Talk:Transnistria

Archives
/archive 1 /archive 2 /archive 3 /archive 4 /archive 5

Edit warring in external links

Unfortunately, despite my efforts to repeatedly raise this issue on the Talk page (see "Links", above), we currently have an edit war in External links. User EvilAlex has violated the three-revert rule (or 3RR) [1] [2] [3] [4] and this, in turn, is triggering me to do the same.

I do not want to get into any sort of edit warring with him, while in contrast he actually likes it and enjoys it: He told all of us here, yesterday, that "[...] time of war, as I said before “Love having fun”. Just imagine how boring will be here in Wikipedia without those small wars." I am sorry, but this is not at all the vision that I have of this wonderful resource call Wikipedia. Edit warring is disruptive and drains time away from constructive editing.

Earlier this year (from 6 March to 11 March) we had a similar 5 day edit war over links with this very same user, EvilAlex. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] It was finally solved at the initiative of FrancisTyer.

Despite this logged record, EvilAlex he also claims that "I don’t delete Transnistrian links (even if I don’t like it)."[16] But this is misleading, to put it mildly, as his past record shows.

My own approach to constructive collaboration is at loggerheads with this behavior and I am not sure how to resolve this. I have posted several requests here and on his Talk page, pointing out numerous 3RR violations and requesting to refrain from reverting before issue is solved in Talk. However, he merely deleted them and accused me of vandalism for having warned him and for having made the request. See [17]

This is an article which we have all worked hard to put into shape. I will not agree to color this article with linkbias, one way or the other, and will continue to request that we please include links which conform to Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. If in doubt about whether or not a link is appropriate or not, we must discuss it here first, and should follow established practice by learning the criteria that some of the other country pages apply for selecting their external links. I am absolutely not asking for any prefential treatment here, but merely ask that we can follow the guidelines and avoid link bias of any kind. I would like other editors to please give their views, too, because I can no longer reach consensus with EvilAlex. - Mauco 16:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Look Macoa I have compromised I did removed one of the Economist link.
Now is your turn, compromise too. Don’t try to make pretty, innocent picture of yourself. [18] [19] You only try to push your side of the story that what is all this about. Six month ego we had an argument, and you still can forget it. Don’t live in a past. I do respect all of the Wikipedian rules, but when you yourself broke and ignore them :(( I could hardly take you seriously.
EvilAlex 17:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above, EvilAlex is engaged in edit warring, and, like I also said above, this triggered me, in turn, to do the same. This is not behavior that I like engaging in. Another editor with another declared bias reported me for 3RR violations for merely cleaning up after EvilAlex and restoring the article to its original state. To avoid this happening again, I urge all editors to discuss this issue here, please, and settle on criteria for links. - Mauco 17:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, don't tell about bias. You are connected with ICDISS, which, as "The Economist" showed, is a propaganda organisation for Tiraspol regime. This is why you want to remove the links from "The Economist". You claim Lucas was wrong telling that you were in a ICDISS conference in Mexico, but you recognized that you participated in one of their conference [20] (and it seems you are the only person in the world who can confirm the real existence of ICDISS). When Lucas discovered that no conference was in Mexico city, you came with the new variant that the conference was in Washington. Why is so important to you to take out the link from Lukas article?--MariusM 22:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC) I saw you also took out links form BBC, OSCE, Radio Free Europe and other such respectable sources, about general situation of Transnistria. I will put links back and fi you want to delete, you should tell the reason for each of them--MariusM 22:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

