Talk:Transnistria/Archive 3

message: Protected the article. Please work it out through dispute resolution if necessary. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: I believe the article is in better shape than yesterday. Still there are many trivial problems that probably arrived due to the revert war:
*Transnistria#Aftermath section is completely illogical. We talk about the 1994 events, then about the present, than back to 1999, etc. I think the events should be in the chronological order.
*Ilascu's story is told twice, in the Transnistria#Political status and in Transnistria#Violation of human rights, not to mention that we refer to its own Ilie Ilaşcu article. Maybe we should move Violation of human rights into the Political status or next to it and deal with Ilascu only once?
*There are quite a number of wikilinks to Romania and Moldavia, maybe we should decrease the number. There are also a reference to Romanian that is a disambig, I believe there should be Romanians, there also a few of similar trivial issues abakharev 02:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General

message: There is a paragraph based on Pavliuk's article, that is constantly inserted as relevant to the Aftermath and removed as a copyvio. I do not have my opinion on the copyright status of it as I have not seen the alleged original. According to my experience it is needed 15-20 minutes to completely retell a paragraph of such a size without any copyright problems. We can do it here while the article is protected. Alternatively we can put it as an attributed quote. I prefer the second way as the part about the common interests of Moldova and Ukraine is not a fact but an opinion and should be attributed. abakharev 02:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theresa answered very well...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Just_a_tag#Copyvio_accusations and not only there.  Bonaparte  talk 07:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand, many disagree with you. Is the Pavliuk's article available online? abakharev 08:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's kind of strange that you reject a valid source as Pavliuk (Oleksandr Pavliuk,Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze) they are not romanians I suppose with those names, so they are more likely to be russians :) Their point of view is very neutral, so I see no problem. Who dissagree with me are more likely to diasgree with NPOV.  Bonaparte  talk 08:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bonaparte, I'm not sure you get it. I agree with nearly everything your god-forsaken sources whose copyrights you have repeatedly violated have to say. I just don't agree with you copy-pasting what they have to say directly in giant chunks, or without putting it in quotes. --Node 09:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have nothing against the source. Actually I want to put it verbatim and attributed. I jusy do not want to mix Facts and Opinions abakharev 08:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Copyrighted paragraph"

message: OK take a look at this: "I have restored the unexplained wholesale reversions by an anon of TS01D, mine, Node ue and Phil Boswell edits, I do not think we deserve such a treatment by an anon abakharev 08:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theresa already explained you once Node. See the discussions in the Archive. However now is important to discuss the issues not the grammar spelling. You can do that later. And don't pretend that you didn't remove valid references. You should explain why you did.  Bonaparte  talk 08:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Theresa Knott never explained Lysy's reversion. Nobody is really discussing grammar or spelling here, we're talking about copyvio, removal of interwiki links, and reversion of perfectly valid corrections of poor English. 2) I never removed any valid references. I just removed copyright violations. --Node 09:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She did. Check in the archive. Case closed.  Bonaparte  talk 09:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked. She didn't. Case not closed. --Node 00:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wholesale reversion by Lysy 

message: #This is my first suggestion.  Bonaparte  talk 07:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately all the people who know enough about a given topic to write about it, have a point of view on the topic. I could say I'm pretty neutral right now - the closest I've been to romania, or transistrania for that matter, is Budapest. But what use is a person like me who doesn't know enough about this thing to even have a POV. We just have to live with the fact that there will be POV, but at least we should try to present all of the possbible points of view, making the article somewhat neutral. :) --HJV 23:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: stop talking in terms of russian POV

message: The article is here []. It is in romanian. Someone should translate this please.
:SUA someaza Rusia sa se retraga din Transnistria 
 
:SUA au cerut din nou Rusiei sa isi retraga trupele din Moldova si s-au declarat dezamagite de faptul ca negocierile in dosarul transnistrean bat pasul pe loc, potrivit site-ului Departamentului de Stat, citat de Mediafax. „Practic, nu a a fost inregistrat nici un progres, mai ales din cauza atitudinii obstructive a partii transnistrene“, a declarat, joi, ambasadorul Julie Finley, reprezentantul permanent al Statelor Unite in cadrul Organizatiei pentru Securitate si Cooperare in Europa (OSCE), referindu-se la negocierile din perioada 15-16 decembrie. „Nimic nu ar ajuta mai mult procesul de reglementare decat incheierea retragerii trupelor Federatiei Ruse de pe teritoriul moldovean, asa cum prevad angajamentele asumate la summit-ul de la Istanbul din 1999“, a declarat Julie Finley. 
:Ea a cerut partilor sa demonstreze ca trateaza negocierile cu seriozitate, o ocazie fiind urmatoarea intalnire la masa verde, din 26-27 ianuarie, care va avea loc in Moldova. „Cerem in special partii transnistrene sa respecte atat spiritul, cat si termenii protocoalelor stabilite la cele doua runde in format cinci plus doi, care au avut loc anterior, si sa furnizeze OSCE informatii militare complete cat mai repede cu putinta“, a spus ambasadorul american. Statele Unite sprijina o solutionare pasnica a conflictului, care sa respecte suveranitatea, independenta si integritatea teritoriala a Republicii Moldova, a adaugat ea. 
:SUA si UE au statut de observatori la negocierile mediate de OSCE.  Bonaparte  talk 08:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. We are attempting to build an encyclopaedia. Talk pages are to allow fellow encyclopaedia-builders exchange messages relating to a specific article. They are not for you to post large amounts of text from news articles. It should be sufficient to link to them. It is not only annoying, but bad Wikiquette, to copy the entire thing and paste it here. It takes up lots of space and makes talkpages hard to navigate. Because of you, there are over 10 archived pages on Talk:Moldovan language. You constantly posted news articles, pasted articles from books and webpages, and the like. It made it all much more confusing. Now please, please, please, stop posting full-text articles. --Node 09:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the 10 archived pages are due to Node_ue. --Just a tag 11:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And remind me when you stepped in to that talk page? Around the time of Archive Page #9 or maybe #10? --Node 00:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US asks Russia to withdraw the troups from Transnistria

