Talk:Transnistria/Archive 15

message: Some said that if we could have more photos it would be better, as many as possible, how about if we get a little gallery at the end of the page, like Kosovo and many other pages, I like it, do you? - Pernambuco 23:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be nice but, apart from political pictures, I think there are only seven (slight under-exaggeration) pictures of Transnistria in existance - a building, a tank, a Lenin statue, a river, a main road (with banners), a church, and a painting of a park. Jonathanpops 09:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, there are thousands of photos of Transnistria. Four large sites alone have 250 to 350 photos each, and three of the these four have put their photos in public domain. Bendery.md,  The Times (also here), Photo-Tiraspol, and Pridnestrovie.net Transnistria photos. If that is not enough, there are also photo albums on tiraspol.net, the Camenca site, the Dnestrovsk official ciy site, and a number of smaller sites, like the Tiraspol photo blog. The only sites which DON'T like to show life in Transnistria are the Moldovan-produced websites. - Mauco 14:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: For this particular article it's a wise sequence of actions. Regarding the gallery I think that these pictures could be incorporated in the article: the one with the Dniester to the Geography section and another one somewhere else. Alaexis 05:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Count me in: Support for a limited gallery. See links to some sources above. - Mauco 14:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's brilliant if there are lots, we need to be sure it's ok to use them though don't we? Mauco, how do you know we can use those pictures you linked to, does it say they're all free to use somewhere on the site? Also, considering some of the sites, it might be wise to make sure (though I don't know how) that the sites we get them from have permission to use them in the first place. Then again, I suppose the owners can always ask Wikipedia to remove them if that isn't the case. Jonathanpops 15:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Each site HAS to say that the photos are public domain / GDFL, or else we are now allowed to use them. There can be exceptions, but it is cumbersome. It will require a Wikipedian contacting the site owner for a photo release. In the case of Marisha, this has been done but it must happen on a case by case basis. - Mauco 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  The best way is to upload pictures from places you are safe about, license-wise, and NOT put them straight into the page. If you can wait, keep them on your talk page for a few days until others have had a chance to check the licensing terms and you know that their usage is allowed. Then, when they are here to say, put them in the article. Oh, and asking first (here in Talk) is not a bad idea either. A photo is content just like everything else. - Mauco 18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  31 March update: Found a few more. Not all should be used. I am merely listing them to show variety. Some (like parliament building) are overlaps. We can pick and choose which ones are best, but ALL should not be used. - Mauco 01:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see any reason why we should have a gallery of pictures at the end of the page. There are no such galleries at other articles: Germany, France, USA, Russia. The custom is to have a link to Wikimedia Commons, which we actually have.Dl.goe 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The lesser known places are interesting to see photos of. Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somalia and Abkhazia already have galleries. But not too many photos in our case. I would oppose anything beyond 8 or 10. - Mauco 19:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are not arguments. Look at Aruba Dl.goe 08:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, they ARE arguments. While you can of course always find exceptions to the rule, the article is enhanced by this sort of clickable visual content. Or not? Or what is the big deal? I have never wanted a gallery, but when someone put it in, I found that it added something so I support its stay and helped enhance it from the original two photos. It is useful, and it does no harm. - Mauco 12:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  There's a tourist site for Pridnestrovie already. This is not it. (For anyone else that thinks this is a good idea.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  And the flag is missing the hammer and sickle required for all official use. Yet another "kinder and gentler" PMR propaganda photo-op. Wikipedia is not the Tiraspol Times (as their editor found out). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: It was confirmed that User:Kertu3 was a sockpuppet of User: Pernambuco. He used it to breach the 3RR. See RCU confirmation.