So that explains everything. From the moment I brought this links Mauco started behaving very vary strange. You reputation is on the line!? It is not about Transnistria it is about Mauco's decaying reputation. EvilAlex 23:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not, but feel free to check with Edward Lucas to clarify the extent of my involvement (and lack of same) before attempting to slander me again. The full reason was given in detail above, but neither of you two seem to have read it before you "shoot first and ask questions after." I will thus repeat it here: Let us give others a chance to decide on that. In the meantime, to follow the example of FrancisTyer who succesfully solved the last edit war with EvilAlex six months ago, I am doing the same as he did back then: Removing all links (both those which EvilAlex added, and my own, too) until this issue can be settled with a broader discussion ... well, actually, I just took at look at the page, and I see that 90%+ of my links have already been removed by EvilAlex without warning and without any prior discussion. Anyway, the last few ones can temporarily go, too, until there is consensus. Now, to repeat, we are not removing links but trying to get an edit war past us. While the links are still in the main page, they will be added, removed, re-added, and so on, until infinity. We know this, because we have been through it before with your collaborator, EvilAlex. This is his style, as a look back at the logs will show. The only way to deal with these type of disruptions is to do what FrancisTyer did, short of locking the page down again which is in no one's interest and which we should only do as a very last resort. I am attempting to solve this situation and I am using the only proven method which we know has achieved consensus in the past. Please respect that and please do not engage in an EvilAlex-style edit war, Marius. - Mauco 23:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this approach:
Just exlain why you don’t like the economist article?
* Disinformation The Economist
* Transdniester in Cyberspace Radio Free Europe
* Covering tracks The Economist
EvilAlex 23:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I shall be very glad to have this discussion with any serious editor, but not with a professed lover of edit wars ... The only way to deal with EvilAlex's disruptions in the past was for FrancisTyers to do what I am now doing[21]. As regards the work by Lucas in The Economist and elsewhere, I have collaborated him on some of his research and I like his writing a lot. I am big fan of his and will continue to help him in the future. - Mauco 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In adition of the links we discussed, I would add http://conflict.md/index.php?lim=eng, which is an usefull website with many articles related with Transnistria (can be under Moldova links).--MariusM 00:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. This is a very relevant link and it should be added. However: It does not solve the other problems. If you want to get this edit warring behind us, then the most constructive thing you can do first is to undo your 22:43, 24 September 2006 edit[22]. Please do this now. I did not do this change to vandalize but for a very real reason, copying the exact same action of FrancisTyers of 11 March of this year. This will clean the link section and bring us to a situation where we can discuss, as adults, all links and not just the ones which you or EvilAlex want to see included. I have given my reasons above and we have a precedent based on past history with EvilAlex which showed that this was the only way to get his disruptions sorted out. If you persist in helping him in that, then we can only reach the conclusion that you have arrived here to disrupt as well and not to help reach consensus or to add something good to the article. Meanwhile, rest assured that you have my vote and my full support for the conflict.md link. - Mauco 00:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

List of links for discussion

Is not necesarry to remove the links in this stage. We can discuss them whithout removing. Bellow is the list, if there are other proposals, please add.--MariusM 00:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Profile of Trans-Dniester from the BBC
• OSCE Mission to Moldova OSCE
• Collective Fischka photo reportage on Transnistria
• Photo tour of Transnistria
• Transdniester in Cyberspace Radio Free Europe
• Disinformation The Economist
• Moldova: Transdniester Conflict Was Long In The Making Radio Free Europe
• Transnistrian conflict

There are also these, which EvilAlex removed[23] without warning or discussion.

However, it is necessary to do it this way. We have this page's 11 March precedent set by FrancisTyers which shows that this calms everyone down, as it happened in the exact same sort of edit war with the same person (EvilAlex), using the same modus operandi and over the same issues. Short of locking the page down in full protection mode, which I am sure that no one wants, I am afraid that this is the proper way at this point in time. So I again appeal to you to show good faith and a mature understanding of the very real problem that we are facing with an editor like that and undo your own 22:43, 24 September 2006 edit, please, so we can move on. - Mauco 01:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You started contributing at Wikipedia in 9 March 2006, and one of the first things you done as a newbie was to engage in edit war with veteran user EvilAlex, regarding Transnistria. Untill you arrived here it was peace in Wikipedia's Transnistria. Hope you learnt from the past. Don't start again deleting links without discussing. As a general rule for the links we should add, I propose: As we are in English Wikipedia, English-language links have priority. For this subject there are a lot of links. For subjects with few sources is normal to add foreign languages links, for a subject like this we should focus on English language links, as we have from where to chose and our readers are mainly English speaking. Russian or Romanian speaking readers can go to their Wikipedia to find links in their language. For example, even if I consider http://nistru.org/ a good source, I would not add it in the article as it is only in Romanian. I propose to veteran user EvilAlex to add also for discussion what other links he consider important.--MariusM 10:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets try to keep things civil around here, shall we? If you look at EvilAlex's edit record, and see how often he gets reverted, that should tell you something. But let the record speak for itself. EvilAlex has been active on Wikipedia for 10 months, and I have been active here for 6 months (under the current account), which means that your liberal use of the word "veteran" is a relative term. And here is what essjay has to say: "EvilAlex: 185 edits in Mainspace, 107 edits in Talk" - "William Mauco: 885 edits in Mainspace, 687 edits in Talk". Not to toot my own horn. Just try to be less trigger-happy and keep your focus on the article, not on any personal hang-ups. - Mauco 00:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

