Talk:Transnistria/Archive 5

message: Really? I highly dought romania would want a slavic populated area just outside it's historical area.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zazaban (talk • contribs) 16 August 2006.
: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper page for that is Movement for unification of Romania and Moldova and there are several proposals, one of which does not include Transnistria. - Mauco 04:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What will happen if Moldova joins Romania? 

message: Moldpres (Moldova's state owned news agency) has highlighted the friction between Smirnov and Sheriff, and this would not be the case if Sheriff was "owned by president Smirnov's eldest son" as we claim in the main namespace. See http://www.moldpres.md/default.asp?Lang=ru&ID=46774.I propose removing those six words. - Mauco 04:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections? Done. - Mauco 15:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheriff 

message: The 2005 GDP per capita was wrong so I corrected that by dividing with population figure. The source we give has it in the context of a 5% increase but the actual number is only 1% higher than the 2004 amount ($756 vs $748). In 2004, GDP per capita was $720 in Moldova and $748 in PMR. Source: "Transdnistrian Market and Its Impact on Policy and Economy of the Republic of Moldova" by CISR (published in Chisinau, July 2005), available at Centrul de Investigatii Strategice si Reforme website www.cisr-md.org - Mauco 15:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP 

message: Pretty hard to see how the 1989 population changes from 546,400 to 679,000 without citation or comment. Can anyone explain what is going on here? - Jmabel | Talk 22:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the same thing. User:MariusM (who made the change) should at least give a source. Meanwhile, an anon user bumped the figure up to 780,660  in a related article, and left the original reference in place. The problem is that this reference was for the previous figure and does not support the new, higher number. - Mauco 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is the refference: http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol37-09-05.htm (Olvia Press - which represents the view of separatist government of Transnistria). Those are official data of the separatist government. Other sources talk about 739700 people in 1989, but this figure include some areas which are not controlled by the separatist government from Tiraspol, but by Republic of Moldova. I think we should compare only the area which is currently under the control of separatist government. --MariusM 16:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We must be careful to not compare apples with oranges. In our 1989-figures, we exclude Bender. Our text says: "Total population on the left bank of the Dniester river (minus Tighina)" whereas Olvia Press and the rest of the Transnistrian government always includes Bender, seeing it as part of Transnistria. The numbers in the Olvia article (679,000 for 1989 and 555,000 for 2004) clearly INCLUDEs Bender/Tighina as well. - Mauco 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a line with total population in 1989 including Tighina. Correct comparation is between 679000 people in 1989 vs. 555000 people in 2004 - those are data for the actual Tiraspol-controlled area (include Tighina and other few villages from Basarabia, exclude some villages from Dubăsari district which are not controlled by Tiraspol), and a good measure of the practical results of the separatist government.--MariusM 20:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: Here is an article about a Wikipedia celebrity, William Mauco, and his relations with the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty (ICDISS), an organisation "which seems to be a front organisation for a Kremlin-backed rogue statelet called Transdniestria" (quote from the article) 
Mauco, look what Edward Lucas wrote about you: "The other lead is William Mauco. He has an extensive record of posting intelligent and fairly neutral entries on Wikipedia, not only about TD but about other unrecognised statelets. Crucially, these predate ICDISS's birthday of January 2006. And he also claims to have been at their conference in Mexico City in April of this year. I have written to him asking to get in touch, and had a friendly email in reply. I am planning to follow up this research in an article in European Voice at the end of August, so watch this space!"--MariusM 18:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...And the point is? Actually, for the record, I have collaborated somewhat with Edward Lucas since then. I like him a lot, and we had intelligent discussions and full agreement on what we talked about. I have been able to provide him with some material which he asked for in relation to a follow-up article and he and I have been in contact since then, back and forth a bit on this and some other subjects. I also corrected him on some minor items (like the mistaken fact that I have never been at a sort of conference in Mexico City with anyone, for instance). In addition he knows that I am not affiliated with ICDISS, and at one point commented that he would do the same as me, in such a case. He valued the new information that I could provide for his work, and told me so, and I stand ready to work with him again in the future whenever he needs my help with anything. - Mauco 22:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know what you mean by "the truth", but I have to agree with IP 84.73.243.158 that personal character attacks are uncalled for. I have not asked who you are, and don't care as long as you can bring good and constructive edits to the article. However, not that it matters, another use here already wrote me in private to tell me that he thinks you are  permabanned Bonaparte. There is nothing wrong with debating an edit proposal on its merits, but there is everything wrong with attempting to change the debate into a personal attack when you can't convince others solely on the basis of the facts. In my case, as you can see above 22:09, 15 September 2006, your mud won't stick. - Mauco 15:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record: I am not Bonaparte, I don't know him. You have a problem with the selection of information if you consider reliable information what "another user" wrote to you in private. In the same way you select informations for your articles? I don't know personally any user of Wikipedia.--MariusM 17:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I do not have a "problem with information" and I welcome feedback and collaboration from everyone on this site. I prefer to have it posted publicly, on my Talk page, but this particular user - who is a well known Wikipedia editor - probably thought that it was more polite to just email me in private, so he wouldn't step on anyone's toes by "outing" a newbie (in this case, you) in public without any evidence of his suspicions against you. I accept private emails as well, of course, and there is a link on my User page for emailing me. - Mauco 18:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is William Mauco? 

