Talk:Transnistria/Archive 16

message: proposed version:
:The name Transnistria is most commonly used, and does not imply the status of Transnistria: region of Moldova or independent state.
:The name used in the Constitution of Transnistria is Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública (Moldovan: Republica Moldovenească Nistreană, , ). This is abbreviated PMR.A short form of this name is Pridnestrovie (transliteration of the Russian "Приднестровье").Pridnestrovie.net: "Pridnestrovie" vs "Transnistria" Pridnestrovie.net. Retrieved 2006, 12-26
older version:
:Most commonly known in English as Transnistria (as it is also called in Romanian, the language of Moldova), its constitutional long name is Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública (Moldovan: Република Молдовеняскэ Нистрянэ, , ). This is abbreviated PMR.
:The short form of this name is Pridnestrovie (transliteration of the Russian "Приднестровье").Pridnestrovie.net: "Pridnestrovie" vs "Transnistria" Pridnestrovie.net. Retrieved 2006, 12-26
:Several other names are also in common use. Etymologically, they all come down to similar spelling variants of Transnistria, meaning "beyond the river Dniester", or Pridnestrovie, meaning "by the river Dniester".
The second variant is more informative and should be preferred imo. Alaexis 11:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence of second variant may be simplified into "Most commonly known in English by its Romanian name Transnistria,..."--Illythr 12:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The second link can be removed. --Illythr 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can but agree with Illythr. Alaexis 19:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names section 

message: No opposition parties or publications are banned currently. Political candidates in favor of unification with Moldova are allowed to stand in elections,In Transdniester, presidential candidates disagree on common state with Moldova Tiraspol Times. Dec. 3, 2006. Retrieved 2007, 2-19 although they rarely achieve more than 5% of the votes from the electorate.Transdnestr Central Election Commission announces final results on presidential election Regnum News Agency. Dec 13, 2006. Retrieved 2007, 2-19 Likewise, unionist political partiesTransnistria: New Social Democratic party wants union with Moldova Tiraspol Times. Feb. 6, 2007. Retrieved 2007, 2-19 and newspapers are legally registered and operating freely.Man and His Rights (in Russian)
However, the Power to the People Party faced numerous problems in 2001-2002 and was eventually closed. Ţăranu, A; Grecu, M. The policy of linguistic cleansing in Transnistria page 26-27 Retrieved 2006, 12-27
The election results in the past were considered suspicious, as in 2001 in one region it was reported that Igor Smirnov collected 103.6% of the votes.US Department of State, Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Moldova - 2003 Nevertheless, some organizations, such as CIS-EMO, have participated and have called them democratic. Alaexis 05:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''New version'''

message: Some of the editing on this page has been fully unacceptable. It is important to establish some  rules to ensure all opinions are taken into the project. Changes should be done one by one and by consensus. If someone is in a hurry, they have no place in Wiki or dealing with this subject.. It is important to establish ground rules, one being that changes done "en masse", in a block, will not be accepted and WILL be reverted at sight (regardless of their merit). Simply because it contradicts the principle of collaboration. Is there some agreement on this ? Buffadren 14:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that was how Wikipedia worked in the first place. You're stating the obvious. These rules are already in place. Just follow them. ALEX —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halfsense (talk • contribs) 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I decided nothing. I am trying to edit the page with you.Buffadren 12:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with contentious subjects

message: I am shure you like only Mauco, who had plenty of time... so much time he even devided it with many accounts...
: I decided nothing. I am trying to edit the page with you.Buffadren 12:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Glad to see Mr Buffadren decides who should be rejected the right to edit Wikipedia

message: The article does not deal with Moldova's position. It nneds a section to outline and detail Molodva's position and perhaps Russian invovement. It is not enoght to state that Transnistria is within its borders. Buffadren 15:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moldovan Interests

message: These sections are damaging because they are so farfetched. The levels of crime and human rights abuses are no higher or lower than any other european country and I say the motive for their inclusion here is more political than out of a desire to establish a page to  fully explain the Transnistrian region. It may be in everyones interest to swap these sections with a proper political report on Moldova's efforts to united the regions. Buffadren 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights and Crime