External links for consideration, note the guidelines, all welcome to comment.:

External links

• Profile of Trans-Dniester from the BBC

keep the beeb is always a straigh bat markstreet ----- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkStreet (talk • contribs)

Keep the BBC is a reliable source, and its country profiles are worth including. - FrancisTyers · 13:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep reliable source EvilAlex 13:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep of course, and if CIA Fact Book had a page on Transnistria we could include that, too. - Mauco 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep The BBC is a reliable source --Jonathanpops 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Reliable source.--MariusM 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Per all the users above. Illythr 15:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Per all ClockworkOrange 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Wikipedia has more info than BBC - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• OSCE Mission to Moldova OSCE

Delete This site is about Moldova, not Transnistria. - FrancisTyers · 13:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep OSCE is a reliable source there is many articles about current situation in Transnistria, human rights and so on; OSCE and the international community officially consider Transnistria to be a part of Moldova.EvilAlex 13:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete since it is not really about Transnistria but about what the organization does (primarily in Moldova, but also, to a lesser extent, in Transnistria). - Mauco 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete It is a reliable source but it doesn't seem all that relevant to me when you look through it. --Jonathanpops 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Main issues with which OSCE mission in Moldova is dealing are about Transnistria conflict. Reliable source.--MariusM 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep per user:EvilAlex. Illythr 15:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep ClockworkOrange 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

DELETE About Moldova more than Transnis. - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Collective Fischka photo reportage on Transnistria

Keep just pictures of Transnistria EvilAlex 13:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Unless it grows larger, there's more pictures on pridnestrovie.net etc --Jonathanpops 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete Some text only in German, many picture from inside houses - no differences with how apartments look in other ex-Soviet regions.--MariusM 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral It's kinda small... Illythr 15:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral ClockworkOrange 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Too few pictures - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Photo tour of Transnistria

Keep one of these two. My preference is for the Fischka one. - FrancisTyers · 13:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep just pictures of Transnistria EvilAlex 13:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete on both because we are not a linkfarm. Or keep one, and if a better photo gallery with more pictures come along in the future, substitute it. We should only keep a link to one photogallery at most. - Mauco 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideally it would be nice to get some of these pictures under the GFDL so we could use them in our article and have a gallery on commons. - FrancisTyers · 17:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Francis, if you want you can give that job to me. I know a person at the OSCE who is friends with Kramar (the photographer), so I can establish contact and get him to put some of the photos in the public domain. Maybe not all, but maybe he will even give us some that are not released and not avaialable anywhere else. - Mauco 19:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be wonderful. It is sad that often these lesser-known countries have articles with absolutely no good free illustration. The problem is as acute in many articles on African capital cities. - FrancisTyers · 21:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Same reason as above. --Jonathanpops 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete. Not linkfarm here.--MariusM 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete, get some pics into the article per William & Francis. --Illythr 15:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Not enough pictures - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Transdniester in Cyberspace Radio Free Europe

Delete RFE is US propaganda. - FrancisTyers · 13:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep keep keep keep i see no propoganda in this articleEvilAlex 13:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Not so much because it is from an organization which is listed in Wikipedia under US propaganda organizations. But mostly because, if we want to include anything from them, they have about twenty articles about Transnistria and some of them give much better background coverage and information than this particular link. - Mauco 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete It seems like a single-minded article damning another website, even if the website in question is about Tiraspol I don't think it fits the idea of further information. --Jonathanpops 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep is a good article.--MariusM 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep interesting ClockworkOrange 15:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Singleminded - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Disinformation The Economist

Keep Economist is a reputable publication. - FrancisTyers · 13:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep reliable source EvilAlex 13:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This article is not directly about Transnistria. It is about an organization which supports Transnistria. It is an intriguing and interesting article, but please read Wikipedia's guidelines for external links and you will see that it doesn't fit. - Mauco 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete The article has disappeared, but I agree with Mauco if it comes back again.--Jonathanpops 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is back up. If we should link to individual newspaper articles, then the Economist is one of the better sources, along with BBC and maybe 2 or 3 others, max. But in this case, the Economist has other articles which focus directly on Transnistria and which are newer, too. One was published about a week ago, by the same journalist, and I think that this week's issue has another one, too. - Mauco 19:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Good article and relevant info about an organisation which is working even here in Wikipedia [24].--MariusM 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete - the article whacks the site and the organization, and is not really Transnistria directly, it should be moved. --Illythr 15:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep interesting article ClockworkOrange 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep - This may help a reader understand the perils of certain legitimate-looking sources on the topic. Seems like quite an important thing to do. - Jmabel | Talk 03:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Against an organization not about Transnis - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Moldova: Transdniester Conflict Was Long In The Making Radio Free Europe