message: Moved from main namespace, proposed by MariusM, and submitted here for discussion:
" :Anti-separatist organisations asked the voters who want reunification with the Republic of Moldova not to participate in the referendum and refuse the recognition of the outcome of the referendum.Apelul reprezentanţilor societăţii civile privind “referendumul” neconstituţional din regiunea transnistreană a Republicii MoldovaMOLDOVAN NGOs REGARD TRANSNISTRIAN REFERENDUM AS A FARCE. "
If we include this, we should include the fact that these organisations are based in Moldova, and that they do not speak for any of the voters, be they the Moldovan residents of Transnistria and other residents of Transnistria in general. In other words, they are considered outsiders and not primary participacing organizations or organizations with a direct relevance to the referendum. Those organizations which are directly relevant are civil society groups based within Transnistria, and they have taken the exact opposite viewpoint. This must be mentioned in order to not present a one-sided view. It may also be of note to include what Transnistria's response was to the petition by Moldova's anti-separatist organizations. Why might this relevant? Because if we give the opinion of Moldova, but if the article is about Transnistria, then at the very least we deserve to also give a fair hearing to Transnistria's response.  
It may also be interesting to mention the political organizations within Moldova who actually support or understand why Transnistria is holding a referendum, and have gone on the record in recent days to publicly say so, rather than only present the negative viewpoint.
Finally, while we mention organizations who claim to speak on behalf of Moldovans, we must not omit a mention of the largest such group within Transnistria and their viewpoint. - Mauco 07:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I already told, between the organisations that signed the appeal for boycot are some composed by transnistrians as "Pro Europa", Transnistrian Student Asociation, "Transnistria" Asociation, "Promolex". The leader of Moldavian Helsinki Comitee for Human Rights (Ştefan Urîtu) is also from Transnistria, even if his organisation include people from the entire Republic of Moldova. About the "Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie", in the talk page of that article I presented my view, that is a puppet organisation created by separatist regime, which is not representative for Moldavians in the region and which has no other activity that to show support of separatist regime (they didn't publish a single book of Moldavian literature, they didn't make anything else than telling that Republic of Moldova is the enemy of Transnistrian Moldovans)--MariusM 07:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like you correctly said, this is 'your view. Need I say more? A very solid case can be made (and has been made, since 1993 in numerous respected studies) for the argument that the majority of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are actually opposed to unification with Moldova. One of our fellow Wikipedia editors, Jamason, even based his thesis on that (which he was kind enough to send me a copy of). - Mauco 08:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And your view is opposite. Why should be your view included in the article? Of course there are a lot of Russian-propaganda studies which told that ethnic Moldovans are against Moldova, but those studies are biases. You insist of including pro-Russian opinion and delete all antiseparatist opinions.--MariusM 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My view has no right to be included in the article either. I know that you haven't been an editor for very long, but please save all of us some time and read up on the guidelines for this encyclopedia. Meanwhile, I am not sure what studies you call "biased", but Wikis guidelines cover those situations quite clearly. - Mauco 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I already gave the link that prove this fact http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1392 --MariusM 07:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We should include also the opinion of antiseparatist organisation, that the shrinkage of electorate is an artificial one, in order to increase the percentage of presence in the referendum. This argument was removed from the article by user Mikkalai. It may be a speculation, however is their point of view, and 7% decrease of population in only one year is something odd anyway.--MariusM 07:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, there is no rule on Wikipedia that we have to include the point of view of a third party organization unless it is specifically relevant to the article. In this case, I am not sure that it is, seeing that the organizations don't represent the voters and are, at best, just outside commentators and, at worst, in the employ of Moldova's secret service, as Transnistria has apparently documented (by naming names and specifying the relationships of the spokesmen). The actual shrinkage of the electorate is relevant, possibly in this article and especially in the Politics of Transnistria article.  - Mauco 08:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Antiseparatist organisations point of view is relevant when we are talking about this referendum. As I already explained, those organisation are not outside commentators and nobody proved that are in the service of Moldova's secret service. Some will say that the entire separatist regime of Tiraspol was created by Russian secret service. Why is, for example, Stefan Urîtu an outside commentator as he is a Tiraspol resident?--MariusM 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stefan Urîtu does not live in Tiraspol, and the rest is original research which has no place in Wikipedia. You can always start a blog or something, if you want to have an outlet for these opinions. - Mauco 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Urîtu has a flat in Tiraspol, he was resident of the city even before the 1992 War of Transnistria. He is known as a fierce critic of the Human right abuses not only of Smirnov's regime, but also of Republic of Moldova president Vladimir Voronin's regime. Here is an example how he protested against some arrests made in Chişinău http://www.curaj.net/?p=1043. Calling Urîtu an employee of Moldova's secret service is like calling the leader of Hezbolah an employee of Mossad or the president of Israel an employee of Iranian secret service (he was born in Iran). And remember there is not only Urîtu who signed that protest. What about "Pro Europa", Transnistrian Student Asociation, "Transnistria" Asociation, "Promolex"?--MariusM 14:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In the Council of Europe you need an unanimity to pass a resolution, this is why the resolution could not pass without Russia's aproval. I gave the link about 45 of 46 countries supporting the resolution, you didn't gave any link to prove that things happened somewhat different.--MariusM 07:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just count. The data is on this page. I quote from above: "If you look at Thursday's voting record, the motion was supported by the European Union member countries, GUAM, Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, and Turkey. Russia opposed and the rest abstained." Even conflict.md, which you cite as a source, has this info so there is no need to "spin" the story as something which it isn't. I am not sure that is relevant, however, it is certainly relevant to mention the countries which won't recognize the outcome of the referendum (starting with Moldova, of course). - Mauco 08:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just give the exact link from where you took the quotation.--MariusM 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. The quote is from this page (above) and the source for the data can be found in at least 10 different places on the web (which you can easily find with a couple of seconds of Googling). One of the sources even include a site which you yourself cite, namely http://www.conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1414 - Mauco 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I qoute from the link you gave: "The document’s project was supported by the European Union member countries, GUAM, Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, and Turkey. Of the 46 member countries of the Council of Europe, only the Russian Federation rejected the declaration, without motivating its official position on the document". I think is exactly what I told. From 46 members only Russia was against the declaration. 46-1 = 45. Nowhere in the link you gave is any mention about countries which abstained. Can you tell which are the countries which abstained?--MariusM 14:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In favour: European Union (25) + GUAM (4) + Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, and Turkey makes 33, not 45. This is called "putting a spin" on a non-story about a statement which did not pass and therefore, as per the rules of that body, does not exist as an official Council of Europe document. - Mauco 15:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Again, now for the fifth time here in two days, a reminder must be posted that substantial changes has to be discussed here first before making them. Ignoring the statement posted in the box at the very top of this page will merely lead to more reverts, and the waste of everyone's time which could be spent more productively on improving other parts of Wikipedia. - Mauco 15:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Postscript: By not heeding this reminder, we all just managed to get ourselves a full protection for the first time in, what, some eight or nine months... - Mauco 18:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed section, referendum 