message: It ends in mid-dialogue... Where is the rest? Part 4?
Hm, an interesting documentary. Not nice, like the BBC one, but still interesting. Ilascu's looking pretty good for someone who's been sentenced to death and kept in prison for some 10 years. He actually spoke Russian to the reporters, something he absolutely refused to do during his trial! 
Anyways, an fairly good propaganda piece with numerous claims presented as facts, a few accidental mistranslations and very little in the way of proof. "The school that was forbidden to teach in Moldovian" mistake is getting mildly annoying already. PS: The filming of Antjufeev was really cool! The villain smokes. :-D --Illythr 16:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  +1. Alaexis 17:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Evel Antjufeev smoke. I like it too. As you can see part 3 have been uploaded just recently. I am waiting for continuation too ... I dont see any propaganda or errors in this documentary - everything is so true. Scary faces, frighten people, welcome to Transnistria. My full respect to the creators. EvilAlex 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly - scary faces. About the only nice faces you see are those of children in that Moldovan school. In fact, the whole entourage (music, the stuff the guy speaks etc) is set up as sinister as possible. "A holdup in plain day", eh? Those guys are pros, but I think they still lack a certain... finesse. --Illythr 17:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you expected to see a happy face in Transnistria then you well be greatly disappointed. Why should they smile? People have been brutally ruled by a iron regime. EvilAlex 19:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  About a third of my former USM co-eds are from Transnistria. Never heard of a brutal regime, they did. Crime, yes; corruption, sure, lots of; but brutal regime? About the same as in Chisinau, they say. --Illythr 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the government in Chişinău has many problems regarding human rights. Political opponents are arrested in Chişinău as well as in Tiraspol arrest of 8 members of Hyde park organisation, arrest of member of Liberal Party and PROTV team. This is not a reason to pretend that in Transnistria opposition is operating freely, as "Tiraspol Times" is saying.--MariusM 20:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, but if you look at the article about Moldova, you will note, that it's human rights section is small and tidy (although most of those US reports are about Moldova in general) and its crime section is nonexistent, even though Chisinau (dunno about other areas) has had its share of killings (don't think there was any terrorism, though) and anti-semitic incidents. --Illythr 21:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and add source information about arrest of political opponents in Chişinău, in Moldova article as well. Nobody will revert you as long as you add correct information.--MariusM 21:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: USM Аааааа... какой факультет? Re:"Never heard of a brutal regime" - well if you live in Transnistria and never criticizes the regime, goes to demonstration, blindly fallows orders - then you will never have the problem. The regime will protects the slaves. And in contradiction if in a phone conversation you will say something that displeases the government then in a mild case wait for a call back (my personal experience) and in a hard case you will have to leave the country.  EvilAlex 20:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Matematica şi Informatica." Actually, they were quite critical of Smirnov and his clique (well, those that I had actually talked to about this) - like in Moldova, crime there is mostly concentrated around families of political leaders. But they were not aware of oppression, that was not connected to criminal interests (like forcibly nationalizing a private business just to sell it to some shady characters, again, same as in Moldova). Their general position was "Yeah, Smirnov sucks, but there is no realistic alternative, and being annexed to Moldova sucks even more." Hm, your experience refers to the early '90s, right? I think things have calmed down a bit. In fact, I've discussed some of these things via ICQ recently, and they all seem to be okay. Well that, or the MGB doesn't have access to the ICQ traffic yet. --Illythr 21:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chanell 4 documentarry part 2 presented a taxi driver telling that if you criticise Smirnov regime you can have troubles. It seems that the taxi driver has a different perception of reality than Illythr's former colleagues. Do you think that this French Television chanell is controlled by Moldovan propaganda machine?--MariusM 21:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, but they do pursue the goal to paint the place black, for some reason. They overdid the theatrics, IMHO. Still, what the driver said, although qualifies as hearsay, was most likely correct, too, more or less. Transnistria ain't a paradise. My point is that it isn't Auschwitz, either. --Illythr 21:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re:"annexed to Moldova sucks even more" - never heard that. In fact many people compare live now and live before 90 and they see that before (when Transnistria was part of Moldova) was much better. Have you ask yourself a question: Why population decreases in Transnistria. Where all young people? If is so nice and so cool why do they leave? EvilAlex 22:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I found that somewhat surprising myself. I guess all the mutual propaganda is having an effect. You are quite a bit off with your comparison, though. The "life then" has nothing to do with Transnistria being part of the MSSR, but everything to do with MSSR itself being part of the USSR. That's why the Communists had won so decisively in Moldova back in 2001. As for population - the same sad thing is happening in Moldova... --Illythr 22:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite the same. Between censuses, Moldova's population decrease with 6,6%, Transnistria's population decreased with 18%. Same with Human rights, problems on both sides of Dniester, but in Transnistria situation is worse.--MariusM 22:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: at the beginning it says:
Une production CAPA
avec la participation de CANAL+
et de Planete 
Un film de
Xavier Deleu
Transnistria:
Trafficking arms 
on Europe's Doorstep
EvilAlex 18:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hm, missed the intro. So, what should we write in the attribution part? --Illythr 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When was this documentary made? Alaexis 04:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Transnistria Arms Trafficking" by Channel 4