message: Yes! I put now the romanian request and later the US and so on. 
President Traian Basescu declared yesterday in Kiev, that the first step to solve the transnistrian crisis consists in the withdrawal of foreign troops stationed in the area and the dismantle of military and paramilitary forces belonging to the separatist regime. 
In the speech presented at the Forum of the Democratic Option Community, the president referd at the Romania's responsability as an NATO member and future UE member state, in the process of democratic transformation, showing that "Romania is ready to share its expreience, for that itself has benefited by the support of friends". At the reunion where presidents of Estonia, Georgia, Letonia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Slovenia and Ukraine have also took part, Basescu discussed the problem of the security and stability in the baltic-pontic-caspic region. In this context, the chief of state affirmed that the most important challange it is the existance in the area of conflict zones, such as the autoritarian regimes from the separatist entities of Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Osetia. President Basescu showed that, for Romania, Transnistria represints the most close and the most clear example in this sense. "The first step to solving the crisis consists in the withdrawal of foreign troops stationed in the area and also the dismantle of military and paramilitary forces belonging to the separatist regime, on the basis of a precise callendar, with multilateral guarantees", has underlined the chef of state.
The source link is the newspaper Romania libera: (http://www.romanialibera.ro/editie/index.php?url=articol&tabel=z03122005&idx=10) also others Curierul National (http://www.curierulnational.ro/?page=articol&editie=1018&art=66680)   Bonaparte  talk 18:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: source no. 1

message: Link: http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2005&m=December&x=200512221225281CJsamohT0.2225305&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html
The conflict was halted by Russian troops, who remain in the region despite Russian pledges at the 1999 OSCE Istanbul Summit to withdraw them. 
Calls for Russia to fulfill its pledge to withdraw its troops from Moldova have accompanied U.S. statements on the conflict for years, and Finley’s statement December 22 was no exception. “Nothing,” she said, “would help the settlement process more tangibly than for the Russian Federation to resume the withdrawal of its forces from Moldovan territory in fulfillment of its 1999 Istanbul Summit commitment.”
The United States supports a peaceful settlement to the conflict that fully respects Moldova's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, Finley said.
 Bonaparte  talk 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would very much like to, but I would also like to hear a statement of others, esp. Node and Alex on this. In the meantime, let's work on Bonaparte's list below. --Lysy (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: source no. 2 US State Dept.

message: I made an incomplete list with the things that must be added to this article:
All the aspects from this list must be emphasized and accentuated in the article:
#Poor wages (20$-month) for workers and other categories of people
#* Poor is a relative term. What is the cost of living? -TK
#:Yes, how does it compare to Ukraine or the rest of Moldova ? --Lysy (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Things that must be added

message: "Romanian bias", you are already biased by bringing us such a nice new section name. --Just a tag 00:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't I who proposed using the word annexation, but Fisenko. The current word used is colonization. TSO1D 02:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Moldovan "Soviet-made" Cyrillic is not the same thing as Romanian Cyrillic. You can write English using the English Latin alphabet or you chen rait it iuzing Rumeiniăn Latin alphabet. :-) bogdan 23:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not horribly different. The only changes were to symbols for vowels. Well, that's originally -- later on (in the 1970s or 1980s I think?), they added the glyph of "zhe" with the little breve above it to signify the "dj" sound. Also, there are only a handful of changes to vowels, and some could be considered "standardisation" because that character was already used in some situations (such as character for î). In fact, as far as I know, the only 2 real differences were using "ь" instead of "й" for the palatalisation at the end of words, and using "э" instead of "ъ" for the short u sound. So ðat woud be like riting English like ðis I þink. Yes, it's different, but any language with a long written history undergoes some sort of reform at some point. I think the most major change was the switch from using Graiul Moldovenesc in writing (cf Letopisetul Tarii Moldovei) to using Bucharestian with only a few changes (пыне, кыне instead of пыине, кыине is the chief example), and in some situations trying to replace Gallicisms and Italianisms with Slavicisms or even to replace Romanian words with Slavicisms (амик -> приетен; тимп -> време). --Node 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: For example ? Reports given in the references indicate that the rate of corruption, crime is much bigger in that region, and your "for example" just doesn't work. --Just a tag 23:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Reference please. --Just a tag 23:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Given the official reports and official data it is, if you have valid references proving them wrong, bring it on. --Just a tag 00:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Cool, my neighbor's information, my neighbor's friend information. --Just a tag 00:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not constructive. Wikipedia has a Cite Sources policy. If he has relevant information from a credible source, he should be allowed to use it. Your neighbour and your neighbour's friend are not credible sources for information about Transnistria unless they should happen to be experts which I somehow doubt. --Node 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Bring citations. bogdan 23:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you say. --Just a tag 00:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...--Node 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Romanian bias in the article

