sub-list "Pro-Transnistrian sourses" sounds ok for TT, except that then it will bring again the discussion of what is pro-Moldovan. I don't think that 100% of sourses from Moldova should be called pro-Moldovan just b/c they don't publish from abroad. I disagree with most of Moldovan press' comments, but freedom of speech is freedom of speech. The only sites that I would object (provided they are informative about Transnistria, not about rasing mashrooms on the moon) would be forum sites, i.e sites, which contain 99% only forum discussion. :[[User:Dc76|Dc76]] 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
==Marius/MaucoRFAr==
I'm not sure where exactly is the right place to respond to your (temporary) decision at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#1.1.26 Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/2/0/0)|this RfA]], so I'll do it here. What I want to tell you that the Ombudsman is for (legal) privacy concerns, and the privacy policy has most certainly not been violated, as no personal information was revealed.<br>The primary concerns in this case are whether the revealing of CheckUser info in the middle of an RfA, and the conduct by both editors following shortly after, was appropriate (as summed up [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Statement by uninvolved Quadell|here]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#1.1.23 Statement by uninvolved Georgewilliamherber|here]]). What exactly do you want the Ombudsman to decide or do? <b>[[User:Salaskan|<span style="color:red">Sala</span>]][[User talk:Salaskan|<span style="color:gold">Skan</span>]]</b> 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Having watched this page for a while, its clear that the cycle of proteciton/revert warring/protection is not working. The discussion page is being used well, but we're still not getting anywhere.
*Since a request to the ombudsman is pending, I voted to defer action until they either reject or act upon the request. Which I believe is exactly what I said at RfArb. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 18:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
== Diyako checkuser logs ==
Anyway, rather than protection, I've instead blocked Marius and Mauco for a period of 10 days. The idea is that you guys all keep working on teh article and hopefully it can develop without edit warring.
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zanyar]] (Possible sockpuppets)
If this fails (i.e. if edit wars continue or no discussion keeps taking place) then I'll re-protect the article and unblock Marius and Mauco after three days, as NishKid64 had left it.
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyako]] (Diyako is stale)
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/71.222.81.30]] (Diyako is still stale so no check was made to compare him)
You are receiving this because your username either appears [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Listusers?username=&limit=50&group=checkuser on the checkuser list] or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman|Arbcom case]] ([[User:Dmcdevit]], [[User:Jdforrester]], [[User:The Epopt]], [[User:Charles Matthews]], [[User:Sam Korn]], [[User:Fred Bauder]], [[User:Jayjg]], [[User:Morven]], [[User:Neutrality]]).
The idea behind this is to allow the article to develop without edit wars. I don't blame M/M for the revert wars themselves, but they've gotten too far into it and some off-wiki cooling off time wiill do them good.
Currently [[User:Diyako]]/[[User:Xebat]] is at a stale state for not editing over a month. User hasn't edited for slightly over a year due to an arbcom sanctioned ban. I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AXebat&diff=137859853&oldid=52591190 a reason] to believe ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Kurdistan&diff=137577423&oldid=137570475], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Kurdistan&diff=138669237&oldid=138540776], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Kurdistan&diff=138869976&oldid=138843439]) there may be a connection as the edit pattern [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman#Xebat is disruptive|seems similar]] in many ways. Diyako's wikipedia ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as [[User:D.Kurdistani]], there needs to be a further consideration either by ARBCOM or Community Sanction board (latter seems more appropriate IMHO). A successful checkuser would be very helpful in the decision making process on this issue.
If this attempt to sort the problem fails then you need mediation. --[[User:Robdurbar|Robdurbar]] 13:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
This inquiry is to request if you have "personal logs" of Diyako/Xebat's IP's to compare with [[User:D.Kurdistani]] and possible other socks. This is '''NOT''' a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on [[User talk:White Cat|my talk page]] to confirm if you have the logs or not. [[User:Mackensen]] appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info.