message: This is the text readded by Alaexis, I have doubt on it. Is based on "Tiraspol Times" propaganda website. We have other sources about real degree of political freedom in Transnistria, like the french documentary discussed above, where a taxi driver is telling that you can have troubles if you criticise the Smirnov regime. Let's not hide reality in Wikipedia.--MariusM 21:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Alaexis could provide the independent sources i mean not government supported like Tiraspol Times. Then he could prove his position. Tiraspol Times is good only to show the official Transnistrian position. EvilAlex 21:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you give refs to the Moldovan and Romanian sites you cannot possibly demand from me not to use PMR and Russian ones. Of course I'll search for independent sources supporting my position.  Could you also find some independent sources proving that, for example, unionist parties are NOT operating freely or that Social-Democratic party is NOT really unionist. Regarding the French documentary nothing is said there about any political parties. Or have I missed anything? Alaexis 04:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You present an exceptional clime that is not backed by independent sources. The only source that you presented was Tiraspol Times. As I said before Tiraspol Time has damaged reputation.   We can't rely on TT. EvilAlex 14:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Is wrong that you label a site like conflict.md as a "Moldovan" one, while it was made with the support of OSCE mission in Moldova. Regarding "Tiraspol Times", we know that one of their main journalists is Karen Ryan, who seems to had in the past other problems with journalism ethic: ""Karen  Ryan,  you're  a  phony,"  said  a  Cleveland  Plain  Dealer  editorial.  She's  a  confused  phony,  however,  unable  to  comprehend  why  faking  the  role  of  reporter,  on  behalf  of  a  government  "news  release,"  should  be  questioned  at  all.  But  there's  something  bizarre  here  too.  Call  it  her  state  of  mind." --MariusM 12:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also should be mentioned that problems in registering candidature of Safonov (showing not so free operating opposition) were recognized even by Tiraspol Times. So, pretending that opposition is operating freely is a falacy. French documentary is showing an ordinary man fearing to openly express opposition against Smirnov, we will make shame of Wikipedia if we write that opposition is operating freely.--MariusM 12:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: conflict.md does claim some affiliation with OSCE but it has to be proven by some reference to OSCE itself. Until it's proven it's just a Moldovan site and the info taken from it cannot be put into the article in a same manner as the info from genuinely independent sources. Alaexis 15:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But OSCE never denied affiliation with conflict.md. And conflict.md does not have any black spots (like TT) EvilAlex 15:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've sent a letter to OSCE enquiring about their relationship with conflict.org.md. I'll write what they'll answer (if they will, that is). Alaexis 15:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is conflict.md, not conflict.org. Anyhow, we are not obliged to wait the following 3 years until you will receive an answer from OSCE, to include refferences from this source in Wikipedia. If you find somewhere a source questioning the credibility of conflict.md you can show it in this talk page.--MariusM 19:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No political party is banned, opposition newspaper operates freely?

message: Okay, I've brought some live sections out of the new archive. Whoever thinks I've missed something, feel free to add more stuff back. --Illythr 23:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: It seems that Russians start to understand that they are putting money into a blackhole. Transnistrian people is poor, despite +billion dollars sent in the last years by Moscow (only debt for gas is 1,3 billion USD). The good part is that Smirnov family is rich. Source--MariusM 12:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kommersant: MOSCOW FED UP WITH SMIRNOV'S CONSUMER MOODS

message: This article has one of the mot extensive protection logs I've seen. Furthermore, it seems that all of the parties edit warring here have either been blocked or warned for edit warring before. Consider this your last warning: I've unprotected the article and will meet any further edit warring on this page with blocks. Please use this page for polite discussion, and if that fails, seek dispute resolution. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that El C edits without any discussion...errr...--212.24.177.61 12:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: Our NPOV sensor, Illythr, expressed a while ago his wondering about the fact that I never disagree with pridnestrovian EvilAlex. The historical moment of a disagreement between us came, Evil did yesterday a revert  with which I disagree. In his revert he deleted the paragraph about french documentary at youtube. I was the person who added the paragraph to the article, I defended it in talk page, of course I disagree with Evil. Thanks Alaexis that you restored the paragraph, however I don't agree with your deletion of the youtube link. Is better for Wikipedia articles to have refferences (even better online refferences) and WP:EL states: "Notice on linking to YouTube, Google Video, and other similar sites: There is no ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by these guidelines". No reason in my view to avoid the youtube link, it was a misinterpretation of Wikipedia policies believeing that youtube is forbidden.--MariusM 08:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never said linking to youtube is always illegal. In this case it certainly is as Canal+ has not explicitly agreed to make their propaganda-movie available on the youtube. Alaexis 09:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hate to disappoint you, Marius, but if you're referring to this edit by EvilAlex, it does not qualify as "disagreement": Catarcostica was mislead by the contents of the vandalized userpage of Buffadren and had reverted the article wholesale to some older version, where the documentary was not yet included (among other things). I then reverted him, explaining his error. Then EvilAlex promptly reverted me without even examining the contents of the version he reverted to, nor explanations given. --Illythr 21:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagreement with EvilAlex

message: Infobox is original research, attributing statehood is original research, this whole article is original research and minority POVs. Why not use terminology used in real encyclopedias like Britannica?--Domitius 15:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All entities have infoboxes; countries, provinces, cities, etc. Your edits (inadvertantly) amount to vandalism & I am reverting them as such. El_C 15:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not simple vandalism, so you just violated the 3RR. That anon is not me BTW.--Domitius 15:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I wish I could label all edits I disagree with as vandalism and be exempt from the 3RR when reverting them. It would be great. I don't see any backing in policy though...--Domitius 15:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That anon used open proxy. Alaexis 15:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's common knowledge. What warranted full protection in the version of the admin who is a party to the content dispute? I'm still assuming good faith, because the tag El C added was the semi protection tag, so it could be a mistake.--Domitius 15:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not party to the dispute. It sure looks like vandalism. I'm inclined to just protect the page entirely with all the defacement & edit waring. El_C 15:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Utter POV.--Domitius 15:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, it says "SIMPLE" vandalism. If I'm not much mistaken, simple is stuff like "PENIS" and "YOA MOM"; explained removals of allegedly POV text do not qualify.--Domitius 15:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest dropping it right now. You should know better than to make major changes to an article such as this without widespread consultation and solid consensus - removing the infobox is nothing short of disruptive without solid consensus to back you up. -- Nick t 15:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nick is also an uninvolved admin, if he feels my edits amount to a 3RR breach, I'll self-revert. El_C 15:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm likewise an uninvolved admin. I've had a look at the infobox issue for myself following an earlier request on WP:AN, and I agree with El C. We use similar infoboxes for other unrecognized entities such as Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh, for instance. -- ChrisO 23:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Infobox Country or territory". Quite! -- ChrisO 23:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: British newspaper The Guardian visited Pridnestrovie in 2005 to report on the country's recent progress. What they found was a very European country not unlike many others. As the newspaper reported, Pridnestrovie today has "its own flag, crest, anthem, president, parliament, uniformed border guards, security service, police, courts, schools, university, constitution" and: 
"...the kids are playing western computer games: Tomb Raider, Tank Racer. The shops on 25 October Street include Adidas and a fast-food restaurant decorated with giant, blown-up photos of American skyscrapers. Up the road, there is a vast new sports complex built by the biggest local company, which is called Sheriff, a tribute to the wild west frontier marshals of the US. At the Hotel Timoty, the receptionist, Tania, is dressed in a stretchy white tracksuit, emblazoned Dolce e Gabbana."
— The Guardian, 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.42.223.160 (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Kids are playing computer games" (The Guardian) 