message: I believe we have deliberated enough to warrant the removal of the current freeze on this page. We have reached several important decisions that should be implemented sooner rather than later, otherwise valid ideas will just stack up and be made irrelevant by other disputes. I mean we can sit here and talk until the cows go home but it's not as if we can achieve an ABSOLUTE reconociliation. The present situation is adequate to allow a re-opening of the page to permit futher work. TSO1D 00:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Although we should make agreed-upon changes ASAP, I think that an unprotection of the page would just start edit wars anew. --Node 00:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh-ho-ho... I "promised" it, did I? No, I said "I think". I don't really have much of a problem with the "Ukraine and Moldova against presence of Russian army" although I'm still a bit skeptical about claims that Ukraine opposes Russian presence (well, OK, obviously they oppose Russian presence just because the Ukrainian government is now pro-EU and anti-Russia, but I mean specific opposition rather than a generalised resentment of Russia). I don't think that will be an issue. I would expect revert wars to be over other things. --Node 06:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I proved my allegations, you just ignored it. --Node 08:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, playing this kind of game is a waste of time both for me and you. I've asked you many times to show which specific part of the article is the alleged copyvio, but you never did and I'm sure there're many witnesses to confirm this. --Lysy (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did. Please, don't pretend I didn't. Check the archives of this page, it's very clear. --Node 09:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Support. --Vasile 14:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Support. --Constantzeanu 15:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Support. --Just a tag 15:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Support. TSO1D 15:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Support.  Bonaparte  talk 16:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Support. --Lysy (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyway, I see that a consensus at least on this Node's allegation has been reached. I did not expect Node to support it, as he clearly has his own agenda here. I'm going to request the article being unblocked soon, and we'll see what happens. --Lysy (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Protection 

message: Hi, Bonaparte asked me to take a look at this page. I don't have a lot to say at this time, but I do have three comments:
# If people can agree to unprotect the page, great!
# If not, any genuinely undisputed edits can be made by an admin, once identified and agreed upon.
# On a separate matter: when alleging copyright violation, it is important to be very specific what you feel is the problem. Keep in mind that there is precedent under fair use law for almost any amount of quotation of political statements by professional politicians. For example, newspapers routinely reproduce entire speeches, and even commercial works hostile to a politician have been published that consisted almost entirely of quotations from that politician (the Bushisms series, for example). A paragraph or two quoted from a political figure, especially if it comes from a speech or a newspaper article rather than a book, and as long as it is correctly attributed and used in a relevant context, is almost always fair use.
Jmabel | Talk 19:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chiming in belatedly 

message: It has come to my attention that someone is using open proxies to edit this article. This edit was made by an open proxy  which I have indefinitely blocked. Editing Wikipedia through open proxies is not allowed and IMO is it a shame that there is no way to find out who is using them. Trolling in this manner is unacceptable in my opinion and I see it as a very cowardly approach; Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. (Message to whoever is using them): if you want your edits to be accepted, please use the talk page to justify them - IMO using open proxies rebuts WP:AGF. Izehar 11:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Open proxy|Open proxies]] 

message: I restored information deleted by node ue. 83.220.143.18 16:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: is also an open proxy and has been indefinitely blocked. Izehar 17:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Because open proxys are not allowed. --Khoikhoi 07:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: restored information deleted by node ue

message: Why was this reference removed from the article:
Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed reference 

message: Can someone add a legend to the map into the image page? (I am curious about the meaning of the solid blue area and the areas bounded bu blue lines). I'd also like to see Nistru there (and in other maps of Moldova), but I guess it is a different technical issue. mikka (t) 00:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: solid blue area is transnistria as an administrative division according to moldovan law, and the are bounded by the blue line represent territories that are administred by de facto independent transnistrian authorities (or at least what they claim to be, see map in population section)  : transnitria as teritorial unit + most of dubasari raion, municipality of tighina + part of causeni raion (gyska and kitskany regions). the dniester can be added, but the color of the selection should be changed, for contrast. if you want the dniester in all moldavian maps, it's easy to put it, but you'll have to reupload a lot of maps, some of them in commons. please suggest what should i say in a legend and what colour should i choos for the selection, if you want to add the dniester. Anonimu 15:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of map 

message: Would the person who claimed that 90% of Moldovan industry is in the disputed Transnistrian region?  I'm not trying to argue anything, I just think that source wil be useful in a paper for a class of mine.
: No, it says 90% of its electricity production, not of the whole industry. 
: And the exact citation is:
:: John Mackinlay, Peter Cross (editors) Regional Peacekeepers. The paradox of Russian peacekeeping. (2003) United Nations University Press , pp 135
: bogdan 12:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A reference request 