:: I'm sorry, but is there a Wikipedia rule allowing the blocking of users that cannot support each other? I throught the Wikipedia approach is based on mediation and arbitration, not blocking... [[User:Dpotop|Dpotop]] 15:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:::There are plenty of Wikipedia rules but almost all of them allow admins to use their judgement if they want to. I am blocking M/M because I want to see if the Transnistria page can be settled but developing in their absence. As I've said, if it fails I'll unblock them. If people think my actions - which I agree are fairly unusual - are wrong then I won't revert any admin who undoes them (if anyone's unhappy, report this at [[WP:ANI]]). But I feel I've explained my logic. [[User:Robdurbar|Robdurbar]] 15:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
--<small> [[User:White Cat/07|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:White Cat/07|chi?]]</sup> 10:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:::: I hope you are aware that Mauco and MariusM will be back in 10 days. :) I hope you are going to be here to police the article after that date. :) [[User:Dpotop|Dpotop]] 17:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*It would probably have been a better idea to email this or post it again on RFCU, and it would probably have been a better idea to notice that I was the one who told you Diyako was too stale to use -- I would have used old logs had I had them. And, Nick -- don't presume to delete non-vandalistic messages from my user talk page; I'm quite capable of doing so myself. I appreciate the intent, but it's misplaced. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 14:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
== BLP for the recently dead ==
::::: Robdurar already explained, it is a ban for educational purposes, he wants them to learn from it, so after, the police work is not needed. It was very ugly to see what they did yesterday, Mariusm was addding and deleting a lot of things again and again, and there was no agreement or no consensus, and Mauco was just reverting him, and finally they both got reported for 3-RR. So one of them has to learn to work with consensus and the other has to learn to stop revert, this is what Robdurar already explained as his purpose: Educational [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
"If my Dad dies and a Wikipedia article decides to stick something in his article which wouldn't have been allowed the day before he died under BLP, it's hurtful in much the same way."
==Economy==
There are several problems with this section:
* The term of "capitalist mixed economy" is controversial and means everything and at the same time nothing. I think that more correct and logical could be just "mixed economy" (it's not very "capitalist" if local gas company has to distribute natural gas by fixed price, which is lower than a price of purchased gas).
* Second problem is related to the term "export-oriented". Is there any statistics, which is the export ratio to the GDP? Is there any statistics about export (and import) at all?
* Also, the GDP is counted by the Economy Ministry, but which standards they use? No statiscal office at all?
* Estimated deficit - this is not a current account deficit (which is also very important economic indicator), but budget deficit. Current account and budget are different things.
* The article claims, that Gazprom owns Tiraspoltransgas, as well as Gazprombank (Tiraspol). However, as of 1 January 2007, these companies are not included in the list of Gazprom's affiliated companies and there is no reliable information about ownership of these companies.
[[User:Beagel|Beagel]] 16:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:#<small> "Transnistria has a [[Capitalism|capitalist]]{{fact}} [[mixed economy]]. Following a large scale [[privatization]] process, most of the companies in Transnistria are now privately owned. The economy is [[export]]-oriented{{fact}} and based on a mix of [[heavy industry]] and [[manufacturing]]."</small> should be deleted.
:#I think it is [[GDP]](nominal), not [[Purchasing power parity|PPP]].
:#'''Companies''' subchapter should be removed. Useless information about companies would be described as propaganda.[[User:Dl.goe|Dl.goe]] 19:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It's hurtful ''to you'' in much the same way, but the day after he dies, it is only hurtful ''to him'' in a metaphysical sense, which is far different from potential hurt to him while he is alive.
:::I propose following text for this section:
:::"Transnistria has a [[mixed economy]]. Following a large scale [[privatization]] process, most of the companies in Transnistria are now privately owned. The economy bases on a mix of [[heavy industry]] (steel production), electricity production and [[manufacturing]] (textile production), which together accounts about 80% of the total industrial output.<ref name=viitorul>[http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/getdocument.aspx?logid=5&id=18fc81ca-d52d-4a8a-98fb-63ea194fd695 Transnistria], Center for Economic Polices of IDIS “Viitorul”</ref>
Remember Daniel Brandt's complaints about his article? They were basically that he couldn't get work because employers would run a Google search and find out that he was a draft dodger or whatnot. Remember the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-04-23/Wikidetainment | Historian detained after his Wikipedia article is vandalized]]? That's real, concrete harm that articles about living people can cause. All of that doesn't apply to the dead, even the recent dead.
:::===Economic development====
:::After WWII, Transnistria was heavily industrialized, to the point that in 1990, it was responsible for 40% of Moldova's GDP and 90% of its electricity<ref>John Mackinlay and Peter Cross (editors), ''Regional Peacekeepers: The Paradox of Russian Peacekeeping'', United Nations University Press, 2003, ISBN 92-808-1079-0 p. 135</ref> despite the fact that it accounted for only 17% of Moldova's population. After its declaration of independence, Transnistria wanted to return to a "Brezhnev-style planned economy"<ref>John B. Dunlop, "Will a Large-Scale Migration of Russians to the Russian Republic Take Place over the Current Decade?", in ''International Migration Review'', Vol. 27, No. 3. (Autumn, 1993), pp. 605-629, citing ''Russian Radio'', September 21, 1992 in ''Rusia and CIS Today'', WPS, September 21, 1992, p. 976/16.</ref>, however, several years later, it decided to head toward a [[market economy]].