message: == Thas the reason for them to request desperate Russian help == ( Catarcostica 21:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the anonimous user just copied some ideas from my article "Heaven of Transnistria". Maybe is time to ask for a deletion review for that article? :-)--MariusM 09:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thas the reason for them to request desperate Russian help. ( Catarcostica 21:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard of living: "Visibly higher" 

message: Following my discussion with Alaexis, I think we can add Transnistria in both categories "Romanian" and "Russian" speaking territories, but we don't need in Wikipedia a category of "unrecognized Slavic countries" only for Transnistria. Please join discussion at apropiate place (NOT this talk page)
--MariusM 09:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category proposed for deletion

message: I already explained this Romanian saying when was discovered that Kertu3 is sockpuppet of Pernambuco, and in that moment the real sockpuppeteer Mauco starting to defend his sock Penrambuco.
Today Buffadren reverted me (and Kernow as weel) accusing me that I blanked a lot of information. In fact I didn't blanked anything, I've just moved some paragraphs with small rephrasings and added sourced information, which was already discussed long time ago. The only person who blanked information is Buffadren.--MariusM 09:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a fact  anyone can check the log, what you imposed was a en-masse edit. I do not object to what you are trying to insert only the manner in which you blanket edit. It is better to work with everyone else here. I understand you are frustrated but this solves nothing. please take your time and I will support your genuine edits. Buffadren 09:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verry difficult when you only revert without explaining exactly what you don't like in other edits and why. My additions were: youtube documentarry, already discussed, statistic with Transnistrian MPs (where they are from) which was added in the article some months ago, after long disscussions and deleted without consensus and Safonov's problems with candidature registration at last elections, also discussed. This is not "en-masse edits", everything was in a single section, you should do the effort to read the section and explain what you don't agree (if your purpose is to improve the article not to disrupt). Also, you should keep in mind that you don't have veto rights on this article.--MariusM 13:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Marius, there was no consensus either on the canal+ movie (NOT only about the youtube link) or on the relevance of the birthplaces of the Transnistrian officials. Alaexis 13:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a newcomer on this page (BTW, everything is O.K. in Abkhazia now?), you should check also archives. See October 2006 discussions , , , I don't want to repeat. Data are taken from OFFICIAL site of Transnistrian separatist Supreme Soviet. Paragraph was part of the article for long time, you can not remove it unilaterraly.--MariusM 14:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not going to remove it unilaterally and I didn't do it (maybe except as a part of a greater revert during the 28-30 March events). I'm just saying there's no consensus on this issue NOW. Alaexis 14:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Everything is ok in Abkhazia now. I'd say it's an example of the NPOV approach to the controversial issues. Alaexis 14:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After October 2006 debate was a cosensus to include the info about birthplaces of Transnistrian MPs, as an accurate and sourced info, and relevant as well. If each time a newcomer appear on this page we should rediscuss from the begining everything we will never stop edit-wars. Newcomers should read previously the archives.--MariusM 14:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for trying to appreciate my editing position. I would like to understand what is your goal here. For now let me explain mine, I believe in improving relations between Transnistria and Moldova. I also believe that a negotiated outcome agreeable to all sides can be achieved and will be achieved within a very short timeframe. Edits that are designed to weaken Transnistria's image disrupt that process and deepen problems. Many of the edits are severe and are having a reverse result.  Mauco's edits depicting the place as a model state were equally unhelpful. I am not tryng to veto you, I am trying to work things out without the need for attacks  Buffadren 13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Improving relations between Moldova and Transnistria isn't exactly Wikipedia's goal )). Alaexis 14:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Full agreement with Alaexis. Wikipedia is not the place where future of Transnistria should be establish. Wikipedia is an enciclopedia, we should present a TRUE picture of Transnistria, not a propagandistic one, regardless how noble goals the propaganda could have. Remember also that Transnistria is PART of Moldova, we can not talk about improving relation between Moldova and Transnistria as we can not talk about improving relations between Russia ans Smolensk region.--MariusM 14:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  of course by ensuring a truthful projection of the Transnistrian situation is Wiki's objective too, that goes without saying, I just think that some are using this page to cause trouble between Moldova and Transnistria by writing all types of negative images here. That's not wiki's objective either.Buffadren 15:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, the president of Moldova, Vladimir Voronin, is a transnistrian himself and historically transnistrians held high position in Moldova's leadership, even in Soviet times.--MariusM 14:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's not veer to offtopic. Alaexis 14:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  This is so true, Jonathanpops ! But,unfortunately, this is the first link that appear if you write Transnistria on google and the page is full of Mauco ( transnistrian) propaganda.Catarcostica 20:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Catarcostica, I realise that. It's the reason why the fools are here in the first place, but they don't realise they're just preaching to other nerds, and possibly influencing the thoughts of some not so clever members of the general public. But it isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to the UN, the EU, NATO or any other political body who do NOT use Wikipedia as a source of information. It is funny to read sometimes though. I'm particulary fond of the way Mark Street keeps coming back under different names and guises, but patently writes in the same style as always... starting off sounding fairly reasonable, as if he's trying to be one of us, then becoming madder by the day as more of his points of view are edited out of the article. A favourite phrase of their's to start a discussion is "MariusM wants to...(as if speaking to us all as equals)" (you can sometimes replace MariusM with EvilAlex), most amusing I assure you. Jonathanpops 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If something was agreed after long discussions in the past, new users who want to removed the info should first obtain consensus for removal, is not the old users who need to obtain consensus for keeping the info. For example you can have a valid point for removal of info if you can prove that info is incorrect. (I hope that after this remark we will not see an article in "Tiraspol Times" claiming that official data from Transnistrian Supreme Soviet website regarding the birthplaces of Transnistrian MPs are wrong).--MariusM 08:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The thief is crying most harder: "catch the thief"