--MariusM 14:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, I am going to defend Pernambuco (and now you'll say that I am his sockpuppet, too). If you look at history, you yourself broke 3RR as well. So don't be so quick to accuse others. In fact, I am almost going to give Pernambuco an anti-vandal barnstar here, because at least he/she restored the page while you were busy trying to blank the work that took place by lots of people over the past month. - Mauco 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plain fallacy. I am not going to say now that you are Pernambuco's sock. Also User:Kertu3 appeared before I broke the 3RR, and when I made the 3rd and 4th revert I've put in the edit summary "rv sockpuppet", I'm sure reverting a sockpuppet is not against Wikipedia policy. Pernambuco himself was forgiven when he broke 3RR reverting a sock. Just a reminder: Kertu3 wikilife started with accusations against me about using sockpuppetry . Is like the Romanian saying: The thief is crying most loudly "catch the thief". Not surprisingly Mauco want to give a barnstar to a sockpuppeteer.--MariusM 15:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely. Edit warring is bad, too. I just checked the history of the page and looked at some IPs. EvilAlex did 6RR's through his UK AOL dial-up. Somehow MariusM didn't seem to mind, or request an IP check of his friend. - Mauco 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont you touch my clear name with your dirty hands. As i explaned on my talk page: "AOL is one of the top broadband providers around the word and millions of people using it on a daily biases. Also UK is preferred destination for many ex:USSR citizens. Maybe we have a new contributer? Lets wait. Lets not make groundless accusations.". I am clean as an unmuddied lake. I am clean as azure sky of deepest summer.  EvilAlex 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you please stop accusing others without proofs? You should request an IP check if you have doubts. In all debates about Transnistria all the proven sockpuppetry cases were discovered by me MarkStreet - Henco, Mark us street - Esgert - Truli, Pernambuco - Kertu3, this is the reason I am hated so much. As I told, the thief is crying most loudly "catch the thief".--MariusM 15:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Check the history and the known IPs of EvilAlex. That'll give you all the proof you need. Of course, I don't expect you or EvilAlex to agree. Ever. - Mauco 15:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sory, I don't have the list of known IPs of EvilAlex. This is your job to keep this list. Why you didn't ask a RCU and you just throw accusations (like you did against Urîtu, against conflict.md and against everybody who want to tell the truth about Transnistria.--MariusM 16:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Mauco - i already replied to your accusations. Please read sentences above. I am clean. Please do not make groundless accusations. And in contradiction on your part i see you & Co - playing dirty ;( EvilAlex 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever. Anyone here wants to discuss edits to the article? I was away from this page for nearly two weeks, and when I came back, I checked the History log. The logs speak for themselves: Our "clean" friends have engaged in a lot of blanking, reverting, warring, etc. - Mauco 16:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From 27 March I am expecting reasons for rejecting my proposed changes. I saw 3 people supporting me (EvilAlex, Dlgoe and Dpotop), you made a comment only regarding conflict.md link (should I assume than in the other issues you accept my proposals?) which contradict your own previous position. In fact, there are no reasons against the proposed changes, all are sourced info, only the desire to hide the truth about Transnistria for Wikipedia readers.--MariusM 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: What do you mean it is worse than ever? Anything factually incorrect? It gives a clear overview of the actual situation. I notice that when you guys tried to remove it, 7 different editors + 1 sockpuppet reverted you. If I had been around for the past two weeks, I would have reverted you myself, too. - Mauco 17:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re:"it gives a clear overview of the actual situation" through a periscope. Maybe there is few more sockpuppets emm? EvilAlex 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dare say that Wikipedia's overview of Transnistria is more factually correct and enciclopedic than the distorted picture that you are trying to promote through your propaganda/hate-site at transnistria.ru.ru - Mauco 18:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know that if you NEVER was in Transnistria. EvilAlex 18:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice try. Anyone want to discuss edits now? - Mauco 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My fews have been based on the real life experiences. On the real events. I new what happen on the ground. EvilAlex 19:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yes, just after you cease wanting to have the last word. You created this discussion by your try to clear Pernambuco. Dpotop 19:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did anyone stop to look at what Pernambuco was actually doing? I checked the log. He/she didn't