message: * The opinion of a Transnistrian   
* Inside Bendery 
These links are very neutral and fits very well with the current situation from Transnistria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.19.170 (talk • contribs) 
:: The absence of neutrality and offencive character of the linked pages is obvious.  Please, stop adding spam to Wikipedia. --Zserghei 20:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  AFAIK, links are not required to be NPOV, but to be accepted they have to have enough quality content relevant to the article. bogdan 21:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that besides not being NPOV, which is of course not a demand for personal pages, these links don't have enough quality. If you visit one of them, you'll see it immediately. --Zserghei 21:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For me they have enough quality. Quiet illustrated view on Transnistria.Zserghei are you angry? Look Zserghei you have to accept opposition. I know that in Russia they closing NGOs but Wikipedia is not yet in your sphere of influence. Not many transnistrians are pro-Russians that is a fact, Zserghei stop living in a dream world, the only link that you accept are highly misinformation pro-Russian puppet sites- that is unfair, let show two sides of this issue.EvilAlex 21:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Visitors to Pridnestrovie report that unique among countries in South Eastern Europe, the paperwork process is clear, transparent and easy. There is no visa required and only a quick, hassle-free registration for longer stays. As a multi-ethnic country, Pridnestrovie welcomes foreign visitors with open arms. We hope that you'll visit and see the reality of what our country has accomplished. 
The domain was registered in Mexico by the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty which is also registered in Mexico. - FrancisTyers 01:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Clarification, I'm talking about this site as the "second one". - FrancisTyers 01:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: new links

message: The official viewpoint of the PMR government is probably best articulated at the website of their MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs). It can be seen here: http://www.mfa-pmr.org/home/index.php?lang=eng
It is incorrect to claim that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation is the representative of the official viewpoint of PMR because although PMR and Russia have overlapping opinions on many subjects but they also have differences, most importantly in relation to the issue of international recognition (Russia does not want to recognize the sovereignty of PMR whereas PMR wants Russia, and other countries, to recognize it as a sovereign entity). Sorry if this is off-topic, but users Illythr and EvilAlex touched on that above. William Mauco 02:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: >It is incorrect to claim that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation is the representative of the official viewpoint of PMR because although PMR and Russia have overlapping opinions on many subjects but they also have differencesDifferences!? I am sorry, what differences? >Russia does not want to recognize the sovereignty of PMR, most importantly in relation to the issue of international recognition. Wants but can’t. They can’t do it officially it will spark international criticism, but of course they do it unofficially, behind the scene. Russian Fed treats Transnistrian border as it own. Russian Fed maintains military presents in PMR in contradiction to Istanbul agreement. EvilAlex 12:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are entitled to your own opinion. However, if you have any official references from either the Russian Federation or the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic which in any way support your viewpoint that the official position of PMR is identical to that of Russia then please post them. Otherwise we, as editors, should base our decisions on the facts which are on the record and not on the opinion of a biased ideologist. I hate to repeat myself, but like I said above: They have overlapping opinions but they also have differences. Overlapping is not the same as identical. I will not dignify your statement that "Russian Fed treats Transnistrian border as it own" with even a comment, especially not in context of the current actions on the border with Ukraine which started on March 3 and which is causing grave hardship to PMR even as we speak. William Mauco 15:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha-ha-ha “official references from either the Russian Federation or the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic” What do you think it is a circus? Official references from the Russian Federation and the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic are in Lubianca Square headquarter of Russian KGB. The only reliable references are eye witness accounts from Transnistrian residents see: eye witness accounts of Russian-Transnistrian collaboration >I will not dignify your statement that "Russian Fed treats Transnistrian border as it own" with even a comment, especially not in context of the current actions on the border with Ukraine which started on March 3 and which is causing grave hardship to PMR even as we speak.Hell man you are so far from realityRussian 14’Th army shouldn’t occupy and enforce a Stalinist regime in a foreign country for 14 years. EvilAlex 17:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too many plain factual errors to even begin commenting on, especially since this is an off-topic subject and not dealing with any specific content portion of the article. - William Mauco 18:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: off-topic