message: ::: Due to many evidence referenced on page talk and main page my conclusion is stated in the sockpuppet template on this page. Unfortunately, I'm not the master of edit on wiki. If somebody know   how to change the "user" word with "page" and "state" please made the writhe changes. Catarcostica 04:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sock puppet of Russia Federation

message: Again Buffadren reverted my edits pretending that I did "en-masse editing", while I explained in 17 April the changes I want to make in the Politics section. Today I made only the moves and small rephrasing of paragraphs, without the aditions I was reffering, however Buffadren still reverted me. He didn't explained in Talk what he don't like, his only position is to revert everything I make. "En masse editing" is just a pretext, I made changes only at one section exactly to avoid being acused of "en masse editing", but there are people who will accuse me whatever I want, they simply don't like the fact that I am editing this article.--MariusM 21:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The more general information should come first so I also don't agree with your paragraph moving. And I still think that at least the links to the Canal+ propaganda movie should be removed as we shouldn't give links to illegal (or very likely to be illegal) content. Alaexis 07:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: En masse editing?

message: I've removed the external links to the TV feature on YouTube. We generally do not link to YouTube because it hosts copyvios, and these items most certainly were. Apart from that I really don't see why that report should be relevant for this article (it's not a general introduction about Transnistria but something about one particular allegation, and obviously inserted here only for purposes of POV-pushing). But that's really neither here nor there: YouTube is out, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what do you know about really? EvilAlex 00:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was uploaded to youtube by some guy from Romania. There is no evidence this guy is a representative of the TV channel that presumably produced the video and hence owns the copyright. Well, that is, if that video was in fact produced by some reputable TV channel. Because the claim that it was made by "French Channel 4" seems to be false too. So, either that guy from Romania made it himself, in which case it's not a reliable source, or some TV channel made it, in which case the guy stole it. What other "proof" do you need? Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very interesting theory, but can you prove anything? EvilAlex 15:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need to prove anything. The uploader at youtube needs to prove they have the copyright. As of now they haven't even claimed so, let alone proved it. And you need to find the information who made the video. It's your homework to do, not mine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: dear Fut.Perf. the basis of the fundamental right is innocent until proven guilty. For now we assume good faith ( until you have proofs of copyvio). EvilAlex 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try it out and you're blocked. End of discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you are harsh! You can't maintain civil discussion - shame on you. To be an administrator is to have a duty towards ordinary wikipedian contributors. You don't deserve to be an administrator. EvilAlex 18:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's what I've been trying to prove for quite a long  time... Talk:Transnistria#.22Transnistria_Arms_Trafficking.22_by_Channel_4 Alaexis 14:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links 

message: Dikarka 22:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No agreement. The paragraphs that you want to remove contain valuable data. EvilAlex 22:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How was that "vandalism"? The edit was entirely conventional. Answer on your talk page as you have been blocked for disruption. El_C 04:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: El_C, you are a newcomer of this article, please read archived discussions , . The info Dikarka removed were discussed long time ago, those are true and relevant info, also are informations about recent events (this year). Dikarka attempts to remove them is provocative.--MariusM 09:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, note that Dikarka had moved the details, not deleted them. I incidentally agree with her(?) that the section is currently bloated and should contain a general summary instead of a list of every single known violation of human rights in the region. --Illythr 13:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Look at North Korea's human rights section. I think nobody would argue that the situation with human rights is somewhat worse there than in Transnistria. Alaexis 13:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human rights details 