introduce anything new, but just kept restoring the page from over-zealous "editing" done in contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles. I am not in agreement with the methods, but I can understand the motivation. - Mauco 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course he didn't introduce anything. He reverted. And that means he used his sockpupet to break Wikipedia rules. I am sure you understand the motivations, as long as he was helping you.Dl.goe 19:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dude, how can he "be helping me"? The work he protected was not my work. I haven't had a single edit to this article in 12 days, and before that, I was absent for four days as well. Most of the recent work belongs to a dozen other editors. Moreover, I notice that Pernambuco supported (and protected) your graveyard edit. See above. I don't agree with it, but at least I play by the rules here. On the same day - yesterday - MariusM broke 3RR as well, as did EvilAlex (even though he denies it). - Mauco 19:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course Mauco you are innocent like usual. EvilAlex 19:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sort of. Hard to see what "crime" I've committed if I haven't had a single edit to the article for nearly 2 weeks now. - Mauco 20:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Tell me Mauco, whose edit was I reverting , whose contribution was I modifying? Your's: you modified human rights chapter, and I modified it back. Pernambuco was defending your version of the article. Could you please tell me what do you mean with "but at least I play by the rules here"? Do you accuse me of something ?Dl.goe 20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't take it personal (unless you think you've broken the rules). I was referring to MariusM and EvilAlex and naming them specifically. The specific evidence is in the history log. - Mauco 20:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Mauco,we all trust you. Can you please focus more on editing other pages. Please!!!Catarcostica 04:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pernambuco's sockpuppetry confirmed

message: Am I out of my mind? I thought this place was called Transdnistria, or Transdniestr, or something like that...K. Lásztocska 20:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. The name comes from the river, which is called Dniester in English (but Nistru in Romanian, and Dnestr in Russian). Different nationalities cohabit so there are different names. Wikipedia has chosen to use the name which a minority part of the population uses. You can read more in Names of Transnistria. - Mauco 20:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Transnistria" is the name most commonly used in English and is used by sources of this caliber  (who also designate it a "secessionist territory").--Tiraspolitan 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most news organizations don't use "Transnistria" in English. You might also be interested in seeing the article on Transjordan, which got its name from the Jordan river. - Mauco 20:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, no. . Also, see WP:NOR, it's wiki's place to describe what it is most commonly called, not to prescribe what it should be called.--Tiraspolitan 20:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Btw, BBC uses Trans-Dniester. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/3641826.stm Alaexis 20:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, they also call it a "separatist region" and list it in the "regions and territories" category (not the "countries" category).--Tiraspolitan 20:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is amazing that a simple question on the name gets the Romanians on the defensive. Bonaparte, RFE/RL uses Transdniester, and The Economist uses Transdniestria. - Mauco 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what else do they call it, "a fully independent state" or something along the lines of "separatist region"? By the way, I'm not Bonaparte. I knew someone would say something like that sooner or later.--Tiraspolitan 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet you admit to being a sockpuppet, and your only mainspace edit has been to engage in persistent revert warring. If you are not Bonny, you are doing a good job of following in his footsteps. - Mauco 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting a little too personal for my liking (which explains why I consider using a sockpuppet account necessary in the first place). To my knowledge what I have been doing is within policy (including the reverting of unexplained edits), if you have anything which indicates I am wrong I'd be pleased to hear about it. This discussion page is for discussing the article alone, let's stick to that, shall we?--Tiraspolitan 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe there are other things more important in this article than a letter in the name. It was this way for a long time, why to open such a discussion.--MariusM 20:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  :)) EvilAlex 20:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  name? 

