| Revision as of 17:56, 27 November 2006 editCanadian-Bacon (talk | contribs)7,255 edits Sorry← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:24, 28 November 2006 edit undoMariusM (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,058 edits →TransnistriaNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| ==Transnistria== | ==Transnistria== | ||
| I've taken a look through the entire Transnistria debate, and though I've had no prior involvement with it, I can tell that there are some serious issues with the article. That being said, I don't want to get involved in the edit war that seems ready to break out. From the looks of it, the page is going to get locked down soon again, and it's unfortunate that there has to be such a lack of concensus over the issue. I hope it somehow comes to resolution, since it's a shame when this has to go on. My only advice is instead of reverting MariusM's reverts right away, try to talk them out with him, since you may be able to reach a concensus with him. Sorry I can't really provide more help. ] <sup> ] ]</sup> 17:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | I've taken a look through the entire Transnistria debate, and though I've had no prior involvement with it, I can tell that there are some serious issues with the article. That being said, I don't want to get involved in the edit war that seems ready to break out. From the looks of it, the page is going to get locked down soon again, and it's unfortunate that there has to be such a lack of concensus over the issue. I hope it somehow comes to resolution, since it's a shame when this has to go on. My only advice is instead of reverting MariusM's reverts right away, try to talk them out with him, since you may be able to reach a concensus with him. Sorry I can't really provide more help. ] <sup> ] ]</sup> 17:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Take care at 3RR.--] 10:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:24, 28 November 2006
Hi Mark,
I noticed that Tiraspol Times published the letter of Vasily Yakovlev . I compared with the variant which was published in an other site Puls.md variant of Yakovlev letter. I see some differences between the two variuants of the letter: in puls.md variant of the letter there are 7 parts, while in Tiraspol Times there are only 4 parts. In puls.md Yakovlev is reffering to UNACKNOWLEDGED Transnistrian Moldavian Republic, while in Tiraspol Times variant the word unaknowledged dissappeared. In puls.md Yakovlev is criticising the referendum: "The declared purpose of referendum - accession to Russia - is neither politically nor is legally founded". You can not find this sentence in Tiraspol Times. I wonder which is the correct variant of Yakovlev letter?--MariusM 09:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Marius, its the editor's job to edit in an accurate manner given space and time limitations. Mark us street Nov 13th 2006
transnistria protection
- I'll let it go for a bit longer. It looks like it may well need protection within 12/24 hours but I'm gonna hold out a little more hope. --Robdurbar 15:48, 27 November
2006 (UTC)
- There are clearly some dissidents otherwise there would be no revert war. Anyway, I don't patilcuarly want to get involved in the content. I've had a quick glance and from my knowledge of the situation - and I have been reading a lot on Moldova/Transnistria recently - the intro describes it as it is, as well as cutting between two competing versions. If my changes get removed, I'm not really that bothered. I'll continue to watch the page will protect if edit warring kicks into gear fully, but I'm already busy enough trying to keep Western Sahara sane; I'd really rather avoid getting involved with another similar case. --Robdurbar 16:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree the intro is fine, keep an eye out Mark us street Nov 27
Transnistria
I've taken a look through the entire Transnistria debate, and though I've had no prior involvement with it, I can tell that there are some serious issues with the article. That being said, I don't want to get involved in the edit war that seems ready to break out. From the looks of it, the page is going to get locked down soon again, and it's unfortunate that there has to be such a lack of concensus over the issue. I hope it somehow comes to resolution, since it's a shame when this has to go on. My only advice is instead of reverting MariusM's reverts right away, try to talk them out with him, since you may be able to reach a concensus with him. Sorry I can't really provide more help. Canadian-Bacon 17:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Take care at 3RR.--MariusM 10:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)