message: I've removed several references to the Moldovan site. Either we have to write 'according to Moldovan/Romanian/Transnistrian/Russian sources' or we have to find neutral sources. The first variant should be used sparingly, for example if there are no neutral refs. Remember that we've already removed some refs to Tiraspol Times. Alaexis 17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our only concern is the reliabiity of the sources and verifiabilty of the information therein. There's nothing inherently wrong with Moldovan/Romanian/etc. sources, but we do need an uninvolved editor who is fluent in any of the given languages to tell us what's what. El_C 18:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to see Mikkalai editing the article; it may yet have a fighting chance. El_C 20:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: This link was removed last week and stayed removed for a while until Dikarka (AKA Mark Street, in my opinion, the owner of Tiraspol Times website) put it back again, and continues to do so whenever it's removed. Anyway, disregarding my views of Dik., do we really need two 'English language news from Transnistria' in the links section? I think the Tiras one is better and that we should keep that one instead, what do others think? Jonathanpops 21:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will take it off every time. It just make Wikipedia look  bad. Catarcostica 04:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiLink inserted instead `'mikka 05:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Catarcostica, is this meant to be an announcement that you will be trying to push your way through by means of continued edit-warring? I thank you for your frankness. For how long do you want me to block you in advance? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. It exactly means this. And yes, you can block me forever, but can't change the reality. Tiraspol Times is NOT a newspaper. Bye!!Catarcostica 03:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A warning I've already extended to Jonathanpops, incidentally. El_C 11:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't a message board El Cid, we don't need a social commentary. All you have extended to me is some trite remarks that you labelled "Warning" on my talk page. Restoring three deleted paragraphs is not vandalism by the way. Anyway, back on subject, I just want to know what people think of keeping Tiraspol Times off the page. Jonathanpops 16:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I may be a little bit sarcastic at times (I do take that freedom when talking to professional edit-warriors), but I don't think I misunderstood Catarcostica's remarks. He was saying he would be going on revert-warring no matter what happened. Is there any other way to understand that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, nice picture on your page, El C, now is so clear. And you call yourself as beeing impartial? Catarcostica 03:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are taking too much liberty with sarcasm, which is disruptive. As for being partial, which side am I expected to support and why? El_C 04:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Sorry, if you find it disruptive. I consider myself a free man, but sometimes I'm pushing on other's liberty. About the "side". Its too clear!!!Catarcostica 04:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regretfuly, I am not following that purported clarity. But, irrespetively of that, this talk page is not a free-for-all; if you cannot —or will not— conduct yourself professionally, I suggest you expend your energy elsehwere. Thanks. El_C 04:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is not free-for-all? Nice again.Catarcostica 04:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, if you cannot exercize restraint then you are wasting our time here. El_C 05:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Is that supposed to be an explanation of why did you delete wikilink to TT? Alaexis 04:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  No, is not!Catarcostica 04:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the explanation, then? Why do you argue it matters if it's local or not; it primarily focuses on Transnistria, does it not. El_C 04:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Editors? Adress? ISBN? From your POV, I can write myself a word doc or pdf, placed on Internet and call that a newspaper. Nice. You indeed miss some action. Go back to archive, study, turn back and made your arguments. I'm not God to know everything, maybe you know better. But what I know for FACT is Tiraspol Times = a big fake. Did I argue about other Transnistria souces? No. Catarcostica 04:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that I never advocated the inclusion of that link nor did I vouch for its authenticity. I merely asked a question. All that innunedo reflects poorly on you as have your continued assumptions of bad faith and insults. El_C 04:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've blocked Catarcostica, as per his declaration of intent of further editwarring above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've made ~200 edits to this talk page out of your ~300 total edits. Complaints can be directed to the respective subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria. Your objection has been noted, again, but your edit remains unacceptable. As has already been announced, any reverts from now on need to be accompanied by an explanation (and "Please just stop it with the silly edits, Dik" does not count as one). Any editor should expect a similar warning for unexplained reverts. El_C 16:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For newbies on this article, who don't know the debates about "Tiraspol