Wikipedia

Talk:Mass media in Transnistria/Archive 1

< Talk:Mass media in Transnistria
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (January 2018)
Archive 1

Press freedom?

Latest comment: 17 years ago35 comments4 people in discussion

The stereotype is that there is no press freedom in Transnistria. A seminar in Moldova, organized by the British Embassy in Chisinau, recently examined this. From part of the conclusion:
" For example, the stereotype, according to which on the left shore - continuous and black propaganda, and any "voices of freedom" here are suppressed. It turned out that relatively free from THE MGB and Igor Smirnov the voices exist. With the presence of certain courage, professionalism and adherence to principles it is possible to be obtained that not to transmit blindly the messages of authority. " Source:[1] - Mauco 02:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Your source is in Russian, I don't speak Russian and can't check. If this seminar was organised bt British Embassy, why you can not find an English language source for it? And who is the person from which you quote? You mention British Embassy but I doubt the statement is made by an British Embassy employee, probabily is just an employee of Transnistrian MGB which was invited at the seminar.--MariusM 11:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Do not remove sourced information about an important and recent seminar at the British Embassy which was attended by all the leading journalists from both Chisinau and Tiraspol. THAT, my friend, shows your POV. - Mauco 13:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
If this seminar organised by British Embassy was so important, why you are not able to find an English-language source about it? I asked above who was the person who told the words you want to quote and you didn't answer. You want to create fake impression that British Embassy endorses the view that there are no problems with press freedom in Transnistria.--MariusM 16:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It is very simple: English language press rarely covers Transnistria. Moldovan (in Romanian) and local press (in Russian) are the two main sources for Transnistria info. I do not speculate on why the Moldovan press decided not to write about this seminar. That is their problem. I have given a source for the info, and if you do not like it, you have to explain why it is is not a reliable source. See WP:RS. Otherwise, it stays. I will defend all my edits and I will give sources. But I will not guess on why the press in Chisinau, or London, or some other place, decided not to write about the seminar. That is their problem, not mine. - Mauco 00:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question: who is the person who told that press is free in Transnistria? Please provide translation.--MariusM 01:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the link to the source in the article. It was there until you arbitrarily removed it without prior discussion. Please look at an older version of the page, click on the link, and read the source. If you can not read it, then please find someone to help you who can translate for you. I do not want to sound crass, but I can not do your research for you. That is your job, and not mine. I merely provide the sources for my edits. - Mauco 01:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
If you don't provide translation I will revert any mention about this so-called seminar, as I don't trust you. Mentioning of British Embassy is incorect, as British Embassy didn't support your views (at most, they provided a room for a disscussion in which anybody was free to tell whatever he want, including employees from Transnistrian MGB).--MariusM 02:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
You are not allowed to make threats, and you have to be civil. See WP:TPG. Non-English sources are allowed when no English sources are available. Please read Wikipedia guidelines on the matter. If you are unable to double check the research, that is, frankly, not my problem. I am sure that others here in Wikipedia can do that. You and I are not the only ones who edit. My work can stand up to exhaustive peer review. There is no reference to any employees of PMR MGB having been invited to the British Embassy, or present at the British Embassy, so please do not introduce straw man arguments to deny the presence of a reliable source. - Mauco 02:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
If you don't want to explain in talk exactly who was the person who made this statement and preferr edit wars, that IS your problem.--MariusM 12:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
That is not an official position of British Embassy. The only words from John Beyer / British ambassador was: "European integration of Moldova cannot negatively affect Moldova-Russian relations" / «официальная позиция Евросоюза заключается в следующем: европейская интеграция Молдовы не может противоречить дружеским молдавско-российским отношениям». All others comments have been made by unknown journalists, third party rubbish. Unknown and insignificant. We should include in the article: Official government position, Well known and respected NGOs, and Individuals with good reputation. All others are insignificant. It was a seminar any one could attend it. If some one from the crowd will shout "there is a freedom in Transnistria", are you going to quote him too? EvilAlex 22:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That is hardly the case. The report was a summary of the conclusion of the seminar. Let us get a couple of facts straight: To go to an embassy event, you need an invitation. Not just anyone can attend. The report explained who was there, so please don't mispresent the facts. Inviated media professionals from both sides, along with diplomats. Furthermore, the report was a summary of the conclusions of the seminar. It did not write what someone in the crowd shouted, but what the seminar found. There is a purpose to these things, or else they are not held. In this case, the purpose was to determine the extent of media freedom in Transnistria. If you want to translate the report, at least give us all a fair assessment. Else don't bother. - Mauco 00:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Re"The report was a summary of the conclusion of the seminar." - rubbish. could you point where it says that. No it is not a conclusion and it is not a report. It is just a newspaper article regarding on what was happened on the seminar: some one shouted this some one else shouted this and so on...
Re"To go to an embassy event, you need an invitation." - And where exactly says that the seminar was organized in British Embassy. The only mention of British Embassy is:"On the seminar organized by Association of external policy of Moldova in conjunction with British Embassy" / " На семинар, организованный Ассоциацией внешней политики Молдовы (исполнительный директор – политолог Андрей Попов) совместно с Британским посольством в Республике Молдова". We don't even know to what extent the British Embassy participated in the seminar?????
As i said before: We should include in the article: Official government position, Well known and respected NGOs, and Individuals with good reputation. All others are insignificant - some one shouted something, Great!!! EvilAlex 12:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, no one shouted anything. If you read the article, honestly and objectively, it is clear what it is. Selective quotations and a personal, biased interpretation is not helpful for those - like MariusM - who do not understand Russian. He should have asked for a translator who is not a selfprofessed editwarrior like EvilAlex, so we could all just skip the polemics and actually get some work done. The statements in the article on the British Embassy seminar are attributed. - Mauco 13:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I asked you to confirm your arguments with citations from a source and i see you doing just opposite.
Re: "selfprofessed editwarrior like EvilAlex" Scusemua And that is the words of the often blocked user?!?!?!?!?!?!? 16:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been blocked exactly the same number of times as MariusM. On the exact same dates, for the exact same duration, and for the exact same reasons. We tangle too much with each others and, understandably, the admins don't like that. - Mauco 16:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Now you will carry the burden of the often blocked user throughout your Wikipedian life. EvilAlex 16:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC) EvilAlex 16:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You mean like MariusM? Same thing, same amount of blocks, same dates, same duration, and for the exact same reasons. - Mauco 16:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Dont hide yourself behind the others. you have been found guilty. EvilAlex 16:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To summarize: An unknown person make a statement at a seminar which was organised with the help of, among others, British Embassy. Statements of unknown persons are not meeting Wikipedia rules for inclusion. We have official statements of OSCE and US Department of State, those are reliable sources about press freedom in Transnistria.--MariusM 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No. The seminar was organized at the behest of the British Embassy, and the report is a summary of the conclusions (or results, if you will) of the seminar. The persons are not unknown. They are A) listed in the report, with name and title, and B) wellknown to Transnistria-watchers. It was basically a get-together of the top media people and political analysts from both capitals. - Mauco 05:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
What are you reffering is an article in a Russian-language newspaper, not the conclusions of the seminar. The article is telling about a sentence of an unidentified person. Don't mislead the readers.--MariusM 11:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Have you even read the article? If not, what makes you the authority? I have read it, and I also know two people (both from Chisinau) who were present at the seminar. - Mauco 13:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I read the article and my opinion is that is not worth mentioning - we need reliable names, we need reliable sources and not your words "I also know two people", all the same with you: believe me i am the almighty Mauco. EvilAlex 23:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Not a mature comment. Anyone else has anything to say? - Mauco 03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact that an unknown person told at this seminar that he believe there is press freedom in Transnistria is not meeting Wikipedia standards for mentioning. Using the name of the British Embassy for such statement is unacceptable, as British Embassy didn't support the statement. I asked Mauco several days ago to tell the name of the person who made those comments and he was not able.--MariusM 12:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
MariusM, again, I have to assure you: the article is quite clear. You can not read it, because you can not read Russian. So you asked EvilAlex to give you his conclusions? Please. Come on, what did you expect. If you truly wanted to find out if I am right or wrong (in other words, if my proposed edit is supported by the source), then you would ask somewhat a bit more objective. TSDO1 speaks Russian. He is not "on my side" if that is what you fear, and he will probably look at it favorably. Others who also speak Russian and who can be more than objective: Jamason and Illythr. There are many more. With all due respect, please show that you are committed to collaborative editing and to working on consensus in a spirit of good faith. Thank you. - Mauco 17:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I asked YOU to provide translation and you refused. I ask you again: who is the person who made those statements?--MariusM 18:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I asked Mauco too to support his statements with citation from the source and he is doing just the opposite!?!? EvilAlex 18:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It is unfortunately becoming increasingly hard to assume good faith when MariusM is unwilling to ask an objective Russian speaker for an objective and fair translation/interpretation of the article, and when EvilAlex is summarizing the article misleadingly. To show good faith, EvilAlex must give a fair assessment of the article, and MariusM must approach a fair and balanced Russian speaker with the request for a clean, objective analysis of the contents of the source. Not more, not less. - Mauco 13:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks is all what you can, as your attempt of misleading Wikipedia readers was dicovered by native Russian speaker EvilAlex.--MariusM 19:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Really, though, why not ask TSO1D? He's fairly impartial (as opposed to EvilAlex) and I'm sure William will agree with his assesment of that article. --Illythr 20:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I consider EvilAlex a reliable source for Russian translations. He is a fair and balanced native Russian speaker. His Russian and his knowledge about Transnistria is better than TSO1D's. Both Illythr and Mauco are breaking wikipedia rule "assume good faith" in accusing EvilAlex. Illythr, you are also a native Russian-speaker, why don't YOU provide translation for Mauco's source? If you accuse EvilAlex as making an incorrect translation, you should show exactly what is incorrect in what he wrote about Mauco's source. Neither you or Mauco are willing to provide translation, you only accuse the translator of being unfair. Is becoming increasingly hard to assume good faith for you and Mauco.--MariusM 10:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
How can you consider someone (anyone) "a reliable source" for Russian translations if you do not yourself speak or read Russian? His statements on this page tells you more about him than I can, which I why I ask that if you truly come here to edit an article in good faith, then you will want to ask someone else for an impartial analysis of the source which I have provided.
The text which I would like to include is the following: "A seminar organized by the British Embassy in September 2006 concluded that a relatively free press exists which is independent from authority."
The source is here: http://www.vremea.net/news/2006-09-27/16:30:41.html
The questions to consider are: 1) Does the source support the sentence in its current formulation, or 2) should the sentence be phrased differently to reflect the findings of the seminar, or 3) am I making all of this up, and the sentence therefore has to be deleted as MariusM thinks (and which he in fact did. Since the sentence is currently not part of the article). - Mauco 22:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: "A seminar organized by the British Embassy in September 2006 concluded that a relatively free press exists which is independent from authority." - your references does not support this statement. I have no ideas where did you find that line in the article. Mauco you talking rubbish. EvilAlex 15:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
EvilAlex is a reliable source for Russian translation as his native language is Russian, as shown in his userpage. Mauco's formulation is misleading, as British Embassy don't support the statement that there is press freedom in Transnistria. According Russian newspaper Vremea it was an unknown person who told at this not-so-important seminar (I tell not important because no other sources make refference at this seminar) that relatively free press exist, however opinion of unknown person are not notable. I asked several times the name of the person who made this statement and I didn't received answer.--MariusM 10:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

14 or 2 main newspapers?

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion

U.S. Department of State claims in its report that there are 2 main newspapers in Transnistria and several others weekly or monthly publications or publications with small impact. Original research of Mauco is telling that there are 14 main newspapers. Sorry, I trust US Department of State, not Mauco. Probabily weekly or monthly magazines, as well as regional newspaper with small number of printed copies were promoted by Mauco as main newspapers, but we can not keep original research in this article.--MariusM 11:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you trust the BBC country report? It doesn't say 14 but it certainly doesn't say 2 either. Besides, like everywhere else, life moves on. In a year, the place went from just 2 main political parties to now nearly ten. Some of them have their own newspaper (a good example if the Yuri Sokov published Respublika party newspaper). How is that so hard to understand? - Mauco 13:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Where is the BBC country report? Yes, I will trust it, if you provide a link and I will be able to read it myself.--MariusM 13:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It is only in the links section of the Transnistria article. Everyone voted to keep it, so it should still be there. Unless you removed it. I see that you have been removing links, and unilaterally changing links headlines without consensus, despite the fact that this was voted upon. - Mauco 13:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
BBC report talk about 3 main newspapers, I agree with the number 3. Also, BBC is mentioning: "The authorities exercise tight control over the media. Media rights groups report that self-censorship is widespread. Printing facilities are state-run. The territory's first private radio station opened in 2003". We should include this also in the article, is more relevant than what a litlle known Russian language newspaper is telling about a statement of an unknown person made at the British Embassy seminar about which nobody else heard.--MariusM 13:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but this particular part of the BBC country guide has not been updated in the past 3 years. If you want some fresh, up-to-date information, I will be glad to provide it for you. Just one example: The largest printing facility in Transnistria is NOT staterun. It is privately owned. I would also like to know what the "tight control over the media" is about. Please explain. It may have been the case in the past, but I hope that you are aware of the changes in 2005, the liberalization and the current press freedom. - Mauco 05:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The sentence which MariusM prefers says: "Transnistria has 2 main newspapers, one controlled by separatist authorities and the other by Tiraspol city soviet. There is also one independent weekly in Bender and another in northern city of Rybnitsa. "
Unfortunately, this sentence is wrong. If Transnistria includes Bender and Rybnitsa, then on that count alone, there are 4 newspapers. But if we read through the rest of the article, names of several other newspapers are listed, and the number exceeds 4 by a huge margin. I attempted to correct this, but immediately got reverted by MariusM. If he will explain his position here in talk, that would be good. Otherwise, I will kindly ask him to abstain from reverting me when I correct self-evident fallacies. - Mauco 02:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't noticed the word "main"? Not all newspapers are main newspapers, some have limited circulation. You know very well that media freedom don't exist - there is not allowed to publish Latin script newspapers, also you know that arrest of antiseparatist transnistrians is not even discussed in Transnistrian printed media (Dignitas case) - it was allowed to be mentioned only in the website Tiraspol Times targeted for foreigners. In their effort to simulate democracy probabily will be invented a "pro-Moldovan" oposition lead by ethnic Russians former separatist activists, and which will use only Russian language. A person like me, born and lived in Eastern Europe, those are old tricks.--MariusM 10:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The number 2 main newspaper is taken from U.S. Department of Human Rights report for 2005 [2]. A report of BBC is talking about 3 main newspaper, I am O.K. if you want to put the number 3. A main newspaper should be regularly available for sale in entire Transnistria.--MariusM 10:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The artifical distinction between "main" newspapers and "non-main" newspapers smacks of WP:OR. Just lists the newspapers and get it done with. If some are bigger than others, that is a fact of life in every country in the world. Transnistria is not unique, and nor should the Media in Transnistria article make any artifically constructed distinction which is not present in any other Wikipedia "Media in... " articles. Mauco 02:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
As long as I quoted the U.S. Department of State, this is not original research. There is a relevant distinction between a newspaper which is available only in one town and an other which is easely available in entire Transnistria.--MariusM 09:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
the very old and outdated U.S. Department of State source does not get into the same level of detail that you purport. Even if it did, their criteria is not ours. We edit Wikipedia to present the full picture. If you are in doubt, just ask the State Department. One of their Public Diplomacy officers arrives in Tiraspol on the 13th of this month and will discuss the media situation with local Transnistrian media at the OSCE Mission in Tiraspol. Mauco 17:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Very old? I think is the latest US Department of State report regarding Moldova and Transnistria, it was published in 2006. What their officer will find in Tiraspol now will be included in the report for year 2007 (if it will be considered relevant), which will be published in 2008. And then some will claim again that the report is old.--MariusM 21:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tiraspol Times

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Tiraspol Times is not a newspaper, only a propagandistic website. Yes, they claim being a newspaper also, but this is not true. I had long debates with Mauco on this subject, in User:MariusM is explained this. Editor of Tiraspol Times edited at Wikipedia as User:MarkStreet and User:Mark us street [3], also he used sockpuppets User:Henco [4], User:Esgert and User:Truli, probabily he used other sockpuppets as well. He was asked in Talk:Transnistria (now archived) to prove the real existence of his newspaper and he didn't. Meantime, independent checking done by Wikipedia users with friends in Transnistria showed that no newspaper with the name of Tiraspol Times is available on the streets of Tiraspol. We should not include fallacies in Wikipedia.--MariusM 11:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I have rewritten the article on Tiraspol Times. ;-) bogdan 12:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Marius, you keep clinging to your statement that Tiraspol Times is not a newspaper. That is unfortunately the fruit of your own fantasy. I have seen several copies of it, personally, and so have others. You, too, can see it if you go to Transnistria (where you have never been in your life, but where the newspaper is freely available). In the meantime, check this out. If you want to edit on Wikipedia, at least follow the links and do your research. - Mauco 13:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

MariusM, do you still claim that Tiraspol Times is not a newspaper? You said so less than 2 days ago. Or have you changed your tune to something else now? - Mauco 01:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Chief editor of Tiraspol Times, while he edited Wikipedia, recognized: "We don't publicise our address and phone numbers because we operate online and to be frank we simply are not there a lot of the time" [5].

Full discussion about Tiraspol Times existence: "Controversy about Tiraspol Times" at [6]

User:Mark us street, same person as User:MarkStreet [7], chief editor of Tiraspol Times, expained: "Of course there is a printed version of Tiraspol Times, it is very popular too" (22 November) [8]

Mark, since you are an editor of the newspaper in question, could you ask your colleagues in Tiraspol to make a few photos of TT being sold in public? It should be a trivial matter and would resolve at least one issue about TT here on Wiki. (User:Illythr, 22 November)

I imediately told to Illythr: "Why you ask only a photo of Tiraspol Times being sold and not also a hard copy (Mark us Street will be so nice to send one for free to you)?" [9]

Also I asked: Mark us Street, would you be so kind to tell where is available your very popular newspaper in Transnistria's second city, Tighina (Bender)? One wikipedian involved in Transnistria article, User:EvilAlex, has his parents in Bender, if you can indicate a place in this city where your newspaper is available, I'm sure we will be able to have in short time a confirmation. [10]

Illythr comment was: "If it's not publicly available even in Tiraspol, I doubt that anyone can find it elsewhere in Transnistria". [11] - in total contradiction with Mark us street claim that Tiraspol Times not only that exist, but is "very popular". What is clear is that some people with which Illythr has conections and live in Tiraspol didn't heard about the "very popular" newspaper "Tiraspol Times", at least until the end of October.

Wikipedia is very important for the staff of Tiraspol Times - we know it because the editor of Tiraspol Times registered at Wikipedia and was very active in Transnistria-related articles. He didn't answered at my or Illythr comments, he pretended he left Wikipedia, however he was lying as he returned under other names: 2 sockpuppets - User:Esgert and User:Truli were discovered [12]. Under his old name, MarkStreet, he had an other sockpuppet, User:Henco [13]

Further disscussions about Tiraspol Times in Wikipedia:

  1. Astroturfing [14]
  2. Congratulations for Tiraspol Times columnist User:William Mauco[15]
  3. Censorship at Tiraspol Times [16]
  4. Not journalism? [17]
  5. New censorship at Tiraspol Times [18]

Claim of Tiraspol Times: "Our pledge: 100% truth and accuracy in journalism. Tiraspol Times reports straight from Tiraspol: Not from Chisinau, Moscow, Brussels, Kiev, Washington or Cairo. So you get the news about Tiraspol fresh, first-hand and unfiltered" [19]. However, chief editor of Tiraspol Times, while he was a newbie at Wikipedia, as User:MarkStreet, recognized that "We don't publicise our address and phone numbers becaise we operate online and to be frank we simply are not there a lot of the time": [20]

Photos with a printed edition of TT appeared on TT site only at end December, as direct result of disscussions at Wikipedia. So, no mistake from my side. However, there are still issues:

  1. Photos are not meeting Illythr criteria - those were not made in a street of Tiraspol, proving that people in that city can read Tiraspol Times, but in a room - I don't know if this room is in Tiraspol or, let say, in Dublin (Ireland).
  2. I told from the very begining that for me is not enough a photo of printed edition, but a hard copy. What I asked is an adress (in Tighina, second Transnistrian city, as I don't know anybody in Tiraspol) where TT is available, in order to have a trustfull person (considered trustfull by me, not by TT editors) to check the real existence of TT.

I will continue my investigation to check the real existence of a printed version of Tiraspol Times and the date when the printed version started.--MariusM 14:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's great, but none of this has any relevancy or bearing to Wikipedia. It can not be included. Because it would be original research. You can also not use any of this to exclude or influence the edits, such as deciding on how to describe Tiraspol Times in the article or whether the link should be included. - Mauco 14:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Media of Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Media of Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Media of Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Media of Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_media_in_Transnistria/Archive_1&oldid=1247233759"