Here's Brandt's "bottom line" on the subject, by the way: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination)|"The bottom line is that Wikipedia should not pretend that it is competent to write biographies of living persons without the subject's consent and cooperation."]] Surely there's a big difference for a recently deceased person. --[[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 20:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[[Image:Transnistria rubla.jpg|right|200px|thumb|The [[Transnistrian ruble]] shows [[Alexander Suvorov]], founder of modern [[Tiraspol]].]]
*Shrug. Decency comes first, but that's my policy in all things. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 21:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
** Good personal policy, but comes into conflict with being an encyclopedia. We can avoid discussing unpleasant topics at a dinner party, but we can't leave them out of the encyclopedia that is supposed to be the sum of common knowledge. "Does it directly affect a living person" is at least a good bright line, and we can probably maintain it. "Could it possibly hurt the feelings of any living person" is something we just can't maintain - at least someone is potentially offended by nearly every one of our articles.
:: Here, let me suggest another personal policy. [[Robustness Principle]]: "Be conservative in what you do; be liberal in what you accept from others." You don't personally have to write any articles that offend anyone, but as an arbitrator, you're writing what the encyclopedia will accept. --[[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 21:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*We can discuss this in the appropriate place; it's not a personal issue. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 21:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi JP - you say "Decency comes first". How do you feel about the article on [[Israel Shahak]], who, as best I can tell, only spoke out against fundamentalists within his own faith? His biography here certainly doesn't treat him decently, re-publishing amazingly nasty allegations. Is this (or should it be) in conflict with WP policy? [[User:PalestineRemembered|PalestineRemembered]] 07:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:::===Current situation===
*I've made no study of the man or the article. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 13:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:::In 2005, the GDP was about $420 million.<ref>[http://www.rbcnews.com/free/20050128092622.shtml RosBusiness: Transnistria announces GDP forecast]</ref> [[GDP per capita]] is $990, which is somewhat higher than Moldova.<ref>[http://www.rbcnews.com/free/20061225132716.shtml RosBusiness: Transnistria posts higher GDP]</ref> Transnistria's state budget for 2007 is US$246 million, with an estimated deficit of approximately US$100 million.<ref>[http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=2143 Transnistrian parliament adopts region's budget for 2007]</ref>. Transnistria has debt of $1.2 billion (two thirds of which are with Russia), which is per capita approximately 6 times higher than in Moldova (without Transnistria).<ref>[http://www.policy.hu/npopescu/publications/06.11%20IPF%20Democracy%20in%20secessionism.pdf]</ref>
::He died six years ago, he was a hugely controversial public figure while he was alive, and the material in the article is stated quite neutrally. PR misrepresents the issue; Shahak didn't "speak out against fundamentalists within his own faith", but rather invented some rather horrifying libels regarding Judaism, which was not ''his'' faith, since he was an atheist. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
== Rogue Admin ==
:::The trade deficit reached $270 million in 2005. Over 50% of export goes to the [[Commonwealth of Independent States|CIS]], mainly to Russia. The main exports are steel, textile and mineral products. The CIS accounts for over 60% of the imports, while the share of the [[European Union|EU]] is about 23%. The main imports are non-precious metals, food products and electricity.<ref name=viitorul>[http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/getdocument.aspx?logid=5&id=18fc81ca-d52d-4a8a-98fb-63ea194fd695 Transnistria], Center for Economic Polices of IDIS “Viitorul”</ref>
Please see my [[User talk:68.110.8.21]] and [[User_talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT.2C_WP:HOAX.2C_WP:PN.2C_WP:BIAS]]. Wikipedia seriously needs your help Josh. Thanks. [[User:68.110.8.21|68.110.8.21]] 03:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Leading industry is a steel industry, due the steel factory of [[Rîbniţa]] (Rybnitsa), which gives about 50% of the budget revenue of Transnistria. Leading company in the textile industry is [[Tirotex]], which claimed to be the second largest textile company in Europe.<ref>[http://www.tirotex.com/index.htm Tirotex official website]</ref> The energy sector is dominated by the Russian companies: the largest power company ZAO Moldavskaya GRES, locating in [[Dnestrovsk]], is owned by ZAO Inter RAO UES, the subsidiary of [[Unified Energy System|RAO UES]] and [[Rosenergoatom]]<ref>[http://www.interrao.ru/_upload/editor_files/file0014.pdf Annual Report of Inter RAO UES]</ref>, and the gas transmission and distributing company [[Tiraspoltransgas]] is probably controlled by [[Gazprom]], althoughit has not confirmed officially the ownership. The banking sector of Transnistria consists 8 commercial banks, including [[Gazprombank (Transnistria)|Gazprombank]]."
:::[[User:Beagel|Beagel]] 20:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:::: o.k., it is perfect, very nice job [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 21:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Very nice job indeed![[User:Dl.goe|Dl.goe]]
:::::Nice to know that an economist writes that portion. Very goo job, indeed.