message: - Mauco, you told: "A statement of the countries that will not recognize the results of the referendum, along with OSCE stating the same position, certainly ought to be included in the article".16 September 7:28
Do you agree to put in the article the following phrase: "International organisation, as OSCE, European Union, GUAM, and some countries (Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, Turkey) anounced they will not recognize the referendum?"
: Mild YES. The sentence can be made to sound better by phrasing it as "The OSCE and most European countries announced in advance that they would not recognize the results of the referendum." - Mauco 17:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YES, especially in Politics of Transnistria. The relevance here is probably also OK, if other editors don't object. Moreover, shorten it. And since we don't doubt the data of Transnistrian authorities, you can just say "The number of registrered voters shrank by 7% in a year" or, if you prefer to give a bit more information and put the whole thing in perspective, "Of the 555,500 inhabitants, a total of 390,000 were registered to vote, down 7% from a year earlier." - Mauco 17:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is exactly this: some people have doubts about the data issued by Transnistrian authorities, and consider the shrinkage an artificial one, in order to increase the percentage of presence in the referendum.--MariusM 17:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: MAYBE, but try to make it less POV. If it is to be included, let us also include the argument of the other side. Not to discredit, but to give the official position stated by the titular subject of this particular article (Transnistria). Another option is to look at what the practice is for inclusion criteria on other country articles, in particularly the ones which I mention in my request for all of us to hold ourselves to the established standards. If you want me to, I can do a little look-around like I did in the past for TSDO1 and others, or you can visit the pages yourself and then report back to all of us here with your findings. - Mauco 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is the "official position stated by the titular subject of this particular article (Transnistria)"? I don't know any. I don't understand why Transnistrian authorities should have a position regarding this NGO's appeal. If you find an official position of Transnistrian authorities on this subject, please let me know (with source) and include it in the article.--MariusM 17:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You told that "maybe" you agree to include this fact, but to put also the position of Transnistrian authorities. I answer to you to find such a position (because I don't know if exist any) and include it in the article. Instead of showing the position of Transnistrian authorities and add it in the article, you just delete my paragraph. Is not fair. Why you hate so much the idea of including in the article the fact that some organisations asked to boycot the referendum?--MariusM 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quick correction, if I didn't make myself clear already: I do not "hate" your inclusion. You got reverted because of changes to this page which initially had not been discussed here, and which we already pointed out some problems with (fortunately, problems which for the most part have now been resolved through the discussion on this page). The request for prior discussion is placed prominently on this page - not by me, I might add. As a frequent editor here, I know why this policy is in place, and I agree with it. Not following it will lead to the trouble that we find ourselves in now, when someone else decided to fully protect the page. This is unfortunate because the page has an excellent track record dating back to January of not having had the need to do that. - Mauco 20:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Now, to answer your comment: I will be glad to propose a rewrite of the disputed information that would be appropriate for the article. I will not include it in the article, as you suggest that I should, but I will place it here so you and others can comment on it and discuss it first. - Mauco 20:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe your goal is to avoid the inclusion of the information about boycot in the article in those days, when the referendum in Transnistria take place, and people will look for information about it. You will not come with any rewrite proposal as there is no official position of Transnistrian authorities regarding the appeal to boycot the referendum.--MariusM 13:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that is not the case, as I have explained to you several times already. The person who is showing ill-will here is not me, but the person who repeatedly refused to follow the instructions on the top of this page and, as a result, forced it into lockdown. As for the rewrite of your sentence, I am in the process of doing my research right now, so I can provide the appropriate sources. And I have already discovered that you are wrong on that count, too: there is indeed quite an extensive number of sources citing the official position of the Transnistrian authorities vis-a-vis the statements from outsiders to not recognize and boycot the referendum. - Mauco 17:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Actually, what is the point of even bothering to follow any of the rules? As soon as protection was lifted, as the logs from 17 September show, everyone else just rushed in to make their own preferred changes anyway ... including MariusM with the referendum, and our permabanned friend from the past with his Romanian language issue. Needless to say, not a single one of these changes was accompanied by any sort of prior discussion or even a single comment on this Talk page. So much for observing the guidelines (sigh).  But if we all just do what we feel like, we'll be back in the mess of the past, and this page has suffered a lot from that sort of behaviour (as a look at the logs from all throughout 2005 will show). Mauco 06:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is certainly fair. Please review the two approaches which I suggest here, and then let us know which is best. - Mauco 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, this would almost fall under the category of original research. Another longtime editor, Mikkalai, removed it and cited it is speculation. At any rate, a good way to settle this would not be to just depend on what editors like myself or Mikkalai think, but, as I suggest above, visit other disputed country pages and see what their policy on inclusion criteria is for these types of statements or opinions. - Mauco 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the opinion should be mentioned in order to explain (at least partially) why some people don't believe in the corectness of referendum. It may explain also the opinion of some international organisation, even if those organisation didn't mention in details the reasons why they don't recognize the referendum.--MariusM 17:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is perfectly OK to quote an opinion of "some international organisation", but it absolutely iadmissible to quote it throug the third mouth of a press that hates Transnistria. You are welcome to find the original quotation. OSCE, GUAM, etc. are big guns, and they surely publish their statements themselves, without the help of Moldova Azi.  `'mikka (t) 00:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To summarize and to end the dispute 