Delete see above. - FrancisTyers · 13:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Unnesessary EvilAlex 13:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral. The CIA ties would not be an automatic disqualifier (for instance, the "CIA Fact Book" has good, reliable information). Also, compared to the other RFE/RL article - above - this one is much more relevant to the subject of the article. - Mauco 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete I'm not sure the relevant information within this article could not simply be added to the wikipedia page? --Jonathanpops 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Other articles I vote to keep have better info.--MariusM 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral ClockworkOrange 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder: do please keep links guidelines in mind as well. They ultimately govern the links more than any of our own personal preferences, for or against anything. In the case of RFE/RL, for instance, we currently have two articles on this shortlist. One deals with Transnistria directly and the fuller background for the conflict, the other one doesn't. The guidelines cover this and make it quite clear as to which of these two is appropriate for inclusion, regardless of our individuals opinions. - Mauco 00:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Not informative. Wikipedia has more info - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Marisha.net TransDniestr

Delete insignificant site, not reliable, author unknown EvilAlex 14:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete horrible advertising. - FrancisTyers · 17:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Looks like a cheap classified ad, and probably is. --Jonathanpops 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Not worth to keep it.--MariusM 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete because we should apply strict Finland- and USA-style link criteria for what goes into the external links section, and something like this wouldn't make it. - Mauco 03:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Commercial site - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Tabibito's PMR guide

Delete Nice site but - insignificant, not reliable, author unknown EvilAlex 14:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep The difference is that Tabibito is about Transnistria, directly. Some of the other links which are proposed here are only indirectly related to Transnistria, but the main theme or focus is something else. - Mauco 16:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I change my vote to Delete. (Now it is my turn to be schizophrenic). No, seriously, let me explain why: If you look at the really good Wikipedia country articles (like Finland) it is clear that the editors over there would not link to a one-page or two-page website like this one just because it deals with travel to Finland. So if we are trying to build a quality article here, we should apply strict criteria too. Besides, read Wikipedia guidelines for external links. They say pretty much the same thing. - Mauco 19:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral interesting information, but I'm not sure if it quite justifies linking. - FrancisTyers · 17:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral It's not so bad, but I didn't find much that isn't found already on wikipedia. --Jonathanpops 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Little information.--MariusM 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral ClockworkOrange 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Wikipedia has more info - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Transnistrian side

• PMR Presidential website

Delete about the President, not about Transnistria. - FrancisTyers · 13:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete rubish EvilAlex 13:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep - stong keep. This is the official site of the president, and it contains a news section, profiles of the minister, history of Transnistria, etc. - Mauco 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Link it from Igor Smirnov. - FrancisTyers · 17:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, it contains a lot of information about Transnistria. Only ~10% is actually about the president. Some of the information has been useful for previous research. It is not as well presented as, say, pridnestrovie.net, but it goes deeper. They have the full cabinet info (which can't be found elsewhere) and which I used to make some stubs out of, and they have detailed statistics which are only found in two places: This site and the Atlas of Pridnestrovie. This site is more updated than Atlas. - Mauco 19:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep I don't see a problem with this site at all, being about the president of the place this page is about. --Jonathanpops 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep As an official PMR site it can present useful information to readers. TSO1D 22:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep as an official Transnistrian separatist site.--MariusM 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep, per MariusM and Mauco. --Illythr 15:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep, official site. Francis, also note that our United States article links to the White House site. bogdan 17:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Propaganda - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Pridnestrovie.net

Delete Kremlen propoganda EvilAlex 13:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Transnistria propaganda, not Kremlin propaganda. The main official government site in English. - Mauco 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Slick propaganda, but their main official site in the English language. - FrancisTyers · 17:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep It's a site solely about the subject matter. --Jonathanpops 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Every page will have some bias, but this page goes overboard, and given its non-official status, I don't see how any reader can be helped by visiting it. I don't think I am exaggerating when I am saying that if a fact can be spun to make Transnistria look better, this site does it. TSO1D 22:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed to Keep apparently it is a governmental site and it includes some useful information. TSO1D 02:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