:::::Your questions 1-5 are rhetorical, as you realize. Go ahead and boldly remove non-sense where you see it:
*The terms "capitalist" and "export-oriented" are, as you perhaps know, often used by economies that do not like to be called "a few years ago was state-owned in communist style, now ambiguously-owned". Every economy is capitalist (uses money and investment) and "export-oriented" (the last self-sufficient economy of earch was Japan before Meiji era). The fact that someone needs to emphasize that suggests he/she wants to deemphasize (hide) something else.
*Establishing a running statistical bureau requires working relationship at the legal level with the world economy, which is a problem, as Transnistria is un-recognized. So companies register in Chisinau if want to do business with anyone but Russia, or do it through intermediaries (proper Moldovan, Ukrainian or Russian, for example). Subordination to Ministry of Economics is simply b/c the autorities want to be able to exercise direct control in case they would need it: ''you don't want to be critisized for your policies based on data provided by an institution you stuff and pay.'' Without working legal relationship with world economy, the autorities do indeed believe that.
*to understand the diference between balance deficit and budget deficit needs that the economy cares who pays the debt. As the debt is acquired in form of aid from a single sourse, and forgiven or "forgotten" to be collected under proper political circumstances, they don't get to see the difference in practical terms, so they think there is none other than for researchers' use.
*Sometimes high-ranking employees of a company would run parallel private businesses, in appearance unconnected with the "mother" company. Could it be the case here? :[[User:Dc76|Dc76]] 20:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::I did not notice a small problem. You might want to replace "After its declaration of independence" with "After 1990" or "1992", since technically it only declared sovereinty away from Moldova but within USSR in 1990, is de facto independent since 1992, and only now tries to declare independence (this is the 2006 referendum). Don't get into legal stuff here. This section is too nice after your proposal. Just say somehow else without the word "declaration of independence" ("de-facto idependent" is not wrong). :[[User:Dc76|Dc76]] 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for your explanations. Actually I don't knew much about Transnistria, so I just tried to make the economy section more understandable and at the same time keep as much original text as possible. I see the problem with wording "After its declaration of independence" (which was original wording), so I have nothing against if anybody would like to replace this.[[User:Beagel|Beagel]] 21:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I propose to replace "After 1992" with "After the collapse of the Soviet Union".[[User:Beagel|Beagel]] 17:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
== hey...I need a favour... ==
==Is Transnistria sovereign?==
There's currently a discussion on [[Talk:List of sovereign states]] concerning Transnistria. It would be interesting for you to drop by and say what you think. [[User:Dpotop|Dpotop]] 18:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
: o.k., thank you, good idea [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Yes, except that you answered without reading the question, which made you look <s>dumb</s> uninformed. [[User:Dpotop|Dpotop]] 19:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Please try to be more civil. Even if you disagree with him, he has shown respect to you, and by insulting him, you are not likely to achieve anything. [[User:TSO1D|TSO1D]] 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jp, sorry to bug you, but I couldn't find User:Beestra cause he's on a Wikibreak, so I coming to you for advice/ your knowledge of Wikipedia Policies. I was wondering....is this article section ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Maxwell&diff=next&oldid=140232508]) a violation of Wikipedia policy? or is it a just another case of an edit conflict or censoring? [[User:Nat.tang|Nat Tang]] <sup> [[user talk:Nat.tang|talk to me!]] | [[special:contributions/Nat.tang|Check on my contributions!]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Nat.tang|Email Me!]]</sup> 14:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
== Official and Officially ==
*"Whitewashing", I'd think. But I'm not a BLP expert by any means. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 14:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
**"whitewashing"? [[User:Nat.tang|Nat Tang]] <sup> [[user talk:Nat.tang|talk to me!]] | [[special:contributions/Nat.tang|Check on my contributions!]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Nat.tang|Email Me!]]</sup> 14:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
***Well, removing the mention of the nasty court judgement seems to be whitewashing, covering up something ugly. But again, I'm not a BLP expert; I see nothing in the article about Maxwell-as-fraudulent-spammer other than the court judgement. Perhaps some other information might be useful (for example, an article about the judgment rather than the judgment itself.) --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 14:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
****Thank you. [[User:Nat.tang|Nat Tang]] <sup> [[user talk:Nat.tang|talk to me!]] | [[special:contributions/Nat.tang|Check on my contributions!]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Nat.tang|Email Me!]]</sup> 15:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar#Gr8India]] ==
I'm sorry to bring this up again but I noticed this edit by Mauco: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=101879123&oldid=101875322 where he says in his edit description "as per talk", and I just wanted to know what talk this was? I know I talked about this and didn't agree that we should use the word "official" anywhere in this article and that Mauco disagreed with me. Is this the talk he is referring to or was there another?