Times", please check archived discussions: Astroturfing, Congratulations for Tiraspol Times columnist William Mauco, Censorship at Tiraspol Times, Controversy about Tiraspol Times, Not journalism, New censorship at Tiraspol Times, the neverending Tiraspol Times saga..., Mauco's work on wikipedia, copied again in Tiraspol Times. But the most relevant info about Tiraspol Times is given by its editor, who registered at Wikipedia as User:MarkStreet  confirmation of identity at request of Jayjg, later also as User:Mark us street . I am maybe a little bit not neutral on this issue, as I had some heated debates with Mark. After a friendly discussion: Marius, I enjoy your observations and you clearly have somethig to offer, his tone changed in You disgust me (accusing me also of accusing him of religious sectarianism, because of this comment, but probabily because of this) and accusations of "pure racism" . One of the concerns of MarkStreet was that because of some editors from Wikipedia Moldovans and Transnistrians are suffering: Your campaign onthese pages is keeping Moldovans and Transnistrians in a economic quagmire. Quite strange this comment of Mark, who previously dismissed EvilAlex's comments about economic hardships of transnistrians: NO HOT WATER In TIRASPOL...THATS A LIE...NEXT YOU WILL CLAIM THERE IS NO BREAD. The ironic tone of Mark about so called economic problems of Transnistria changed after a while and he was talking even about "starvation" that Transnistrians are suffering, main guilt belonging to Romanian Secret Service and Wikipedia: The Transnistria page is pure Romanian/ Moldova Secret Service Propaganda (...) the Romanian Secret Service types just flaunt the rules and plough in their edits (...) The Moldovans treat the Transnistrians like animals and this Transnistrian page on Wiki is an example of the pure bombastic nature of the Moldovan/Romanian people here that refuse to allow the Transnistrians have a say on there own site. (...) The current tactic is to strangle and starve the Transnistrian people into submission. Treat them like animals like the Americans treated the indians in the west in the 1850s. I mention that I asked Mark to be more specific about who are the Romanian Secret Services guys here at Wikipedia but he didn't answered i have my sources in Romania and i have been informed and I can prove a lot more than I am committed to write for other security reasons. Regarding the question why "Tiraspol Times" is using the same software, the same server and the same IP with governmental official sites, Mark explained that everyone in Tiraspol is doing so, EVERYONE IN TRASPOL IS ON THE SAME IP ADDRESS, but after a while he deleted his comments . We should add at the picture confirmed sockpuppetry MarkStreet - Henco, Mark us street-Truli-Esgert. I am convinced that Mark's socks are still editing this article, but they don't need to edit very much as some admins are helping them to remove unpleasant information for Transnistrian authorities and blocking editors who want to restore information. Actual shape of article is like in Mauco/Mark's dreams. Mauco himself, if he had plans of evading the ban, he don't need it, as admins are taking care of this article for him. I hope I will be not blocked after this comment, this will look bad at arbcom case.--MariusM 12:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, those TT links are no logner alive. As I commented below, it actually helps everyone to have cohesive and coherent information summarized and split; I'm still not sure why you are so much against moving anything to the subarticle/s when it clearly improves the readability of this page. El_C 16:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We still have in the article misleading comments like "According to Transnistrian sources, political candidates in favour of unification with Moldova are allowed to stand in elections", with refferences to Tiraspol Times. In the external links section we have http://pridnestrovie.net, a site which advertise (at right column) each single article from Tiraspol Times. As a discussion about TT was opened I felt obliged to explain some facts about this website, I don't want people to accuse me of not explaining in talk page my opinions. As long as I am talking with real people, interested to show in Wikipedia the truth about this region, not with sockpuppets, it's worth discussing. I saw El_C blocking an user for usage of the word "vandalism", as being personal attack. Is good for admins like El_C to see from former debates what personal attack realy mean in this talk page. A personal attack is when somebody is telling you that you disgust him (with variant that you disgust him to his bones), that your edits are causing starvation for transnistrian people, that you are a racist, that you want to justify the killings of hundreds of thousands of people (all those are examples of personal attacks which were targeted on me). "Vandalism" is not a personal attack, is just a polite expression in our little corner of Eastern Europe, and in the case we are talking about was not unjustified (important paragraphs were removed without discussions). Anyhow, I don't like admins discretional usage of powers, especially when they are involved themselves in editing disputes (both ElC and Sunrise started to give opinions about this article). We have noticeboards and punishing users should be done in transparent ways, discussed in noticeboards.--MariusM 20:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The block was for disruption. Please stop misusing this talk page with lognwinded complaints about administrative abuse. If you wish to file a complaint, do so elsewhere. Again, I am not —nor have I ever been— involved in the content dispute here. El_C 21:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need the Tiraspol Times external link? 