message: It was later proven that Ştefan44 is a sockpuppet of Mauco
Does anyone know what happened to my edits that I copied from the Swedish Wikipedia? There were two parts. One about the flag and the other things that they have; the other part about religion. I didn't see anyone complain and the removal it wasn't discussed. I think it's best if I restore. Ştefan44 21:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:MariusM returned, that was what happened. Everything that everyone worked on in the 5 weeks that he was gone was simply removed, if he didn't agree with it. Even though he is currently blocked, he has a few fans who support him now and think that this is the way that Wikipedia should be edited.  We are not against changes, but it should be done in peace and obviously the removal of your work was not discussed, Stefan. You can either restore it or discuss. As a general rule, it is always best to discuss it first - Mauco 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see. That's bad news. Don't we have a mediator or an administrator who can help decide what should be in the article? My sections were taken from the Swedish version of the article and no one complained about them until now. Ştefan44 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: this is wrong interpretation of events. Some of the edits that have been discussed and agreed in 13inarchives  by the majority of users have been removed without any discussions or agreements what so ever. Those actions were against Wikipedian policies. We just restored the original content.  EvilAlex 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And my content? What happened to it? Where is it? Why did you remove it? If it is against Wikipedian policies, I'll accept that, but I don't think I broke any rules. I didn't write anything that wasn't already in the Swedish version of the Transnistria article. Ştefan44 21:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Ştefan44. I am truly sorry of that. I am sure that we will try to find a compromise. EvilAlex 21:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  He says he's sorry, but he didn't explain why he removed your work or what is wrong with it, Stefan. Now, Dl.goe, who is also defending a radical version now, was working on the page after you did. And he didn't remove your work. He was happy with it back then - apparently - so why is he so intolerant now? - Mauco 21:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mauco you are the one who should be blamed. Because it is under you influence article became highly POV biased. It was complete disrespect from your side towards early archived agreements. EvilAlex 21:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't need to blame anyone, I am just asking what happened to my work and if there was anything wrong with it? Ştefan44 21:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I am the one who removed both paragraphs.
Transnistria fought a war for independence in 1992 and is seeking recognition as an independent state. Its independence has not been recognized, and its legal status continues to be an issue of contention. It functions as a sovereign country with its own postal system and stamps, police, military, currency, constitution, flag, national anthem, coat of arms, and has its own parliament and government.
It seemed to me unfair to call the War of Transnistria a war for independence. The second part sound to me like a sophism: My cat functions like a human being, having one mouth, two ears, one nose, a hart and a brain.
Most Transnistrians are Orthodox Christians and the government has supported restoration and new construction of orthodox churches. Transnistria has freedom of religion and 114 religious beliefs and congregations are officially registered. However, as of 2005, registration hurdles were encountered by some minor religious groups, notably, the Jehovah's Witnesses.http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51569.htm
I think this whole paragraph stands on the word freedom of religion, which I personally find inappropriate. There have been some problems on this subject: the source claims: "Authorities in Transnistria used registration requirements and other legal mechanisms to restrict the religious freedom of some religious groups. Evangelical religious groups meeting in private homes reportedly were told that they do not have the correct permits to use their residences as venues for religious services. In the past, they and other non-Orthodox groups generally were not allowed to rent property and often were harassed during religious services." "The Baptist community in Transnistria submitted an application for registration in 2004, which remained under reviewat the end of the reporting period." It is true, the source also states "The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respects this right in practice; however, the law includes restrictions that at times inhibit the activities of some religious groups." But the report refers to the whole Moldova.
I was wrong to remove it and Mauco was right to tell me "Mass imposition of one version over another shows a blatant lack of respect for the contributions of others". But I am sure others will treat well my edits, with a kindness I haven't shown others and although I probably haven't explained them properly. In fact, I am so sure, I feel it would be a waste of time to continue watching this article.Dl.goe 23:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits 

message: I would like to ask your oppinion:
----
====Which version of the article do you find better to be worked upon?====
=====This one=====
=====This one=====
----
::: The first version is the only acceptable one, because it describes the real situations. And the second text shows the desirable, but not the reality. Helen28 15:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: =====This one=====
=====This one=====
----
::: The first version is the only acceptable one, because it describes the real situations. And the second text shows the desirable, but not the reality. Helen28 15:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Which version of the article do you find better to be worked upon?'''