With all due respect, I must protest your rejection of [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar#Gr8India|the checkuser request for Gr8India]]. Bakasuprman and Shipslucky's bickering is insufficient reason for rejection. If you were to say that checkuser is moot because Gr8India has been blocked, that I would understand; however, Gr8India's ballot-stuffing of the Hkelkar 2 Workshop page is good reason to run the checkuser anyway.
Anyway seeing as Maruis and Mauco are blocked can I ask other's opinions on the word "official", should we use it or not? Am I wrong to oppose its use? Am I wrong in thinking the word has a point of view attached and that it's provocative? If I am wrong I don't mind, I just want to know, and I will shut up about it. [[User:Jonathanpops|Jonathanpops]] 16:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:Moreover, yesif maybepersonal justattacks waitare untilall theit twotakes M´sto return,derail anda seecheckuser what they sayrequest, ifdo ityou wasthink ayour compromiserejection versionof thenthis allcheckuser thefor partsthat havereason tomakes respectpersonal that,attacks elseon the compromisecheckuser fallspage apartmore andor theless pagelikely isin lockedfuture? andI allhave that, butremoved the versionpersonal was from P.Vecrumbaattacks and ishope heyou alsowill blocked,reconsider. ifIf not, heI can explain why it is thereunderstand. [[User:PernambucoJFD|PernambucoJFD]] 1720:4536, 2124 JanuaryJune 2007 (UTC)
*Hkelkar is stale, anyway, and Gr8India doesn't share IP with anyone else at all. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 20:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed the word officially. 3 editors voted for it's removal 3 are neutral and none voted for it's maintenance.[[User:Dl.goe|Dl.goe]] 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:Thank you for your reply. Might I ask you what you mean by "stale"? [[User:JFD|JFD]] 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::Hasn't edited recently enough to have any more live tracks for checkuser. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 22:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:::So how is the ban on Hkelkar and his socks supposed to be enforced if checkuser doesn't have any live tracks to work with? [[User:JFD|JFD]] 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Most of the time they're pretty obvious by their behavior, no? And if any already tagged Hkelkar socks had been alongside Gr8India, they'd have been recognized as such. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 22:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::I'm not so sure about that; Freedom skies put on quite the performance with his sockpuppets, using multiple false identities to edit different sets of articles. Let me see if I have this right: Gr8India could very well be a Kelkarsock, but checkuser just doesn't have the live tracks to confirm it, is that right? Also, if there's a sock whose sockmaster is likely to be "stale" due to block or whatever, what's the best way to deal with that since checkuser may not have the "live tracks"? [[User:JFD|JFD]] 23:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Checkuser isn't magic wiki pixie dust. IP data shows no correlation between Kelkar and Gr8India. That's all I have to go by. Behavior matters more. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 23:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Ok, thanks. [[User:JFD|JFD]] 23:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::It was Kuntan, and if you want to checkuser "Hkelkar" suspect socks, you need Dmcdevit. He's got a Ph.D in seeking Hkelkar. Best, — [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black">Nearly Headless Nick</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black" title="Contributions"><sup>'''{C}'''</sup></font>]] 12:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Jpgordon I would like you to check out this [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Impersonation|ANI post on impersonation]]. There are numerous Hkelkar impersonators and BhaiSaab impersonators/socks out there now (including the [[User:Shipslucky|one]] who called me a moron on the checkuser).<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<font color="black">Baka</font>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<font color="green">man</font>]]</b> 15:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
== Rejection of My case ==
:: i said that it was part of the compromise, I think, and want Vecrumba to tell us because he made it, and you are too fast because this will cause a lot of trouble, if we break the compromise then just imagine what it will become like when the two Ms (maurco and marius) return, you have not considered this or heard from Vecrumba about this, but I think he said something in Talk, can we check the archives ? I will restore it because it is safest [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Indeed it was. The discussion is [[Talk:Transnistria/archive_11#4_.2B_10_.2B_Mauco.2C_TSO1D.2C_Jonathanpops.2C...|here]]. MariusM wasn't part of this agreement, and probably, that's why he asked the question.
I saw that you rejected my case and i am somewhat flustered by the "system". An admin abused his power and I would like his actions reviewed. If RFA is not the best place to do it, please let me know where to file a case. //[[User:Tecmobowl|Tecmobowl]] 21:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
But I don't agree to the chapter Name. I think:"Although most commonly known in English as Transnistria, its official name is Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública " is POV: we say Transnistria has a disputed status, but we name it... Republic.
*Read the top of [[WP:RFARB]]. Arbitration is the ''last'', not the first, step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 01:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I suggest <blockquote>The name '''Transnistria''' is most commonly used, and does not imply the status of Transnistria: region of Moldova or independent state.<br>The name used in the [[Constitution of Transnistria]] is '''Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública''' ([[Moldovan language|Moldovan]]: Република Молдовеняскэ Нистрянэ, {{lang-ru|Приднестровская Молдавская Республика}}, {{lang-uk|Придністровська Молдавська Республіка, ПМР}}). This is abbreviated '''PMR'''.A short form of the name is Pridnestrovie (transliteration of the Russian "Приднестровье").<ref>[http://www.pridnestrovie.net/name.html Pridnestrovie.net: "Pridnestrovie" vs "Transnistria"] Pridnestrovie.net. Retrieved [[2006]], [[December 26|12-26]]</ref></blockquote>[[User:Dl.goe|Dl.goe]] 08:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:* I am aware of that. How exactly should this situation be dealt? The other levels of dispute resolution are applicable, i have disengaged for quite some time. Other than that, admins need to look at his behavior. That's the situation. //[[User:Tecmobowl|Tecmobowl]] 11:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, the next step in [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] is discussing it with third parties. That's what I don't see you as having done. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 14:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
:::*I have sent an email to Charles R. Matthews (charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com). That seems like a reasonable third-party to me. I have received no feedback other than confirmation that he saw my emails. This was over two weeks ago. //[[User:Tecmobowl|Tecmobowl]] 14:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Please read [[WP:DR#Discuss with third parties]] to get a better idea. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 15:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
::::*Again, i think we are getting of topic again. I have discussed this with many third parties. If you look at the original sock page you will see a person who discussed the matter and said the exact same thing: that this user abused his power. //[[User:Tecmobowl|Tecmobowl]] 16:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::Have you read the section in question? Have you posted a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]]? There's a specific place on [[WP:RFC/USER]] for requests for comments about administrators. Have you sought mediation? Again, arbitration is the ''last'' step. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 16:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::*I have not seen RFC/USER before! Thanks for pointing that out. I will look into that and explore options there before I move forward with anythign else. Thanks much! //[[User:Tecmobowl|Tecmobowl]] 11:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
If Tecmobowl actually goes forward with an RFC, to try to get revenge on anyone who he regards as an enemy as per [[User:Tecmobowl/links#users harassing me]], I can assure you that there will be a list of disgruntled users ready to do likewise against him. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] 12:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' Dl.goe's version, with "Romanian Cyrilic" instead of "Moldovan". "Official" is not wrong as a word, as long as it is clear from who's POV it is official: legal/international/official Moldovan or per PMR legislation. To me it is clear that "ooficially Pridnestrovie" is PMR POV, but an outside reader who does not know Romanian, Russian, and perhaps not perfectly English could equaly well assume that this is how Moldova calls the region. The article is not for me and you, but, say for someone from Holland, Brasil, India or Japan. Dl.goe's version sounds much better, since it avoids this discussion, without damagind the info.:[[User:Dc76|Dc76]] 20:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
== RFC for admin ==
:: it is very clear from how the text is, we do not say that it is official, it is not Wiki-pedia who decides this, and this is not doubted, if you read the text. It says "Official according to their PMR constiution" this means not official in general, or official according to anything else, I am neutral in this and it is very clear, there is not misunderstanding in the original version [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Have i done [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irishguy_admin this] right? I cannot tell if I need to add a template to it or not. I will notify various parties of the discussion once it is "properly" started. I will go ahead and notify the admin as he will be the one most affected. Thank you. //[[User:Tecmobowl|Tecmobowl]] 13:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
: Some people might think it's very clear, but I think it would be lot clearer still if "official" was not there at all. If I, and all my family and friends say that I am the stongest man in the world it doesn't make it official in this way: Jonathanpops, officially per his friends and family "Strongest Man in the World" in not recognised as the strongest man in the world by anyone else in the world. [[User:Jonathanpops|Jonathanpops]] 22:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*So far so good. However, I should point out that I'll have new information to add to the report -- specifically, that re-running the Checkuser will confirm that you are the same editor as [[User:El redactor]]. I strongly suggest you're not going to get any satisfaction from the process; and I withdraw from any involvement in it, including answering procedural questions from you, as I'll be needed (a) to provide further Checkuser information if requested; and possibly (b) as an arbitrator when you find yourself dissatisfied with the RFC results. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 14:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