message: Alaexis told me that he agree with conflict.md link. However, he removed this link and ten hours later admin Mikkalai removed the sentences as being without refferences . Congratulations, Russian team, that's nice teamwork. I have to confess that I am again breaching the assume good faith rule, I deserve a punishment.--MariusM 13:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Marius, you're not entirely correct. I did agree to add conflict.md to the external refs section. I still have no objections to it. On the other hand I never liked that some facts are supported only by links to this site and (after someone had deleted refs to TiraspolTimes) replaced the refs to conflict.md with  tags. Try to find some neutral sources that support the statements in question. Alaexis 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd appreciate it very much if you all could just stop bickering over past misbehaviour of the other side, and instead focus on what content ought or ought not to be in the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice teamwork, Russian team!

message: TRANSNISTRIAN POWER WIELDING FORCES HOLD OVER TEN OPPONENTS OF BREAKAWAY REGIME (Nadezhda Bondarenko former presidential candidate on behalf of Communist party was between those arrested). Somebody with quotes from Lenin and a Che Guevara photo on his userpage want to hide this. I tremble with indignation seeing the injustice committed against Transnistrian communist comrades and I want the information back in the page.--MariusM 13:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably want them in Human rights in Transnistria article. You cannot put each and every incident into the main page about a country. `'mikka 14:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please focus your comments not on what atrocities where committed when by whom, but on what you want the relation to be between the human rights section in this article and the dedicated human rights main article, in terms of size, structure and scope. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm, once again, very much confused as to which side I'm expected to support. Clearly, however, the side that opposes the Transnistrian government does not in any way benefit from having a longwinded and uneven human rights section. El_C 16:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mikka, this article never contained each and every incident regarding Human Rights. But recent events (from this year) should be included in the article, also should be included unsolved issues (right of Moldovans to use latin script, for example). Also, overviews about Human Right in Transnistria made by reliable organisations - not Moldovan or Russian government, but U.S. Department of State, for example, should be included. Human Right section is not too long, as Human Rights are an important unsolved problem for Transnistria. There are other sections which are not needed - for example all details in the referendum section are unnecesary, as referendum is not anymore a recent event. A link to main article is enough.--MariusM 19:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But why the focus on recent events; should the focus not be on the magnitude of events per se., as per  Wikipedia:Recentism? El_C 19:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several times I was told in this talk page that some of the facts of Transnistrian government, even if true, are not anymore relevant as are old stories. Recent events are showing current situation, and Wikipedia readers maybe are interested in current situation. As we have claims about current political freedom, it's worth having some facts about it as well. If you didn't noticed, one subject of edit wars is rephrasing the sentence from Politics section "Election results are considered suspicious" in "Election results in the past were considered suspicious" . Having recent facts about interdiction of opposition rallies or arrest of pollitical opponents is helping Wikipedia readers to understand current situation of political freedom in this region.--MariusM 20:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disputing the specifics at this time; my point was about promoting recentism. El_C 20:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The essay you reffered (not an official policy or guideline) is anyway ambigous, is not saying that recentism is always a bad thing, there are pros and cons. My opinion is that it makes sense to have in this article recent problems, and I answered also to Mikka who claimed that each single problem about human rights is in this article, which is not true.--MariusM 20:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, fair enough. El_C 21:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent information about political repressions

message: After some thinking about the issue, it comes to my mind that home pages of media are rather non-encyclopedic and their selection is POV (altough AFAIK it was a kind of hard consensus). 
A general common sense rule is that if a website/organization is notable, then there must be an article about it, and it must be used foir linking, rather than its home page. If the website is nonnotable, then why link it at all? In this way the incude/exclude problem is easily eliminated: the notability is judged by a bdoarer and more independent during AfD and relevance must be cearly established in the corresponding article (e.g., by statement that the establishment in question significantly related to Transnistrian issues)
I suggest to remove all non-article links. Official governmental homepages must be moved where they belong, Politics of Transnistria. `'mikka 16:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wikipedia the governmental homepages are almost always included in the external links sections of the respective countries' articles. Imho a link to the website of PMR parliament should also be in the main article. I'm also strongly for keeping links to overviews of PMR by BBC, OSCE, RFE/RL and The Economist IU. Nobody has ever wanted to remove them  Alaexis 17:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't read carefully: I don't suggest to remove links to articles (eg overviews). It is homepages that I am strongly against. If you say that gov't homepages always included, fine with me. `'mikka 19:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Transnistria isn't a country, but it's true also for territories and cities (i.e. homepages of govt. links). El_C 19:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The link for Tiraspol Times is repeatedly removed by political inspried vandals. I have reinserted, Buffadren 08:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and I have delete it. --WMPernambuco 16:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links 

message: I am assisting with sources and fact checking for a Wikipedia list called List of sovereign states. The list currently includes a sentence which is part of the introduction with the following phrasing:
* Five states, neither UN members nor recognized by any states that are sovereign according to some interpretations of article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, South Ossetia and Transnistria.(dubious — see talk page) 
Due to the fact that Transnistria is the only of these states or state-like entities which has been flagged with the "Dubious - See talk page" warning or tag, we would like to ask someone from this page to please enumerate on the size of the permanent population, on its territorial boundaries, as well as on its government or government-like authority, and comment on its competence, within its own constitutional system, to engage in relations with (other) states. Please bring sources for any statement, as sources have been requested by myself and by danielfolsom in Talk:List of sovereign states. Thank you in advance. Britlawyer 00:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this might make an excellent introductory statement in the ongoing Arbcom case on this article. It is succint, to the point and neutral, too. Except that Mauco's is currently serving a two month block, not a permanent one. --Illythr 19:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Illythr, that would be great. Ironically perhaps, I'm sure that someone will object on the grounds that it's not neutral in some way. Jonathanpops 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statehood criteria question regarding Transnistria 

message: Regarding this edit adding "weasel word" and "missing facts" tags to the article (): Dl.goe, there certainly is no ban in effect on making constructive new edits to this article. If you see that anything is wrong or missing, you are certainly free to go and fix it. I'm not personally seeing the weasel words right now, but any good faith attempt at making fresh improvements (rather than sterile reverts to older versions) will certainly be welcome. That's the whole point of having this article not permanently protected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: my opinions didn't change. I would make partly reverts to old versions (the changes I've written to you about).Dl.goe 12:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see you complaining about "weasel words" in what you wrote on my talkpage. Where are the weasel words? As for your other proposals, I'm by no means a content arbitrator here, so don't look to me to "allow" or "disallow" your edits - I'm just saying that if you know that a specific change has been strongly contested in the past, you'd better be careful about reintroducing it without establishing some degree of consensus beforehand. You said, among other things, that you didn't like the second paragraph of the lead, and wanted to replace it with another, right? Well, if you want to hear my opinion, I don't like either version. Both are promoting an opinion (yours more obviously so than the present one), and both are instances of Lead fixation. Lead sections should be as short as possible. Just my 2c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dl.goe's tags 

message: How come that a "newbie" (User:WMPernambuco) can edit semi-protected article? Alaexis 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He created the accounts a couple days back and waited until they were "aged" enough. Let's see how many others there are. Yawn. Please report any further instances directly at WP:AIV if no other admin is around. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected?