User talk:Catarcostica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I like you man! keep working, and stop the russian POV--Criterium 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] UN Report

Yup, that's what I did BEFORE reverting. Here's the relevant quote I found:

Evidence for the illicit production and trafficking of weapons into and from Transdniestria has in the past been exaggerated. While trafficking of SALW from the territory controlled by the Transdniestrian authorities is likely to have occurred prior to 2001, there is no reliable evidence that this still occurs. The same holds true for the production of SALW, which is likely to have been carried out in the 1990s primarily to equip the Transdniestrian security forces.

This is already present (and ref-d) in the article. Where's the 900.000$ figure etc? --Illythr 20:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you provide a direct link, then? It'd be so much easier.
Ok, this is written there as well:
However, it is also possible that these exports included old SALW from former Soviet stocks, withdrawal of Russian ammunition or the export of non-SALW weaponry or their parts, rather than newly produced goods.
This should be mantioned as well, then, for neutrality's sake.
Anyhow, this is probably worth mentioning, but I think you should learn from "Criterium"'s experience and propose it on the talk first.


:PS: Come on, illicit weapons trafficking being mentioned in official Transnistrian export reports? Naah.
:PPS: The reference you are providing is already present a few lines above. --Illythr 21:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

1. You have a separate article for statements about Tiraspol Times, if you can back them with reliable sources.
2. Deliberately picking certain facts while ignoring others (moderating them) provided within the same report (on the same page) is not neutral. --Illythr 22:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transparency

This may be of use:

While the Transdniestrian authorities have a history of low transparency on SALW issues, attitudes may be changing, as evidenced by good levels of co-operation in some areas during the research for this report. High levels of secrecy on arms and security issues in the past have however had negative repercussions. (p. viii)

This is also somewhat countered by 10.3 (although that's among security forces)

In general, it seems that the report is quite neutral. If you manage to come up with an equally neutral short summary of it, it'd be great. Make sure to propose it before introducing, though, as it's potentially a controversial issue. --Illythr 23:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh and...

You may be interested in helping user:MariusM with a pet project of his (accessible from his userpage). I'm sure you'll like it. --Illythr 00:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

[1]. What's wrong with that? --Illythr 01:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vot

Vot contra lui Mauco pt sockuri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_for_sockpupeteer_William_Mauco —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.107.212.10 (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Blocked

Stop

As per [2], [3], in connection with [4] and [5], I am blocking you for a month as a single-purpose account and self-declared persistent edit-warrior. You can ask for an unblock if you give an explanation on how you plan to work constructively with your opponents in the future. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC) sandstein work hand-in-hand with Khoikhoi...Khoi asked Sandstein to block you. In their opinion anyone who's against them must be blocked. No wonder that all Romanians are blocked while all socks of Mauco are free...Don't worry things will change in the future. NATO and EU will fuck russians there :))))