message: In the past, when editors of this page have had discussions about criteria for inclusion or substantial changes, it has been helpful to look at how editors of Wikipedia pages for other countries approach the same set of issues. As the 4 archives for Transnistria (link at top) can show, this approach has helped us to succesfully resolve previously contentious issue such as the name and the flag, to name just two out of several. When we examine edit criteria for other country pages, two groups of countries will be particularly instructive: On one hand, the ones which are by nature highly contentious (USA, Iran, Venezuela, to name just a few) and, on the other, the List of unrecognized countries. Please spend a bit of time visiting those pages to see what they deem as relevant to include and not include. Wiki-wide accepted practice there, and established standards of these other pages, can serve as useful yardsticks for how we approach the same sort of choices on this particular page. I would like to see newcomers to Wikipedia, such as MariusM, learn from this approach instead of stooping to personal attacks against other editors. - Mauco 16:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holding ourselves to established standards 

message: May I humbly suggest that someone creates one? I wrote a similar one about South Ossetia. Óðinn 06:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a stub called 2006 referendum in Transnistria by just copying the existing referendum text from the main article. The idea of a stub is that others should add to it, please. Ideally, we can flesh out a really good article and then use the most salient points from that for including as a summary of the referendum issue in the main Transnistria article. That is how we have done it with other subjects (human rights, the 1992 war, history, etc.) - Mauco 07:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The article is not protected from editing. Be bold and make the edits you think are fit abakharev 11:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I've added some new official data. Cmapm 11:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also took Alex Bakharev advice to be bold, and added the findings of The Helsinki Comitee for Human Rights - one of the organisations which send observers for the referendum.--MariusM 14:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a clear copyright at that website, but you copy-pasted almost the whole article (three but one paragraphs) from there. And you call this "being bold". Cmapm 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, this has to go immediately on the grounds of Copyvio alone. But there is a bigger issue, which is this: How bold do we really want to be, considering that the past history of this page? I, for one, would hate to have to spend my productive editing time doing edit wars, revert wars and going in and out of protections. This is easily avoided if we discuss any major changes first, as this page says (top) and as I keep suggesting because I honestly think that it would save everyone a lot of pain. - Mauco 15:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mauco, if you don't want to lose time with edit wars, don't start them.--MariusM 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry if I am too frank, but: That is a bit rich coming from someone who "shoots first, asks questions later." My sole request, some six or seven times now (I lost count) is that we all please follow the instructions on top of this page and talk about non-minor edits first because this is a controversial topic. - Mauco 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Why not, instead of working here, don't we focus on first adding a lot of information to the 2006 referendum in Transnistria stub? If we do that, the stub can become a larger article. We can include more relevant information there and in more detail than would be appropriate for the main Transnistria article itself. Then as soon as we have a good and balanced article on the referendum, which is factually corrrect and sourced, we can take the key points and build a summary paragraph for inclusion in this page (the main Transnistria article). - Mauco 15:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, we should do so, if the previous summary was not biased. I see it to have contained only a "foreign" opinion on the referendum with no neither official results, nor any opinion of officially registered observers. As far as the short summary is balanced, we could work on the 2006 referendum in Transnistria stub. Cmapm 16:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that in the 2006 referendum in Transnistria stub, the findings of HCHRM were also deleted, without any explanation. How can we reach a consensus in this way?--MariusM 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are mistaken. Check the logs. I did. It clearly states the reason: "Copyvio". I know that you are new here, so we try not to bite you, but it would help us all if you would please learn a bit more on the do's and don'ts of how Wikipedia works. Another editor, Khoikhoi (who I think might be my meatpuppet), already posted some very useful links for that. They are on your personal talk page. - Mauco 17:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Three large paragraphs, copied word in word from the copyright-protected source, are not acceptable in any article of Wikipedia, not just in this one. Cmapm 16:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cmapm, he just added it back in but this time he didn't copy as much as before. It is still verbatim copy-paste, however, and has some questionable POV (such as the word "farce" to describe the referendum). It should be moved, for copyvio alone, and I still keep wishing that this particular editor would discuss his changes before making them which is the best policy for avoiding reverts on this page since he is not the sole editor here. - Mauco 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, it has been removed temporarily now until the problem is fixed. I am sure that he will think that we are deleting his additions because we don't like them. That is not the case. The concerns center on 1) Copyvio, 2) Possible POV ("farce", etc), and 3) the fact that none of these changes are discussed first. This is disruptive and disregards the request on top of this page. If we can add factually correct information which is sourced as being true and which is relevant to the article, then it has to be added (of course, no copyright violations either, but that goes without saying). - Mauco 17:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Then let's remove also "200 observers from 14 international organizations declared the referendum to be democratic and conforming to international standards", as it can be POV and addition was not discussed here. (Tiraspol Times is talking about 174 observers http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/216, however their claim about "not a single report of fraud or any irregular occurences of any kind whatsoever" is not true, seeing the report of HCHRM). I agree that first time was copyvio, but the second time I put only a summary which is not a copyvio. But let's discuss. How you want to include in the article the position of HCHRM, which is a relevant one for this section of the article?--MariusM 17:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ideally, if you ask for my opinion, I would prefer that we do all the work on 2006 referendum in Transnistria first and NO EDITING here, for the time being. Then as soon as a we have a solid article there, we identify the key points and shorten them for a brief summary paragraph or two which can go into Transnistria itself. This is how we do it with most of the other subjects and it is good for editors and readers alike. - Mauco 18:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Having said that, a good structure for the article (2006 referendum in Transnistria, with detail) would be some background to the referendum and the shrinkage in voters, then the results including turnout, a section of recognition or lack thereof, a section on statements of observers (pro and con), and ... anything else? - Mauco 18:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Your other points are answered in detail at Talk:2006 referendum in Transnistria - Mauco 18:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I lookes at the actual sentence of the article: "Moldova and the West said they would not recognize the referendum" - is copied word-by-word from "Tiraspol Times" http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/news/130_international_observers_declare_independence_referendum_free_and_fair.html (capitle "A clean bill of health"). I know Mauco loves "Tiraspol Times", but should Wikipedia use the exact phrase of this newspaper? In previous (reverted) versions, we told the names of the countries and organisations that don't recognize the referendum--MariusM 16:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Marius, I don't know what you are trying to imply here. I guess it is an attempt at a personal smear (like your posting of the "Who is William Mauco" on this page). I will not bait you. But I want to set the record straight on a couple of points: 1. The sentence is from CBS News,  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/18/ap/world/mainD8K7BBU04.shtml  I had not seen it at Tiraspol Times, but I am not surprised if they have it, too, because it has been used by dozens of news sources in recent days. 2. You also say that I love Tiraspol Times. I don't know what this pissing match is about, but I have never claimed to love them. It covers Transnistria news in English, so obviously an editor of this page has to be aware of it, just as I also use lots of other sites for research. I fail to get the point, sorry. - Mauco 17:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As referendum is a current event, it makes sense to keep a more detailed explanation about it in the main article. After a month, we can restrain and keep details only in the article 2006 Referendum in Transnistria.--MariusM 16:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we have a vote on this, please? I personally think that I have posted some constructive suggestions but they have been ignored by two editors with a declared anti-Transnistrian bias. The way this is going is becoming disruptive to everyone's work, and there is also the little issue of the 3 revert rule. - Mauco 17:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referendum article 