message: A couple of suggestions on the link section: It can be cleaned up somewhat by applying a policy as to which links are relevant and which links are not. As editor EvilAlex points out above, "Wikipedia is not a link library". I agree with him. Primarily, I suggest that in line with other Wikipedia articles our main link policy should be to first and foremost concentrate on including links of a "read more" type. By that I mean links which, when you are done reading the main Wikipedia article on Transnistria you can then branch out and focus in more detail on some of the subjects covered in the body of the article by following the external links. Moreover, since this is English Wikipedia, we should only include links to sites that are either completely in English or else have a significant amount of English language content. This is not a huge problem now but if we establish guidelines for which links to include in the future then this should be one of these guidelines.
Next, I propose the following changes of a "housecleaning" nature:
1. Move the link "Armed conflict in and around the city of Bendery" out of the sublabel Russian side and up under External links in general. There are several reasons. First, the text of the link does not in any way reflect or refer to official Russian policy on Transnistria. Nor does it promote Russian views. So the heading is misleading. Second, the author (Human Rights and Humanitarian Society "Memorial") has made a name for itself as anti-government in the countries it works in, Russia and elsewhere. It is very much in opposition and receives Western funding, among others from the George Soros foundation. Nothing wrong with that, but it shows that our claim on this page that their information represents the "Russian side" is just wrong and ought to be corrected in the interest of objectivity.
2. Remove sublabel Others or else rename it in line with the previous subcategories of links, to reflect the contents of the subcategory. As it stands now, what is there to distinguish Others from the main category of initial External links in general? Removing it or alternatively relabelling it will clean up the links section of the article and make it a tool which is easier to use. If the subcategory is to be renamed, in this case we could call it Romanian side because the contents is written from a Romanian POV and spells out why there is a Romanian claim or connection of sorts to Transnistria, which I do not personally agree with but which I am certainly willing to let stand as long as the article is labelled as such and as long as we apply a similar link policy to articles with other points of views. Current status: I have not made any changes to the article or moved/deleted/changed any links since I first wanted to hear the opinions of others on the above suggestions. -- William Mauco 16:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re 1. Move the link "Armed conflict in and around the city of Bendery" out of the sublabel Russian side and up under External links in general.Memo.ru is a Russian based organization that looks after the rights of Russian citizens in CIS, hens => we have a one way story here.In Russia there is a tighten controls on non-governmental organization. Russian based organizations doesn’t inspire much credibility. If it was based in Geneva or Helsinki that would be a different story. I against your proposal.EvilAlex 19:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that is an interesting point. I am not sure that I agree but that is what the discussion is for. As it says on the very top of this page we all have to Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them so I am not removing, moving or renaming any links before there is a general consensus or at least until we exhaust a reasonable period of discussion. My point in wanting to move the link was not "political" but merely clean-up related in order to produce a more factually true Wikipage. If you go and actually read the contents of the link then you will see that it has nothing to do with the official Russian position, and that is the reason why I point out that our subcategory header is misleading to the reader who is unfamiliar with Transnistria and the positions of the different parties to the conflict. You would also not equate Memorial with anything officially Russian if you knew more about the organization. Memorial is an international society in memory and for rehabilitation of victims of political repression in the USSR and has always been at odds with the government there. Hope this helps. -- William Mauco 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links policy, link section cleanup

message: :In the summer of 2004, the Transnistrian authorities forcibly closed six schools that taught Moldovan language using the Latin script.
Actually, the Transnistrian authorities name the schools that use Latin script "Romanian language" and the schools that use Cyrillic script "Moldovan language". :-) Er.. What term should we use here? Romanian, Moldovan, Romanian/Moldovan ? bogdan 10:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bogdan, I can not answer your question.  The language, of course, is Romanian, but neither Moldova nor Transnistria will call it that, so it would probably be wrong for the article to call it that also. Transnistria officially calls the language "Moldavian" when it is written with Cyrillic characters and "Romanian" when it is written with Latin characters. Republic of Moldova officially calls the language "Moldovan" regardless of the alphabet used (starting before independence, only Latin characters are used in schools and for any official purposes).The insistence (by both) that Moldovan is somewhat different from Romanian is largely a fiction. I do not speak the language but I have been told that the difference is limited to a small difference in pronounciation and some words that are particular to each area. In other words, like the difference between English and American English. Romania held a "book drive" in early 2006 for books to schools in Transnistria which shows that any difference in the language is insignificant. Perhaps the best solution would be to say something like "Moldovan (similar to Romanian)" when you refer to the language. But that can be cumbersome. It would probably be a mistake to call it just plain out Romanian when none of the two governments do.William Mauco 01:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moldovan vs. Romanian 

message: :the average standard of living seems to be visibly higher in Transdnestr than in the rest of Moldova
I would like a reference for that. bogdan 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly doubt it. Even if it is higher, it can't be "visibly" higher; I may be wrong of course. Either way, without a reference, that sentence is going. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't  understand why the Transdniestrian government use communist symbolism for a non communist "state". --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know, all across the ex-Soviet Union, there is quite a number of nostalgics and the Transnistrian government wants to make sure they don't know that the Soviet Union is history. That's why they have across the city billboards with the coat-of-arms, their parliament is called the Transnistrian Supreme Soviet, their newspapers have the same tone as the Soviet-era newspapers, etc. It's like Good bye, Lenin! for a whole country. :-) bogdan 23:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The average monthly salary in the breakaway region is $112 per month – higher than that in the rest of Moldova. Although some ordinary residents and visitors to Transnistria suggested that this official figure seemed exaggerated to them, claiming that the average salary of a Transnistrian does not exceed $20-$40, the average standard of living seems to be visibly higher in Transdnestr than in the rest of Moldova, helped by the presence of key Soviet-era factories on Transdnestrian soil.
I removed this until references are brought. bogdan 11:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  standard of living  

message: This article has a mistake: it's romanian language not moldovan language. --161.53.50.60 17:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether that was a nasty dig or an innocent remark. Moldovan and Romanian are essentially (some would say exactly) the same language, but the government of Moldova chooses to call the language Moldovan. It is not entirely clear whether this is a claim of a different language or (like Valencian vs. Catalan) just an insistence on using a different name for what is conceded to be the same language. Much of the article Moldovan language is about just this matter, or at least was the last time I looked. - Jmabel | Talk 00:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moldovan language

