Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Khoikhoi (talk | contribs) at 04:25, 21 September 2006 (→2006 Referendum in Transnistria: hmm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Transnistria stub

Hi William,

I think the stub guys are correct, it's too political to have a Transnistria stub template. Anyways, the person I was reverting is a proven sock of the permabanned User:Bonaparte, a noted Greater Romania-ist who has been attacking pages recently with his socks. —Khoikhoi 06:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

We can not avoid that "political" just comes with the territory (no pun intended) until the disputed status of Transnistria is resolved. We just deal with it, rather than making it the criteria for what to include or not to include in the encyclopedia. I say this because if we apply political as a criteria, then we (all editors) are making value judgments and soon we'll enter a minefield where all rules go out the window in favor of someone's individual, subjective opinion. Rather, we should develop a consistent set of rules and apply them accross the board. If Transnistria is not valid as a stub-subcategory for X- or Y- reason, then neither should it be on a number of other other lists (currencies, flags, coat of arms, political etc). Likewise, if Transnistria is not valid, we must be consistent and remove all other cases of granting stub-subcats to areas or regions within a larger state (such as the regional subcats under Spain). The issue is not Transnistria per se but the precedent of building a framework that will last for developing the encyclopedia and in doing so, consistently is key. - Mauco 12:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well, I think you should discuss this more will Grutness when you have the chance. I like the idea of Transnistria stubs (Bonaparte obviously doesn't :p) but we don't have TRNC or Abkhazia stubs for example. —Khoikhoi 00:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I obviously believe that Abkhazia should be a separate stub sub-category. As long as it is not internationally recognized, the correct thing to do with be to have it be a sub-category under Georgia. Geographically, that is true. Politically, sort of true. Georgians wouldn't mind ("see, told you so!") and all but the most radical Abkhazians would be OK with that too. If the flag is a problem, due to its perceived POV, do the Western Sahara thing where stubs have no flag. - Mauco 00:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As for Northern Cyprus, that is easily solved too if the number of stubs merit a separate sub-cat. Have the main Cyprus (as now) and then sub-cats (not separate cats in their own right, but subcategories) for North and South. In a bio of a politician, for instance, it is appropriate to use the separate TRNC subcat because putting just "Cyprus" on a North politician is highly misleading -- especially in cases of pro-independence pols who are often markedly against Cyprus (the southern part, that is). As editors of an encyclopedia it is our job to provide clear information, not muddy the waters. The key is to use sub-categories because that way we can't be accused of granting "sovereign" status to a country. Rather, we are listing it as a sub region of something else. - Mauco 00:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. But if you see Talk:Abkhazia for example we have people going "Abkhazia is not a country!" etc. and on the TRNC page we have a user who tried to put quotation marks around the title. I'm just not sure that they would be entirely accepted by everyone. —Khoikhoi 05:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Abkhazia is obviously more heated than Transnistria, due to the number of deaths and IDP's in that conflict. But those are not criteria which I think we can use (how "hot" or "cold" a place is), because if we start down that road then we are applying value judgments which will ultimately boomerang back on us later. I actually think that we agree in principle, my point being that we use a subcategory under Moldova until such time that Transnistria is widely recognized internationally as not a part of Moldova. Reasons: 1. to call Transnistria a country would invite unneeded edit wars, 2. to delete Transnistria altogether and replace it with Moldova-flag and -stub would be incorrect, as it wouldn't match the facts on the ground (and it WOULD create edit wars), whereas 3. To classify Transnistria as a geographical region under Moldova, and have the category be a subcategory under Moldova, is the current status quo both in Misplaced Pages and in Transnistria itself. - Mauco 13:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I c u r interested in Transnistria, maybe u would be interested in posting your vote here ]. I am interested in related subject so I wonder do u use any messengers? Regards Luka Jačov 07:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What about messenger, u didnt anwser me that. regards Luka Jačov 17:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not a messenger user yet. I really only use email (and snail mail, and the telephone, of course) for communications. I guess that would make me a late starter... - Mauco 17:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

---

My, that's some productivity! Over a hundred stubs! While I do have the inclination, I'm currently sitting my state exams over here, so it's I'm unlikely to contribute in any consistent manner. I'll still try, though.

BTW, I'm quite surprised with your attitude towards Transnistria. Judging by the reports of the Western (and our own) media, the place is a kind of Mordor in Europe, complete with its own Dark Lord and evil orcs plaguing it (about 1500 of them, to be exact ;) ). I have lots of co-eds living there and they report that while it sure is no Shire (Middle-earth) (although quite akin to it in some places), and has lots of internal problems (corruption) and the local Dark Lord is certainly no angel, it's still a decent place to live in. Well, compared to Moldova and Ukraine, that is...--Illythr 01:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