message: ....--211.115.69.104 20:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another IP which is Greier. He got banned by the admins, now he is cycling through this range of IP addresses so his edits will be harder to block. - Mauco 22:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviet propaganda

message: Moldovans or Romanians? There isn't any difference between Moldovans and Romanians. --211.115.69.105 20:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a good reference for that please?  Why do you say that?  Can you explain?  --Rednblu 20:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  --Rednblu 20:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This IP is Greier. He got banned by the admins, so now he is back using IP addresses. Vandalism fighter User:Luna_Santin just spent chunk of his time cleaning up after the mess that Greier left in various Transnistria- and Moldova-related pages. - Mauco 22:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it's more likely that it's Bonaparte, it fits his style better. TSO1D 22:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He says he is Greier (here , but I agree with you. However, the two sometimes get confused. If you see Greier's block log, you will see that he even got banned at one time for being a Bonaparte-sock. - Mauco 23:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moldovans or Romanians?

message: After the Russian Empire annexed the territory between the Dnister and the Southern Bug (which included Transnitria) in 1792, they made a local census in 1793, to see what population they have in their new territory. A certain source claims that "out of 67 villages, 49 were exclusively Romanian", but I'd like a verification of this claim. 
So, anyone knows were can the exact results of that census can be found? bogdan 10:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't have info, unfortunately in 1793 they didn't publish on internet the results. Just to draw attention that the teritory between Dnister and Bug (which was also named Transnistria in WW2) is much higher than the actual Transnistria we are talking here (the separatist region of Moldova).--MariusM 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is indeed a reference to that census somewhere. I haven't seen it directly, but a book was published in Moscow in 1903, if I remember correctly, which listed older census data for a lot of areas, including the Dniester to Bug. What I found online was a reference to the book, but not the book itself. I remember finding it in July when I was doing clean-up work after Greier, but I don't have the details handy right now, sorry. Meanwhile, you should take a look at http://folk.uio.no/palk/Dniestria.htm which makes a mention of the demographics on the left bank of the Dniester in the 1780 - 1795 period. It says that the largest group was made up of Ukrainian peasants. - Mauco 17:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local census, 1793 

message: At the section "Border issues" I would add Roghi and Vasilievca as villages controlled by central Republic of Moldova government, as it is show at Dubăsari distric (Republic of Moldova) web page http://curaj.net/dubasari/.
Roghi is shown even in the school map published by Transnistrian authorities as having a "Romanian"-language school http://tdsu.idknet.com/region/english/atlas/dir10/scools.jpg. This is a clear indication that, indeed, Roghi is under Chişinău control.
Vasilievca too was administrated from Cocieri before the war, is over the strategic road that link Tiraspol with Rîbniţa. From the web page of Dubăsari district is claimed that is under Chişinău control (in the map, white is Chişinău control, green in Tiraspol control), however I would like a double-check before listing Vasilievca as a Chişinău-controlled village.
I know that in Doroţcaia is a permanent problem - part of the agricultural land of the village is over the road, and Tiraspol authorities made several attempts to forbit the villagers to reach their land which is over the road. This issue may also been included in the "Border issues" section.--MariusM 10:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The OSCE, which has worked heavily on the Doroţcaia situation, does not list these as Moldovan controlled villages. Why should we? A school itself is not "clear indication" - there are two Japanese schools in Washington DC but this does not mean that Washington DC is under Tokyo's control. Also, you should get the updated info from OSCE on Doroţcaia because a settlement was reached in February on access. - Mauco 17:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A clear indication is the website of Moldova's Dubăsari district, where Roghi and Vasilievca are listed as being under Chişinău control. Both are considered as being administrated toghether with Cocieri, and in the Cocieri website http://curaj.net/dubasari/cocieri.htm is mentioned that the locals were forbiden by the separatist regime to work 700 ha of their land and some of their crops were confiscated. The fact that the school in Roghi is listed as "Romanian" by Tiraspol (that mean is using latin script) is a clear indication, as separatist regime has a state policy against schools in latin script. Is a difference in USA, where there is no state policy agains Japanese schools. When the problem of Moldovan schools in Transnistria emerged, no one mentioned Roghi. Tiraspol regime tried to close schools in Tighina, Tiraspol, Rîbniţa, but not in Roghi - this is an indication that it don't control Roghi. It may have the ambition to control it, mainly because of strategical road that link Tiraspol and Rîbniţa. Regarding your version about the borders, I gave sources (links), if you want to contradict me, please give other sources to show the contrary (until now you just made unsourced afirmations).--MariusM 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding Vasilievca, it was an attempt in 2005 by Transnistrian forces to occupy that village and it seems at the end they give up http://www.azi.md/news?ID=33404. I suppose the devastation of the telecomunication center is linked with the efforts of Transnistrian authorities against receiving radio or TV programes from Moldova. OSCE itself was involved in the problems in Vasilievca - you are just ignorant denying that http://www.hri.org/news/balkans/omri/1996/96-11-27.omri.html#12. Because of the fact that Vasilievca is over the main road from Tiraspol to Rîbniţa, I believe that Tiraspol's authorities will keep trying to subdue this village - this (as Doroţcaia) can be a starting point for future conflicts.--MariusM 23:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Russian Wikipedia list both Roghi and Vasilievca as being under Chişinău control http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%BD.--MariusM 00:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two questions: 1. Does the OSCE agree with you..? (Hint: They don't). 2. And: Is this kind of tone called for "you are just ignorant" ...? (Tip: You can disagree and still be polite at the same time). Anyway, draw the borders any which way you want. The real issue is de facto control, and if you consult with the Joint ControlCommission, they can let you know who controls what and exactly what the disputed areas are. Right now, they are really only dealing with Varnitsa. - Mauco 00:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was polite, I was calling you ignorant as I give you the benefit of the doubt assuming good faith. You just make statements about OSCE and Joint Control Commision, without any source, while I gave many links to support my opinion. Of course, it will be better if somebody will go there for reality-check, but this will be original research.--MariusM 00:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you saying this with a straight face? That you are being polite by calling one of your fellow editors ignorant? That is a new one ... The last time someone called me an ignorant, it was now-banned user Greier. But at least he didn't claim to be polite while doing so. - Mauco 01:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Border issues