message: ----
::: The first version is the only acceptable one, because it describes the real situations. And the second text shows the desirable, but not the reality. Helen28 15:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&oldid=119698073 This one]

message: ----
Mauco and Marius are both blocked, both of them are professional in my view but they did little to build trust, one pushing the worst propaganda and the other the best, Both were wrong. Buffadren 11:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The following editors condemn [[User:Dl.goe|Dl.goe]] for reverting to [[User:Mr. Sure Entry|Mr. Sure Entry]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=119236612&oldid=119221909 His revert], [[Talk:Transnistria#Protected_.28again.29|his explanation]]

message: Is there any truth to this report on the KGB disrupting church or is it more likely just Christian propaganda/overstatement, or maybe a little of both? Jonathanpops 10:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A little of both, it seems, but more of the second. Just look at the way the article presents the info. I understand that the authorities there really do put obstructions to churches competing with the main Orthodox one. --Illythr 11:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And if they are state persecuted how do they get into the prisons ? Buffadren 11:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Everywhere, even in the democratic states not all "religions" are allowed. The fact that are more then 5 accepted make this subject of little importance or non.Catarcostica 00:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  KGB Thugs 

message: ====Proposed version:====
In the early Middle Ages, the Tivertsi (Slavs),The Laurentian Codex of the Primary Chronicle () contains the following lines (translated): Ulichi, Tivertsy lived along the Dniester; a lot of them settled on the Danube; settled along the Dniester down to the sea, their cities can be found unto this day. and the Vlachs are mentioned as living in Transnistria. Turkic nomads such as the PetchenegsPorphyrogenitus, Constantine. De Administrando Imperio ca. 950. Retrieved 2006, 12-27 and Cumans were present in 11th-13th centuries, having controlled the territory especially from the military point of view (see Cumania). Following the Mongol invasion of Europe (1241), for a period of time, the territory was under Mongol control, and later under the Crimean Khanate, one of the five successors of the Golden Horde Empire. Genoese traders opened colonies on the shore of the Dniester around 1300, having to pay tribute for that to the Tatars. From the 15th century, parts of what today consists Transnistria  was briefly ceded by the Tatars to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, when they were called Dykra. The territory was conquered by the Ottoman Empire around 1700 , becoming part of the Yedisan province. By that time the population was composed of Moldovans and Tatars.Nicolae Dabija - "Moldova de peste Nistru, vechi pămînt strămoşesc / Zadnestrovscaia Moldova, isckonnaia naşa zemlia", Hyperion Publishing Press, Chişinău 1990George Reichersdorf: "Moldaviæ quæ olim Daciæ pers, chorographia, Georgio a Reichersdorf Transilvano auctore", Viennæ 1541. Bronovius and Georg Werner: "Transylvania, Moldavia and Chersonesus Tauricæ'". Published by Arnold Mylius, Cologne, 1595.Antonio Bonfini (1434 - 1503): "Rerum Ungaricarum decades quatuor cum dimidia"Giovanni Botero (1540-1617): "Relazioni universali", Venice, 1591Giovanni Antonio Magini (1555-1617): "Geographie universae", Venice, 1596.
====Older version====
The area where Transnistria is now located has been inhabited by Indo-European tribes for millennia, being a borderland between Dacia and Scythia. The Ancient Greek Miletians founded about 600 BC a colony named Tyras, situated on the mouth of the Dniester river (Tyras). Transnistria was home to the South Slavs from the 6th century. In the early Middle Ages, Slavic tribes such as the Tivertsi and the UlichsThe Laurentian Codex of the Primary Chronicle () contains the following lines (translated): Ulichi, Tivertsy lived along the Dniester; a lot of them settled on the Danube; settled along the Dniester down to the sea, their cities can be found unto this day. populated Transnistria, followed by Turkic nomads such as the PetchenegsPorphyrogenitus, Constantine. De Administrando Imperio ca. 950. Retrieved 2006, 12-27 and Cumans. An early part of Kievan Rus', after the Mongol invasion of Europe (1241), the territory was briefly under Mongol control, and later under the Crimean Khanate. From the 15th century, northern Transnistria belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.George Reichersdorf: "Moldaviæ quæ olim Daciæ pers, chorographia, Georgio a Reichersdorf Transilvano auctore", Viennæ 1541. Bronovius and Georg Werner: "Transylvania, Moldavia and Chersonesus Tauricæ'". Published by Arnold Mylius, Cologne, 1595.Antonio Bonfini (1434 - 1503): "Rerum Ungaricarum decades quatuor cum dimidia"Giovanni Botero (1540-1617): "Relazioni universali", Venice, 1591Giovanni Antonio Magini (1555-1617): "Geographie universae", Venice, 1596. Prior to becoming part of the Russian Empire, the largest group living between the Dniester and the Bug rivers was made up of Slavs, primarily Ukrainian peasants.Andrew Wilson: "The Ukrainians: Engaging the Eastern Diaspora" (Westview Press, 1998)
: I've highlighted the differences so it could be seen that each version has some valuable info.