But ... it's getting better, or? Last year, Shevchuk's party ("Renewal") tried to curb the powers of the president, in an attempt to make it a parliamentary republic along the lines of similar changes in Ukraine. They didn't have the votes at the time, but they do now if they want to try again. Last month parliament approved and funded the post of Ombudsman. And: Marakutsa from parliament just this week complained about corruption or pilfering with the state media (especially the state TV channel) and someone else (I think it was Burla, from Renewal) has pinpointed corruption in road works and they are trying to stop that by decentralizing the spending and farming the responsibilities out to the local communities. Meanwhile, the constitutional court has been vigorous with a number of rulings against parliament and the president. All in all, these stirrings are hardly the signs of a Mordor. - Mauco 02:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd make an uneducated guess, that as long as BOTH our governments and leaders will remain in power, there's going to be no positive progress whatsoever. None of them care about the actual people, only about the "economics" - that is, who gets to slice the pie. --Illythr 19:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Who are you calling "our" governments and leaders? Mine is called Tony Blair. Anyway, I know who you mean, and I agree with your analysis. To come to an understanding you first have to be able to somehow see the validity of the other side's arguments (even if you don't agree with it, with it something different. But at least you have to "be on the same page" and understand where the other side is coming from). And neither Voronin nor Smirnov can do that. They both have too much baggage from the past and, like you say, too many vested interests. - Mauco 13:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit unclear there. "Our" means Moldovan and *Transnistrian*, of course, as I'm from Moldova myself. Me be a bit egocentric is seems... :-) --Illythr 15:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hey William, can you reply to Greier here? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 16:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Advocates of Greater Romania like to rewrite history to make Transnistria appear as an old Romanian land, but even with the rise of Romanian nationalism in the nineteenth century, the far reaches of Transylvania were considered the western boundary of the Romanian lands while the Dniester formed the eastern. The national poet Mihai Eminescu, in his famous poem Doina, spoke of a Romania stretching only "from the Dniester to the Tisza" and not farther east. In World War II, when Romania, aided by Nazi Germany, for the first time in history took control of Transnistria there was never any attempt to annex the occupied territory beyond the Dniester for it was generally considered merely a temporary buffer zone between Greater Romania and the Soviet front line. Transnistria had never been considered part of Bessarabia. Two preeminent political figures of the day, Iuliu Maniu and Constantin Bratianu declared that "the Romanian people will never consent to the continuation of the struggle beyond our national borders." - Mauco 17:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

yeah, really convenient... excuse your lack of knowledge in the matter, by calling me an "advocate of Greater Romania"... ahh... one more question??? Wtf does the Doina has to do with this??? God, if that`s your idea of being acquainted with the Trandniester problem, than I sugget you should find a new hobby.... People like you only make it worse, for everybody living there... You are an ingnorant. greier

I am sorry that you think I am an "ingnorant", Greier, but please don't use WFT and other swear words on my talk page. If you read my main user page you will see that I have a policy of not insulting vandals. That extends to non-vandals, too, of course. As for the Doina, this is an important part of Romanian history and defines the largest extent to which the national psyche considers the traditional Romanian lands - inhabited by the Romanian people - to ever have extended. - Mauco 19:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Also check out the attempts to remove Slavic names from Romania-related articles. *Sigh*. —Khoikhoi 18:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck? you are all ignorants and I suggest you politely to read more, ok? --Vlachul 19:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser#Greier. ;) —Khoikhoi 22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria

What do you think about making a portal devoted to Transnistria as a frontend to all Transnistria-related topics? Almost all countries have their portals, and it would be a great place for announcement of new articles and images. You can look at Portal:Ukraine and Portal:Moldova for inspiration. --Zserghei 11:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, count me in. How is this done? Do we just have a go at it - or do we have to ask someone first, or submit it to a vote? It is important that we avoid bias. So we must display the disputed status of Transnistria somewhere prominent, and POV from both sides is kept in check. - Mauco 12:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A proposal should be made at the page Misplaced Pages:Portal/Proposals. Some instruction may be found here. Portal about Transnistria will attract interested readers and potential authors. If you decide to apply, know, that you already have one voice in support. --Zserghei 13:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