message: I am just a visitor here trying to learn more history... but I found that article uses term "Moldovan Cyrillic" as a language. Judging from what I know about Cyrillic and the rest of the article, the name of the alphabet should not be included in the name of the language as the means used to record the language does not affect it - e.g. there is no "Latin English" vs. "Magnetic tape English" vs. "DVD English". 
Am I wrong here?
--Aleksandar Šušnjar 18:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Cyrillic" as a language

message: Lets deal with it here. We should be keeping the links to a bare minimum anyway. Please pay attention to Wikipedia:External links. - FrancisTyers 15:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link section is unwieldy and much longer than normally seen on other Wikipedia pages dealing with even much larger countries. This is probably in part due to the fact that PMR is not just a country (or de facto country, we should not be caught up in semantics) but also at the same time an international conflict with various attempts at settlement. Instead of merely deleting links, we could create a separate article dealing with Disputed_status_of_Transnistria which could serve as an umbrella for all issues of international status, lack of recognition, conflict settlement initiatives. This would be similar to the article War_of_Transnistria. The precedent of doing so is already established in several other Wikipedia country articles with territories of disputed status, see for instance Gibraltar and its related article Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar. In addition to better housekeeping in the main article, we also get the benefit of a cleaner Links section but without having to actually delete most of the links. Rather, we just move them into the article where they rightly belong and I am sure that their original contributors will understand the sanity of that rather than begin a pointless edit-war to reinstate them by force. William Mauco 15:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a reasonable suggestion. - FrancisTyers 15:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A rough draft now is up at Disputed_status_of_Transnistria. Not much text added yet (and no text has been moved from the main article). I prefer that we work on cleaning up the link section first, as per FrancisTyers' initiative. William Mauco 16:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks like there's almost a consensus now, and no new votes coming in. So perhaps it is time to introduce the revised External Links section to the page. FrancisTyers, will you do that, since you were the one who took it out and also took the initiative of starting this discussion? As far as I can tell, a few of the links will be deleted and the rest will be distributed over 3 pages: Main article, Disputed status of Transnistria, and War of Transnistria. - William Mauco 23:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete doesn't add to the article, doesn't relate directly to Transnistria - FrancisTyers 15:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, not enough relevance to conform with Wikipedia:External_links. William Mauco 15:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Move to War_of_Transnistria since it deals with the war only and not with Transnistrian society in general. - William Mauco 16:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Move nice site, some great pics (maybe we could get some under GFDL? ;) - still should go in War of Transnistria. - FrancisTyers 17:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just sent an email to ask about pictures under GFDL. If I get the OK then we can upload to Commons. William Mauco 17:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  move to War of Transnistria. --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Move - It's called Transnistrian war, after all. Illythr 17:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Move to the Ilie Ilaşcu article for appropriateness and relevancy, and also because (incredibly!) this particular link is missing from that article! - William Mauco 16:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Move per William Mauco. - FrancisTyers 17:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  move to Ilie Ilaşcu. --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Move - a reference to Ilascu's page is enough, as long as this link is kept there. Illythr 18:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Move to Disputed_status_of_Transnistria since it deals with the settlement issue and not with Transnistrian society in general. Label it as Ukrainian POV since that is what it is. - William Mauco 16:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Move - a reference to Ilascu's page is enough, as long as this link is kept there. Illythr 17:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Move to Disputed_status_of_Transnistria. It should not be included in the main country article as this is not the praxis for any Wikipedia country profiles of other country where the OSCE has a presence. However, it is relevant in the dispute resolution article because the OSCE is the "engine" driving the talks. I propose that as we move it, we also change the link to point directly to OSCE's Transnistria page where there are some links and relevant content related to the agreements reached between the parties. William Mauco 17:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that references to Transnistria are also abundanly found elsewhere on that site. Also note that one particular article -"Assessment Visit to the Transdniestrian Region of the Republic of Moldova" - should be kept on this page as it is directly relevant to situation in Transnistria. And it's pretty much current, too. --Illythr 19:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete doesn't add to the article, doesn't relate directly to Transnistria - FrancisTyers 15:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly disagree. It is a site by a Moldova NGO, and it has a Transnistria section which occasionally (every few months or so) add a new article. The articles added all correspond wholly to a Moldova POV of settlement initiatives. If we decide to keep it, the link should be changed to point directly to their Transnistria section, and it should be moved to Moldovan side and should preferably be in a new article dealing with conflict resolution, Disputed_status_of_Transnistria. William Mauco 15:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  keep, label as "Moldovan side". --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Relevant only to the specific confines of the disputed resolution and conflict resolution article, and when pointed to the Transnistria section of Eurojournal.org's site. Also, the article has no original content but merely aggregates content from other sites, although this in and of itself is not an automatic disqualifier. William Mauco 18:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete. Link is old and just a summary of a conference 3 years ago with 4 photos from the conference. If we step on anyone's toes by deleting it, a compromise can be made by moving it to the new Dispute Resolution article but it is doubtful that the contents of this link is even relevant there. In fact, the Council of Europe itself has since produced much more relevant material, for instance a 2005 report which is much longer and detailed than the contents of this particular link. William Mauco 17:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep good link. - FrancisTyers 17:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree: Keep. William Mauco 17:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Keep, per users above. Illythr 17:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Move to Disputed Status of Transnistria for clarification of subject. Those who want general information on Transnistria will find the link of no use whatsoever. But those who want information on the disputed status and possible avenues to conflict settlement will find the link to be of some value. William Mauco 17:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Move to Disputed Status of Transnistria because that is the subject of the link, rather than Transnistria in general. - William Mauco 17:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep Not exactly about Transnistria (the subject of this article), but it has relevant and regularly updated articles. - William Mauco 17:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep, good site EvilAlex 18:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep, if William Mauco and EvilAlex actually agree on something, it must be good! --Illythr 19:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete Less English content than Moldova Azi above, and mostly repeated content.  - William Mauco 17:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep, good site, enough  info, pictures EvilAlex 18:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not mislead people, EvilAlex. The pictures are from Moldova. In fact 99% are from Chisinau alone. They are not from Transnistria (which is the subject of this Wikipedia page). For Transnistria-specific pictures go here instead. It has 300+ captioned photos which are all from Transnistria, exclusively. William Mauco 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Replace with this link - same site, transnistrian conflict section. --Illythr 18:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agreee with Illythr. Replace with a more precise link because the previous link is not about the subject of the article (Transnistria). And move to the new disputed conflict section. Moldova.org more or less reflects the official consensus view from Moldova and it does have a regularly updated roundup of articles related to the issues of the disputed status of Transnistria. Interestingly, it also sometimes follows events in Kosovo, Karabakh, etc so the site's focus as it relates to Transnistria is clearly on conflict settlement rather than on providing general information or Transnistria information as a whole. William Mauco 18:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete. It doesn't reflect any official Moldovan government position (in fact it is an 'extremist' view which is critical of the Moldovan government's signing of the 1997 settlement.) It is also not a quality link. HTML is badly formatted, few other sites use it as a reference, and it has spelling mistakes even in the headline! - William Mauco 16:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete per William Mauco, low quality. - FrancisTyers 16:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  keep, a lot of news about Transnistria. I hope they will add English version. --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  keep. State-run news agency, so it is "official". There is an English section but it is not updated on a regularly basis. The main part of their site, however, has tons of articles. Updated several times a day. Interesting to read (in Russian, or translated via Babelfish) for insight into the official PMR point of view. William Mauco 17:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Delete, this link is mostly about the workings of the supreme court and has very little info relevant to the Transnistria in general. A much better link to include would be to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which has relevant, regularly updated content in three languages (including English) and actually articulates an official Transnistrian POV. William Mauco 18:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  keep, article about country should have a link to presidential website. --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Keep, of course. --Illythr 18:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  keep, good quality, dozens of pictures and articles under creative-commons license. --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Keep, in accordance with the very first requirement of Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. This is the only country portal which exists about Transnistria in English. The President's site covers some of the same territory, but much more limited with fewer articles and pictures. A simple look at the article index for pridnestrovie.net is enough to convince me of why this site should stay as a link. - William Mauco 18:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Delete, Not official government site, not a reliable site to link or to reference to.EvilAlex 18:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Keep of course or else take it to arbitration. ConsultantJoe 19:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Move to War_of_Transnistria since it deals with the war only and not with Transnistrian society in general. In my opinion, it is also wrong to label it as Russian POV (but for a fuller discussion of this, see above under Links policy, link section cleanup - William Mauco 16:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Move to War of Transnistria. - FrancisTyers 16:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  move to War of Transnistria. --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Move, indeed, the article has more relevance there. Illythr 17:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete because all of the text is repeated in the link immediately following (and because it is also not in a language which the readers of this page can understand. We should try to include mostly English links in order to make it accessible to readers.) - William Mauco 16:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete would be a good link for the Romanian Wikipedia article. - FrancisTyers 16:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Last time I looked, it was already there. William Mauco 17:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  delete, because we have English version. --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Delete, per users above. --Illythr 23:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Move to Disputed_status_of_Transnistria since it deals with territorial status and not with Transnistrian society in general. Label it as Romanian POV - William Mauco 16:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Move to Disputed status of Transnistria label it as "from a Romanian perspective" (see Nagorno-Karabakh for EL precedent) - FrancisTyers 16:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  move to Disputed status of Transnistria, label as "Romanian side". --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: * Moldova Azi: News from Moldova
::Keep Not exactly about Transnistria (the subject of this article), but it has relevant and regularly updated articles. - William Mauco 17:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep, good site EvilAlex 18:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep, if William Mauco and EvilAlex actually agree on something, it must be good! --Illythr 19:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete Less English content than Moldova Azi above, and mostly repeated content.  - William Mauco 17:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep, good site, enough  info, pictures EvilAlex 18:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not mislead people, EvilAlex. The pictures are from Moldova. In fact 99% are from Chisinau alone. They are not from Transnistria (which is the subject of this Wikipedia page). For Transnistria-specific pictures go here instead. It has 300+ captioned photos which are all from Transnistria, exclusively. William Mauco 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Replace with this link - same site, transnistrian conflict section. --Illythr 18:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agreee with Illythr. Replace with a more precise link because the previous link is not about the subject of the article (Transnistria). And move to the new disputed conflict section. Moldova.org more or less reflects the official consensus view from Moldova and it does have a regularly updated roundup of articles related to the issues of the disputed status of Transnistria. Interestingly, it also sometimes follows events in Kosovo, Karabakh, etc so the site's focus as it relates to Transnistria is clearly on conflict settlement rather than on providing general information or Transnistria information as a whole. William Mauco 18:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete. It doesn't reflect any official Moldovan government position (in fact it is an 'extremist' view which is critical of the Moldovan government's signing of the 1997 settlement.) It is also not a quality link. HTML is badly formatted, few other sites use it as a reference, and it has spelling mistakes even in the headline! - William Mauco 16:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete per William Mauco, low quality. - FrancisTyers 16:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moldovan side

message: * Olvia-Press: The information agency of Transnistria
:: keep, a lot of news about Transnistria. I hope they will add English version. --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  keep. State-run news agency, so it is "official". There is an English section but it is not updated on a regularly basis. The main part of their site, however, has tons of articles. Updated several times a day. Interesting to read (in Russian, or translated via Babelfish) for insight into the official PMR point of view. William Mauco 17:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Delete, this link is mostly about the workings of the supreme court and has very little info relevant to the Transnistria in general. A much better link to include would be to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which has relevant, regularly updated content in three languages (including English) and actually articulates an official Transnistrian POV. William Mauco 18:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  keep, article about country should have a link to presidential website. --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Keep, of course. --Illythr 18:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  keep, good quality, dozens of pictures and articles under creative-commons license. --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Keep, in accordance with the very first requirement of Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. This is the only country portal which exists about Transnistria in English. The President's site covers some of the same territory, but much more limited with fewer articles and pictures. A simple look at the article index for pridnestrovie.net is enough to convince me of why this site should stay as a link. - William Mauco 18:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Delete, Not official government site, not a reliable site to link or to reference to.EvilAlex 18:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Keep of course or else take it to arbitration. ConsultantJoe 19:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transnistrian side

message: * "Armed conflict in and around the city of Bendery" - report by Human Rights and Humanitarian Society "Memorial"
::Move to War_of_Transnistria since it deals with the war only and not with Transnistrian society in general. In my opinion, it is also wrong to label it as Russian POV (but for a fuller discussion of this, see above under Links policy, link section cleanup - William Mauco 16:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Move to War of Transnistria. - FrancisTyers 16:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  move to War of Transnistria. --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Move, indeed, the article has more relevance there. Illythr 17:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian side

message: * , , , ,  Viorel Dolha "Totul despre Transnistria" (5 parts in Romanian)
::Delete because all of the text is repeated in the link immediately following (and because it is also not in a language which the readers of this page can understand. We should try to include mostly English links in order to make it accessible to readers.) - William Mauco 16:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete would be a good link for the Romanian Wikipedia article. - FrancisTyers 16:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Last time I looked, it was already there. William Mauco 17:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  delete, because we have English version. --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Delete, per users above. --Illythr 23:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Move to Disputed_status_of_Transnistria since it deals with territorial status and not with Transnistrian society in general. Label it as Romanian POV - William Mauco 16:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Move to Disputed status of Transnistria label it as "from a Romanian perspective" (see Nagorno-Karabakh for EL precedent) - FrancisTyers 16:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  move to Disputed status of Transnistria, label as "Romanian side". --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Others

message: Only sovietic names are writting here like: mikkalai, a russian? I guess so. Zserghei? russian of course. This is a place of anti-romanian propaganda.
:: I am not Soviet. I write here, too. I think we should all attempt to be as neutral as possible. - William Mauco 22:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  William, Don't feed trolls. Best response to inflammatory remarks is to ignore them. mikka (t) 22:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not Soviet, I'm an American of Polish descent. And for what it's worth, I'm not anti-Romanian, either. I don't consider myself anti-Russian or anti-Moldovan, either. I would like to think that I've got some degree of neutrality in this dispute. Aside from that, mikkalai is correct about one thing: E o idea foarte rau sa dar comida la "trolli". Dar, sunt noroconos. "Trolli" nu pot sa vorbit limba romaneste :) Wandering Star 01:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Only sovietic names are writting here

message: Ukraine blocked Transnistrian companies to export in Ukraine as of 11 March 2006. In these days this political construction made by the former KGB and sovietic people lives its last days. It will further unite with Moldova and later on with Romania in a United Europe.
:False. See Ukraine-Transnistria border customs conflict. mikka (t) 22:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ukraine blocked Transnistrian companies 

message: I have changed the section regarding the Transnistrian text a bit in order to make it reflect the true situation more truthfully. The CIS statement is absolutely true and I have left that. However, I also introduced the opposing statement from the OSCE, citing the organization directly. The Mateusz Piskorski text I have removed completely, just a little research is sufficient to allow one to assess his true neutrality. In any case he is not associated with any international organizations involved in this field. TSO1D 17:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elections