: What kind of amazed me is that the identical set of references supports the different statements in different versions (Transnistria being part of Lithuania and that its population consisting of Moldovans and Tatars). What were these references brought for in the first place? Alaexis 07:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Ethnic) Romanians were the primary inhabitants of the Transdniester territory into the 20th century. Transitioning to Soviet control, say 1927, there was no real difference in Romanian versus Russian population distribution in the Transnistrian territory versus adjoining Bessarabia. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To answer your question, the case has been made (falsely) that what sets Transnistria apart from the rest of Moldova is its unique ethnic (Slavo-centric) heritage. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antiquity and middle ages 

message: The area where Transnistria is now located has been inhabited by Indo-European tribes for millennia, being a borderland between Dacia and Scythia. The Ancient Greek Miletians founded about 600 BC a colony named Tyras, situated on the mouth of the Dniester river (Tyras). Transnistria was home to the South Slavs from the 6th century. In the early Middle Ages, Slavic tribes such as the Tivertsi and the UlichsThe Laurentian Codex of the Primary Chronicle () contains the following lines (translated): Ulichi, Tivertsy lived along the Dniester; a lot of them settled on the Danube; settled along the Dniester down to the sea, their cities can be found unto this day. populated Transnistria, followed by Turkic nomads such as the PetchenegsPorphyrogenitus, Constantine. De Administrando Imperio ca. 950. Retrieved 2006, 12-27 and Cumans. An early part of Kievan Rus', after the Mongol invasion of Europe (1241), the territory was briefly under Mongol control, and later under the Crimean Khanate. From the 15th century, northern Transnistria belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.George Reichersdorf: "Moldaviæ quæ olim Daciæ pers, chorographia, Georgio a Reichersdorf Transilvano auctore", Viennæ 1541. Bronovius and Georg Werner: "Transylvania, Moldavia and Chersonesus Tauricæ'". Published by Arnold Mylius, Cologne, 1595.Antonio Bonfini (1434 - 1503): "Rerum Ungaricarum decades quatuor cum dimidia"Giovanni Botero (1540-1617): "Relazioni universali", Venice, 1591Giovanni Antonio Magini (1555-1617): "Geographie universae", Venice, 1596. Prior to becoming part of the Russian Empire, the largest group living between the Dniester and the Bug rivers was made up of Slavs, primarily Ukrainian peasants.Andrew Wilson: "The Ukrainians: Engaging the Eastern Diaspora" (Westview Press, 1998)
: I've highlighted the differences so it could be seen that each version has some valuable info.
: What kind of amazed me is that the identical set of references supports the different statements in different versions (Transnistria being part of Lithuania and that its population consisting of Moldovans and Tatars). What were these references brought for in the first place? Alaexis 07:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Ethnic) Romanians were the primary inhabitants of the Transdniester territory into the 20th century. Transitioning to Soviet control, say 1927, there was no real difference in Romanian versus Russian population distribution in the Transnistrian territory versus adjoining Bessarabia. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To answer your question, the case has been made (falsely) that what sets Transnistria apart from the rest of Moldova is its unique ethnic (Slavo-centric) heritage. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Older version

message: I think that updating GDP figures according to 2006 data's was already agreed in February (see ). If you has something against updating figures from the same source as current figures, please discuss. Otherwise, please don't revert. Also, changes of subsections headings made by User:El C in Economy section are in some way misleading, so I prefere the old ones.Beagel 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This info is probably useful, however this article is currently in the midst of an edit war :( Wait for some time until the things settle... Alaexis 15:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That makes sense to me Buffadren 19:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no need to discuss anything with the anon vandal. This particular one is a regular here and doesn't listen to reason. Unless his vandalism gets endorsed (again), it is a simple matter of admin intervention. I intend to archive this section shortly. --Illythr 21:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GDP data