message: This is not the place to list all the countries that didn't recognize the referendum or go into details about it—we have a separate article for that. —Khoikhoi 18:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As referendum is a current event, it makes sense to have more detailed info in the main article. After one or two months, we may even delete completely this section and let only one sentence with link to the main article, but for the time being I believe is good to have more detailed info.--MariusM 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just that I think listing all the countries sounds really awkward and bad in English—will a footnote do? —Khoikhoi 23:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't need the countries. That would be text forking. This is the article about Transnistria. We have a main article about the referendum. Details there, summary here. Ukraine's position is also not needed, as if somehow that was more important that any of the other statements and opinions (including that of the OSCE chairman) which is listed in the referendum article. Details there, summary here, and no favoritism in picking opinions. - Mauco 00:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In particular, MariusM, please do not revert my changes. You said, in changelog: "Ukraine, big player in the region". Before you persist in reverting again, answer the why you think that the following is not true: The statement by Ukraine is neither more noteworthy or less noteworthy than a number of other statements in included in the referendum article and can not be given special treatment or undue prominence. - Mauco 03:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I explained already! "Ukraine, big player in the region". Is more important Ukraine position than Norway position, for example.--MariusM 04:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is Ukraine's position more important than the position of Transnistria? Which we are not including, despite the fact that this is the Transnistria article. Is it more important than any of the positions of international observers (pro or con)? Is it more important than similar statement of the metropolitan state (Moldova)? Don't do text forking. Details there, summary here, don't cherry-pick just the parts you like. - Mauco 04:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A better compromise would be to not focus on what Mauco agrees to (because Mauco does not "own" this page) nor what MariusM agrees to (he doesn't either), but to look at the bigger picture: We are currently working on building a really good main article for the referendum which looks like it is shaping up to become useful and informative. Here, on Transnistria, all we need is an "above the fold"-type summary of that. If we are to include any opinions at all, it should be a SUMMARY opinion, and as such, the one or two opinions which best represent the general synopsis of the main referendum article. This is not necessarily the same as picking "views of both sides", although it may be, but it isn't always. However, either way you look it is, Ukraine can hardly be said to of outstanding importance compared to some of the other sentences which some of us could've included but didn't for reasons of brevity. - Mauco 05:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, as referendum is a current event, it makes sense to have more detailed info in the main article. After one or two months, we may even delete completely this section and let only one sentence with link to the main article. I propose to include the position of Abkhazia, which recognize the referendum and an official position of Russia.--MariusM 05:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Abkhazia would be extremely weak. It is not recognized by any country in the world. —Khoikhoi 05:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The referendum is not a current event. It ended on Sunday, the result was announced on Monday, and world reaction tricled in until approximately first half of the week. There is no reason to include Abkhazia. All we need here is a summary, the way that we treat other summaries and intros to main articles. If in doubt, see how other country articles do it. Use common sense and stop nursing your pet issues (such as what Ukraine says). Besides, we are not even including the Transnistrian position which, ahem, does have some relevance after all if we should include these things at all. - Mauco 05:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is William, I just don't think that you're going to convince Marius. That's all. I think our best option right now is a compromise. —Khoikhoi 06:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the expense of good editing? I realize that it is a very minor issue, but it would set a bad precedent. In fact, if anything Transnistria-hater Marius should be happy because even after removing the irrelevant Ukraine statement, we still have the statement of OSCE and EU and the word "illegitimate" (which I added along with the BBC report as proper source), and no counter statement to balance it from Transnistria itself. Why not? Because the OSCE/EU/Moldova position is the one defining feature that is seen in all press reports, and thus a major characteristic of how the summary ought to be reported. In contrast, the Ukraine-fluke hardly even registers and is basically just a "me, too" statement by their Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It does not add anything new. Please take it out. - Mauco 07:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Marius, please address the points that Khoikhoi and I make here if you do not agree with my conclusions. - Mauco 17:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is to keep Ukraine's position and to add Transnistrian official position (I don't know if they issue one). We are writing in the article, at internal politics, "A 2005 report from the European Union's Institute for Security Studies sees democratic advances and states that "Unlike others authoritarian entities like Belarus, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe and Cuba.. Transnistrian politics is moving towards more pluralism." Is this relevant, as we have more recent position of EU? I am not a Transnistria-hater, I am a Transnistria-lover, I love people from Transnistria and wish them the best.--MariusM 17:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I agree that we can remove that particular sentence now. It was fresh when it was added but it has been surpassed by more recent EU statements.  I still don't agree that Ukraine should be included, but that is because I don't think ANY position should be included because we just need a brief summary and all the opinions (without favoritism) are then available on the main article. - Mauco 19:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that I am in favor of removing the statement by the Ukraine. When I read the section about the referendum, the line about Ukraine's reaction seemed extremely random as that country is given special preferance for no apparent reason. Why should Ukraine be the only state whose opinion is stated, although it coincides with that of numerous other countries. It's not that I don't believe that Ukraine's view is important, I am just baffled as to why this is the only one presented. I would rather see a concise sentence like: "Various international organizations such as the OSCE as well as numerous foreign countries refused to recognize the results of the referendum and cast doubt upon its validity, although Transnistria has insisted that it was conducted in a free and democratic manner." TSO1D 21:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then please remove it or rephrase as proposed, so we can get on with discussing how to make the section better. Basically, the point is not to play favorites, but also not really to display all points of view equally if they are not equally-held majoritarian views of the referendum. This is something which I can help with, since I followed many of the 850+ press reports of the referendum quite closely. The absolute majority "theme" which is present in almost all reports on the referendum is that it was not recognized by Moldova, OSCE, etc. We are including that. The next point, also majority but not as emphasized, was the overwhelming rejection of unification with Moldova. We are also including that (not specifically, but by showing the results so that's OK). The third point, in descending order, was on the high turnout which was reported by lots of news organizations. The fourth point was on the peaceful, festive atmosphere and smiling voters. Then, from there on, there were several minor points. For instance, the statements by the international observers were reported widely in the Russian press but got very little play in English. I am basing this rundown of the five main points on an analysis of the English news agencies since this is Wikipedia in English. In impact, importance and coverrage, the me-too statement by Ukraine, which we are giving prominence to, registered even less than any of these other minor points. - Mauco 21:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referendum section 

message: I changed the explanation in the table with population figure. 601660 was in 1989 the population of the "raions" Slobozia, Tiraspol, Grigoriopol, Dubăsari, Rîbniţa, Camenca. Some of this raions (Slobozia, Dubăsari, Camenca) had some areas that geografically belongs to Basarabia, not to Transnistria. This is why confusions are made regarding population figures. My source is "Republica Moldova" by Vasile Nedelciuc, Universitas Publishing Company, Chişinău 1992 (not online). It's worth to mention that separatist authorities claim the Basarabian area of Slobozia raion, but it seems they don't claim anymore the Basarabian area of former Dubăsari and Camenca raions. (as shown in their maps about separatist republic).--MariusM 23:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can not say "seems" when there are formal ways to determine what they claim and don't claim. Just looking at their maps and then drawing your own conclusion is not good research. Why don't you ASK HERE FIRST before you start making changes. Some of us are knowledgeable and can help you so that you don't have to guess. In this case, Transnistria's formal territorial claim is stated in the PMR constitution. It is online in a total of four languages; the 3 official languages of PMR plus English. Here is a link: Transnistria's Constitution I am sure that if you ask first, many people who know more than you do will be glad to help you, and may I respectfully request that you try to find authoritative sources before you make changes. "Seems" from looking at a map is not the right away of doing it. - Mauco 00:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I see, you have no comments about the changes I made in the table with population figure.--MariusM 01:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding the other comments, please let me know at which article of Transnistrian Constitution is mentioned Transnistria's formal teritorial claims.--MariusM 01:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Transnistria's formal territorial claim is in Article 14. This is what Transnistria lays claim to, not more not less. For comparison purposes, Moldova's formal territorial claim is the entire territory of the former MSSR. Of particular interest is that they mention Varnitsa in their Constitution, but if you go to the office of the mayor there, he will tell you otherwise (in no uncertain terms). - Mauco 01:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Article 14: The Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica consists of: the following towns - Bendery (with villages - Varnitsa, Ghyska, Protyagailovka), Dubossary, Rybnitsa, Tiraspol; and Grigoriopol, Dubossary, Kamenka, Slobodzea, Rybnitsa regions. Borders and territory of the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica are determined by law. The problem is: what are we suppose to understand by the regions of Kamenka, Slobozia and Dubossary? The 1989 borders of those districts? "Borders are determined by law" is a very open statement, that mean borders can change very easy. I was pointing at the fact that, even if in their Constitution is written that they claim Kamenka and Dubossary region, in the maps published regarding PMR the basarabian part of former Kamenka or Dubossary region is not shown as being part of PMR. Do you have info about any plan of Transnistrian authorities to obtain control on those areas?--MariusM 01:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I remember that we talked about that 16 days ago, with regards to the Transnistrian administrative raion and the Moldovan raion of Dubasari which are two different things User Constantzeanu could help here, too. - Mauco 03:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population figure

message: I invite Maucowich to give us the sources that Moldovans are not Romanians and they speak a different language.--168.167.253.97 14:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come on not again. TSO1D 14:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moldovans are Romanians