**Please explain to me how your checkuser case showed up with something new as I was out of the country the past week. My behavior is not the question here. Regardless of my denial, i was still deemed a sock and blocked. That is done. The issue isn't whether or not I am a sock, as the "system" has deemed me to be such. The issue is the behavior of an editor who clearly violated guidelines/policies (etc...etc...) //[[User:Tecmobowl|Tecmobowl]] 14:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
If some editors agree with me, one is neutral , and none opposes, I will add back the new version of chapter ''Names''. Not only the word official bothered me in the old version, but also ''Although'', which suggested that Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública is the real, accepted name. But it is not, it is not accepted by those that claim Transnistria is a region of Moldova.[[User:Dl.goe|Dl.goe]] 07:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
***I don't need to provide the details; suffice it to say you weren't sufficiently careful a few weeks ago, and that the original checkuser operator missed that. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 15:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
::So let me see if I have this correctly...even though you used socks and therefore violated guidelines and policies...that doesn't matter. What REALLY matters is that I didn't follow whatever policies you think I should have when enforcing those same guidelines and policies that you have violated. Nice. <font color="Green">[[User:Irishguy|'''IrishGuy''']]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">[[User talk:Irishguy|''talk'']]</font></sup> 15:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
: I oppose, this was why i reverted, but I agree with you on 'although', just dont change it so much like you did. the "official' part is in the right context, it says where it is from, so do not make a big deal of it, but if you want, change the although word but not the rest [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 07:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:*I didn't use socks, you simply "believe" i have. I'm not going to argue that point anymore. The issue (SEPARATE FROM MY SOCK CASE) is YOUR behavior. My behavior and your behavior are NOT THE SAME THING! I am not going to make any more comments to you on another users talk page. //[[User:Tecmobowl|Tecmobowl]] 15:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
::*Thank you, please don't. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 15:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
::*Will you kindly answer my question. It is legitimate. //[[User:Tecmobowl|Tecmobowl]] 15:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Which question would that be? --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 15:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
:::*You have said the user was not "careful". That is fairly non-specific. If you think I have logged in with the same IP, then do me a favor and email me a log of my IP history and that of El Redactor. I can be emailed through the system. //[[User:Tecmobowl|Tecmobowl]] 15:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
::::*I cannot do that, sorry. Checkuser evidence is confidential, as is the process (to prevent abuses; for example, I'm not going to help you improve your sockpuppeting skills.) --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 15:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
::::*So you are saying you aren't willing to give the person who is a sock the proof? This situation is so warped. Although you will probably take this as a personal attack, I will say that people on wikipedia like you are childlike in your inability to adhere to the rules/guidelines/policies that you are supposedly here to support. You have again focused on me and not the issue at hand. If you want to focus on my behavior, you can do so. The topic at hand was an administrator who is violated those very same principles and who is now denying the existence (or at least skewing the interpretation) of documented (and public) information. He now won't even admit to being in a dispute with me. This system is a joke. It allows users like Baseball Bugs to do nothing more than follow me around, Irishguy to ignore his own responsibilities, and other users to spam their site while trashing me in their comments. //[[User:Tecmobowl|Tecmobowl]] 15:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
::PS - don't feel the need to respond, I am going to just unwatch this. Your handling of this is just as problematic as almost everyone elses. //[[User:Tecmobowl|Tecmobowl]] 15:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
*Bye. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 15:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
== ImagesUm... ==
----
I've noticed there were some edits regarding [[Image:Government_building_Tiraspol_01.jpg |50px| this image]] and [[Image:Tiraspol_government_building.jpg |50px| this one]]. We had a poll at [[Talk:Tiraspol#I_think__is_better_than|Tiraspol]] regarding which one is better. The result was 5 to 5. What about having at [[Transnistria]] the other image than the one we have at [[Tiraspol]]?[[User:Dl.goe|Dl.goe]] 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
: there is no doubt at all, keep the prettiest one, not the ugly one, why does everyone want to show the ugly side of everything ...... [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::In my oppinion articles on Wikipeida are ment to inform, not be pretty. I would like to keep the most informing picture on both articles. But, as there were 6 edits in the same day that changed this picture,(you made 3 rv.), I ask a compromise. [[User:Dl.goe|Dl.goe]] 08:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:I would like to see the stature of Lenin and the building itself not the trees!
[[User:172.203.65.52|172.203.65.52]] 23:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
* I agree that the tree-ful picture is prettiest, but you can't see the statue at all so it makes the caption kind of meaningless. Can't we use both of them, with a caption under the tree one mentioning the park? [[User:Jonathanpops|Jonathanpops]] 00:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you clarify as an arbitrator, is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Warrush&diff=prev&oldid=141178704 this] me violating my arbitration, being a [[WP:DICK|dick]] or just unhealthily obsessive? I get the feeling I'm just splitting hairs at this point.
:: Agreed. The picture is about the "Government building in Tiraspol", not some nice park. The tree-less picture looks more government-like. [[User:Dpotop|Dpotop]] 08:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Actually, which one is pritier? :-) Stalin would certainly love the second. And it is as clean as the first. Use both. Usually the problem is the absense of images in articles, not their abundence. If you find 10 more, please, by all means, put all of them. :[[User:Dc76|Dc76]] 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:: I did not find more but I put back a picture that D1.goe deleted, and if you can find 10 more, I agree. I also thought of a compromise for the government building, if it is really a big deal that some one wants to fight over. if it is so important, just find another image completely. A third one, I mean, which has the big Lenin, trees and also is pretty at the same time [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Complete support for Jonathonpops and Dc76 on this one. Rather than continuing a sterile debate on which is "prettier or "government-like," let's just include both pictures. Pictures are nice. "Better fewer, but better" was Lenin's motto. It doesn't have to be ours. [[User:Jamason|jamason]] 17:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[[User:WLU|WLU]] 14:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
== Log of changes to the article ==
:Actually, I'm less comfortable with it as I think about it. Plus I've got a bunch of work I need to get done. I'm putting in for a voluntary ban for the next 2 days. [[User:WLU|WLU]]
*I have re-ordered several sections. If these moves seem to you ilogical, I have nothing against undoing them.
*I have not done any of the changes that are being discussed above in the voting.
*In the History section: have introduced a link, have removed something commented out, have removed some incorrectness (Tyras is not Tiraspol)
*In Economy section have changed according to the above discussion in the talk page. Feel free to find other formulations, if I was too hasty to change.
*External links: added 3 sourses found with google, renamed "side" as "sourses" :[[User:Dc76|Dc76]] 22:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::Yeah, take a break. You're obsessing. (I figure, if you think you are, you are.) --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you should add in another Transnistria Source, or remove one Moldova source, as it looks a little under-represented to me. [[User:Jonathanpops|Jonathanpops]] 00:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
==Antisemetic trolls==
:I am not sure I understand what you are saying. You want to have the same number of Moldovan and Transnistrian sourses, or is it that some sourses are unreliable? I would prefer to have as many sourses as available from whatever places we can get (except those that just repeat other sourses). I don't feel comfortable erasing an item introduced by someone else. But on the same tokken, I won't oppose a sound and specific argument for excluding a sourse. Could you, please, be more specific. Or just do the change in the article, so we can understand what you want. If you find an objection to some of the sourses I introduced (I have not read them, just looked over, they seemed quite sound at first glance, but of course I might be mistaken), just erase.:[[User:Dc76|Dc76]] 12:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
What can be done to handle blatantly antisemetic trolls like this [[User:Factcheck21|editor]]? He does nothing but go around "exposing" individuals as Jews, to say nothing of his telling edit to [[Jew Watch]], which I believe set off your radar as well. I find the pattern of editing very offensive, but I'm having trouble finding the precise policy or guideline to explain why. Please advise. Regards, --[[User:Beaker342|Beaker342]] 16:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
:: o.k., I will do that, it is best to erase them because if you didnt read the links, why did you add them ... from my time what I have seen on this page, everyone fights over the links and you need to read them before you add them. there are also two links now to Radio Europe and I closely read them both, there is no comparison. the first is about media in Transnistria in cyberspace and not really about Transnistria, the other is about Transnistria in general, it is much much better, it gives a lot of information and background, and it is balanced, neutral, it shows real pictures from Transnistria. It is: "Transdniester Conflict Was Long In The Making" (Radio Free Europe). Link:[http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/09/2921dabd-b521-449a-a326-bf81bbe3ac88.html] It is full of information that is relevant to the article, this is the one that needs to stay, and the other one for the Media article or the Human rights article ..... [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*It's called [[yellow badge|yellow badging]]; it's a pretty common form of expression of Jew-hatred. I've warned him pretty strongly; I'll just block him if it continues, as he's obviously an editor with the sole purpose of doing this. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 16:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I strongly oppose the removal of Transnistria in Cyberspace external link. If I remember well, it was part of the compromise: if we keep a link to Tiraspol Times, a very controversal ''newspaper'', we keep this article too.
::Thanks for your quick assistance. --[[User:Beaker342|Beaker342]] 16:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
:::''Transdniester Conflict Was Long In The Making'' is about 2006 referendum; i've put it there. if you want it here too, very well, but please don't remove ''Transnistria in Cyberspace''.[[User:Dl.goe|Dl.goe]] 07:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::: What do you mean, "strong oppose", listen, the other link is not just about the referendum, if you read it you will see, it has the history and background about the conflict and information about the people, and it is neutral. but the 'cyberspace' is just about some websites, it has no real information about Transnistria, and is Wiki-pedia written in stone? you just added some links that you did not even read, so do not pretend that others can not add links or remove links. in my case, I found one from the same place. The same source, but it is just a newer date and it has much more background and information, it is a better link for this article, and everyone will agree if you read these two and just compare them [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 07:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
| 