While I also support the idea (for what that's worth), I'd like to issue a word of caution - the portal WILL become a major battlefield on the topic. Of course, since there is a Portal:Galicia and Portal:Wales there's nothing wrong with Portal:Transnistria, but flames gonna roar for sure. Me be pessimistic, that's right. --Illythr 19:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It may, or it may not. But there are good reasons (this and others) to at least not do anything overly rash. Fools rush in. I like Zserghei's idea, but a portal needs regular maintenance. Personally, I am very eager to help Misplaced Pages and I also enjoy working on Transnistria related topics, but to commit to becoming a maintainer is something that I would have to think about. I have no vested interest in the topic and so far I have really liked the freedom to be able to help out (and hopefully make the subject articles better in the process) but also be able to just walk away when I feel like it. Sorry for those personal ramblings. I am taking advantage of being on my talk-page and getting all my mileage out of that fact. ;-) - Mauco 21:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As for becoming a magnet for edit-wars, I don't know .. We will have to see and just deal with it when/if the portal goes up. This was the worry that was voiced a little over a month ago during the vote on the continued existence of the Transnistria stub. I have since had well over a hundred of these stubs on my watchlist, and to date that has not been a single edit war or instance of 3R reverts in any of them. There have been a few very normal edits, the introduction of Romanian names, that sort of thing. But nothing out of the ordinary and nothing vicious. The little "POV-flag" or the fact that Transnistria has its own stub did NOT make anyone upset, not in the least. Note that the stub was made a sub-cat under Moldova and that it does not stand as an independent country. - Mauco 21:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that portal will be an exceptional attraction for revert wars, because it is just an introduction to the topic. It won't introduce something new, but will present the most interesting information about Transnistria in a nice format, announce new articles and suggest topics for collaboration. --Zserghei 10:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it has been a couple of months now and there hasn't been a notable flame war on the main Transnistria article in the meantime, and even less in other Transnistria-related articles, so I think that it can be done without becoming a battlefield, or at least that we can keep the flames under control. It is worth a try. I would like to not do it alone, though, but to have other editors involved and get different viewpoints from as many sides as possible. - Mauco 15:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr Mauco I am the author of two articles in The Economist this week about ICDISS and TD. I see that we share an interest both in the region and in ICDISS. I infer from previous postings that you are in the UK. Could you call me on +44 7770 380 791 or email me on edwardlucas(at)economist.com

I am writing a followup story and would be most interested in hearing about the ICDISS conference in Mexico that you refer to in the entry for this organisation. Thanks and regards Edward Lucas PS you can see both articles on edwardlucas.blogspot.com

Sure, I'll be glad to help. Hey, TD sounds like something you'd go to the doctor to cure. What's wrong with just saying Transnistria, or, if you don't like to type, PMR? We had a long and evolved discussion about these naming issues here in Wiki earlier this year, you may want to check it out. - Mauco 23:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The Economist's house style is Transdniestria, so I use TD for short. It seems fairly neutral. PMR implies recognition. Transnistria is very Moldovan/Romania because they don't put the D in Dniester!

Please e-mail me your contact details and I will look forward to finding out more about your own perspective on the issue 88.108.113.17 09:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Breakthrough and Icdiss

Hi Mauco,

I’ve put the link to Breakthrough (Transnistria) in the ICDISS article because I think there is a relation between them, as two groups that started as NGO’s that support the international recognition of the separation of Transnistria from Moldova. That’s it.--MaGioZal 23:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi MaGioZal, thanks for the superquick reply. I've answered over on your own page. - Mauco 23:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria (again) and Moldovan schools in Transnistria

Hi Mauco, In Transnistria talk page please tell what you don't like at the paragraph I want to add. Also, please look at the changes I made at Moldovan schools in Transnistria.--MariusM 20:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Marius! I've answered over on your own page, just in case you are looking here for the reply. See you! - Mauco 02:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie

Hi, Mauco, As you created the page Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie please see its talk page to answer my comments.--MariusM 22:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is actually just a stub, not a full article yet, so hopefully you and others can add to it. As for the quote which you doubted, it checks out. I posted a link to a report on state.gov, the US State Dept. - Mauco 02:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to summarize and to end dispute for this article (see talk page).--MariusM 21:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mauco. I finished the answers at all your references for the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie article.--MariusM 15:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Transnistria

Careful of the 3RR - Greier already broke it. —Khoikhoi 17:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the 3RR warning. As the logs show, however, I am not reverting anything that Greier says. I am merely trying to move it (without changing a word) into the appropriate section so we have a cleaner, easier-to-read talk page for the benefit of all editors. - Mauco 17:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. :) Just don't do it anymore for the time being. —Khoikhoi 17:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Anyway, I am proud of my editing record and there is no point in debating Greier, who already has his mind made up. I remember his unreasonable behavior in Talk:History of Transnistria and Talk:Disputed status of Transnistria, which still stands for everyone to see, so I won't make the mistake again of baiting a troll. - Mauco 17:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Good call. —Khoikhoi 18:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why protection usually forces people to discuss (which is why I requested it). —Khoikhoi 18:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 Referendum in Transnistria

Truly excellent work. This is a model for other aspiring Wikipedians. WTP 17:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but it is just a start. Let us see how it turns out in the end. It is a controversial subject, so it will obviously attract some POV-pushers. Let us hope that it doesn't get too mutiliated by the time they are done adding their pet causes to it. - Mauco 15:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi William, I see that the article has gone throught many edits since then—is the problem solved yet? —Khoikhoi 05:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You broke the 3RR in Transnistrian referendum, 2006 article.--MariusM 21:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In what way, and when? If I did, sorry. This is why it is always best to NOT edit a disputed page without first coming to consensus on the Talk page. Which is what I have requested of user:MariusM many times before, and will continue to request, please. - Mauco 21:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, you might try requests for mediation. Have you outlined all your points on the talk page? —Khoikhoi 04:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)