message: Separately of the problem of the involvement of 14th Russian Army and Russian cossacks, we should mention the fact that the "founding fathers" of Transnistria were mainly persons who were born outside Transnistria. In the list issued by the Presidency of the European Union concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of Moldova are included 17 persons from Transnistria separatist government, from which only 2 (Maracuţa and Zaharov) were born in Transnistria and 1 in Basarabia (Kosovski) .
1. SMIRNOV, IGOR, “President”, born on 29 October 1941 in Chabarowsk. Russian passport No 50 NO. 0337530. 
2. SMIRNOV, VLADIMIR, son of No 1 and Chairman of State Customs Committee, born on 3 April 1961 in Vupiansk Charkow. Russian passport No 50 NO.00337016. 
3. SMIRNOV, OLEG, son of No 1 and Adviser to the State Customs Committee,born on 8 August 1967 in Nowaja Wachowka, Cherson. Russian passport No 60 NO. 1907537. 
4. LEONTYEV, SERGEY, “Vice-president”, born on 9 February 1944 in Odessa Leontovka. Russian passport No 50 NO. 0065438. 
5. MARACUTSA, GRIGORY, “Chairman of the Supreme Soviet”, born on 15 October 1942 in Teia, Grigoriopol. Old Soviet passport No 8BM724835. 
6. KAMINSKY, ANATOLY, “Vice-chairman of the Supreme Soviet”, born on 15 March 1950 in Cita. Old Soviet passport No A25056238. 
7. SHEVCHUK, EVGENY, “Vice-chairman of the Supreme Soviet”, born on 21 June 1946 in Novosibirsk. Old Soviet passport No A25004230. 
8. LITSKAI, VALERY, “Minister of Foreign Affairs”, born on 13 February 1949 in Tver. Russian passport. 
9. KHAJEEV, STANISLAV, “Minister of Defence”, born on 28 December 1941 in Celabinsk. 
10. ANTIUFEEV (SEVTOV), VADIM, “Minister of State Security”, born in 1951 in Novosibirsk. Russian passport. 
11. KOROLYOV, ALEXANDER, “Minister of Internal Affairs”, born in 1951 in Briansk. Russian passport. 
12. BALALA, VIKTOR, “Minister of Justice”, born in 1961 in Vinitsa. 
13. AKULOV, BORIS, “Representative of Transnistria in Ukraine”. 
14. ZAKHAROV, VIKTOR, “Prosecutor's office”, born in 1948 in Camenca. 
15. LIPOVTSEV, ALEXEY, “Deputy Chairman of the Custom's Committee”. 
16. GUDYMO, OLEG, “Deputy Minister of Security”, born on 11 September 1944 in Alma-Ata. Russian passport No 51 NO. 0592094. 
17. KOSOVSKI, EDUARD, “Chairman of the Transnistrian Republican Bank”, born on 7 October 1958 in Floresti. 
Transnistrian separatism is a movement of new-comers, who were colonized in Transnistria during Soviet time. I don't know how much this situation was changed after 2005 election--MariusM 16:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea. EvilAlex 16:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Incorrect. * 1. First of all, you can not claim ignorance because as I have already pointed out to you elsewhere earlier in another article, this list has many errors. * 2. Second, not all on the list are PMR leaders. Some hold no government position. * 3. Third, it is generally agreed upon that PMR had three founding fathers. Two of them, former vice president Alex Karaman and former Speaker Grigore Maracuta, are locals and are ethnic Moldovans. Only the third, Igor Smirnov, is an immigrant. * 4. Fourth, it is no crime for an immigrant to become elected to a leadership position. The same happens in other countries, too. In California, the mayor of Los Angeles and the governor of the state are both foreigners who came, settled, took local citizenship and got elected. What matters is not where you come from, but if the voters are willing to elect you. - Mauco 16:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We had a talk only about Shevchuk, you tell (based on Tiraspol Times) that he is a local transnistrian from Rîbniţa and Brussels birocracy made a mistake (mistake also about date of bith 1968 i.o. 1946). I don't know exactly the truth in this case, maybe only his father came from Novosibirsk, anyhow, this is not the main issue. There are other 16 on the list. Is Brussels birocracy so wrong? Regarding immigrant californians who participate at political life, they didn't try to separate California from USA, they didn't come witrh theories like "from centuries, California was not part of USA" (Tiraspol Times and pridnestrovie.net use history to justify separatism) and when they received USA citizenship they sweared allegiance to USA and kept the oath. Why don't you recognize the merits of Antyufeev, the main founding father of PMR?--MariusM 17:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re 4. It is not a crime in a free society when people seek leader for themselves, but Transnistria is not a free, liberal society! Nation is ruled by corrupt regime there. Rules have been imposed on Transnistrians not chosen by Transnistrian!EvilAlex 17:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Marius, the Rybnitsa information is sourced from ICG (as I also told you, but you omit that). He is an ethnic Ukrainian. The list is faulty in other ways, too. Try to get the latest if you can. As for the historical record, it stands on its own and no one can change that. I don't know what you refer to about those other websites, but I can vouch for the information which I and other eidtors have added to Wikipedia, and it is fairly well established that Transnistria was never part of Moldova prior to 1940. Do not discuss this here, however, but on History of Transnistria. Now-banned user Greier tried to rewrite history based on some of the same Romanian-language sources which you have given to me and Jamason, but after extensive factchecking, he was found to be incorrect. Regarding Antyufeev, he can not be called a founding father of PMR, not even in a minor sense. He arrived well after PMR was already founded. Check your facts. - Mauco 18:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What we should add in the article is the fact that Transnistrian separatism was lead mainly by newcomers, imigrants who were born outside Transnistria (15 out of 17 in the list above, or, if it was a mistake in Shevchuk case, 14 out of 17). I don't remember to give to you or to Jamason any source about the moment Transnistria became part of Moldova - I gave only sources dealing with recent history of the region, with the aparition of Smirnov's regime and actual situation of human rights, and for one of this source (which is in English) I draw also your attention (as I want to help you to understand Transnistria's issues). Is a pity you didn't read the source I gave and only make unfounded assumptions about it.--MariusM 23:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Marius, you may add it if it is fact and can be sourced, but you can not rely on the EU list which is faulty. Sorry. You must go back to the historical record, and the historical record says something else. What you are trying to do is to rewrite history and those of us who are more familiar with the data will be glad to correct you and to help you set the record straight. Please remember to post your proposed changes here for discussion before you add them. - Mauco 23:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I did read your source. I have several issues with it since much of the information is written for a political purpose and many important details are omitted. - Mauco 23:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: An adition of the case of Shevchuk do you claim others mistakes in EU list? Is not important in my point of view if immigrants are 88.2% (15/17) or 82.3% (14/17) of Transnistrian leadership. Is not worthy to make a detailed search to see if it was a mistake in Shevchuk case. We can put in the article that "more than 80% of separatist leaders were immigrants, who arrived in Transnistria as result of the Soviet policy of industrialization". A question I have is how this situation changed after 2005 election.--MariusM 23:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are 3 versions of the EU list, and they are all hopelessly faulty. If you could read Russian, you could access first hand sources instead. Where in the article do you want to put this sentence? As you rightly point out, leadership is fluid and changes with the various elections (also firings, hirings, deaths, etc). Unless we have scared Jamason away with our non-academic approach to the subject, he can help us too, but you must show good faith if you want to keep collaborating on a professional level and this has been lacking in some of your recent edits. Otherwise, you are on your own as far as research is concerned and I will merely help in order to set the record straight. - Mauco 00:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transnistrian leadership - composed by newcommers in Transnistria