May I remind everyone of the guidelines, both as regards links and as regards NPOV. A bias evaluation is required for links and when we determine bias, we mark them clearly as such (in this case, under the Transnistrian POV). Bias is not ground for deletion of sites which would otherwise be included. It is ground for a label. - Mauco 23:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem though, is that the bias is pervasive to such an extent that it makes the site virtually unusable. In my view the sources that are included here should at least have some factual merit, or if not than they should at least be official representatives of the bodies discussed. This site is a third party establishment with null credibility. Thus it's not the bias that disqualifies it in my opinion, but rather its lack of qualitative substance that can be of use to anyone. TSO1D 00:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Unreliable source.--MariusM 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep, per Mauco, Francis, TSOID. --Illythr 15:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete I visited Tiraspol last month and it is nothing like it described in pridnestrovie.net, nothing useful will come from keeping it. ClockworkOrange 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. - Jmabel | Talk 03:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep, as long as it's labeled as being the official site. bogdan 17:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Propaganda - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• VisitPMR.com

Delete Kremlen propoganda EvilAlex 13:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Official site. It is their main travel and tourism site which is similar to what Wikipedia includes for other country pages. - Mauco 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Slick propaganda, but their main travel site in the English language. - FrancisTyers · 17:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep It's a site solely about the subject matter, but essentially the same as the above - it has links that go directly to pridnestrovie.net without warning, i.e it just says More Links for instance and when you click this it goes right to pridnestrovie.net. --Jonathanpops 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep It's a travel guide, so by no rational standard can objectivity be expected and it does provide some interesting information, especially for those who want to visit the region (though honestly I can't imagine who would). TSO1D 22:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Unreliable source.--MariusM 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep, in place of the Tabibito site. --Illythr 15:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral ClockworkOrange 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep, as long as it's labeled as being an official government site. bogdan 17:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Propaganda - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• The Tiraspol Times & Weekly Review, English-language Transnistrian periodical

Delete Kremlen propoganda EvilAlex 13:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The only English-language source for news. Besides, they don't seem to be pro-Smirnov. They feature opposition candidates like Shevchuk[25] and Safonov[26], and they have strongly criticized the government in the past.[27]. - Mauco 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why it has the same IP with the government sites? ;-) bogdan 15:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they have a schizophrenic government. ;-) Actually, the reverse IP on the server reveals that there are some 800 other sites there, too. No big deal. Maybe they hired the same webdesigner. - Mauco 16:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Again, it's a site solely about the subject matter. --Jonathanpops 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Although it is celarly biased, it does at least present information in a newspaper format, and is less biased than other sites of the same type. TSO1D 22:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete We already have the official site.--MariusM 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that Transnistria is only allowed to have one website representing it? I see that you voted 'Keep' on all four which are listed under the Moldovan POV. Just curious. - Mauco 23:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I quote your words: There is no "equal time" obligation in the link guidelines. The other links are just astroturfing, as bogdan showed bellow.--MariusM 00:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In 20 September, in the "Tiraspol Times" section of this talk page, I asked a question that nobody answered: is Tiraspol Times available on paper? Or, to rephrase: is "Tiraspol Times" really existing, or is only a site on the internet, propaganda for foreign audience? Do we have around an eye witness who was able to buy "Tiraspol Times" on the streets of Tiraspol?--MariusM 13:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a friend in Dubossary, I'll ask him if knows someone in Tiraspol who can check it out. Meanwhile, I've sent them a letter with some questions. I found no names/addresses or any kind of licensing information on the site, which I find rather suspicious. --Illythr 15:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep, descriptive. --Illythr 15:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete -- see #Tiraspol Times section. bogdan 17:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Propaganda - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Novia Gazeta (Transnistria opposition newspaper)

Move to ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria. Great site but only in Russian, it would be useful on Russian page EvilAlex

Link works now, at least it did for me. Not sure if this is "Transnistrian side" since it is one of the four opposition newspapers that they have. - Mauco 14:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. If its only in Russian. Do we have a link to the Telegraph from the United Kingdom page? Nope. Feel free to article-ise it if you feel it is notable enough. Then we can have a section on "Press and Media" or something. - FrancisTyers · 17:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete Not in English at all, but could perhaps just label it Russian Language. --Jonathanpops 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

We are allowed to have foreign language links but English links are preferred (see guidelines) and should be used whenever possible. But I am prone to agree with the vote of EvilAlex on this one. - Mauco 19:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete It's in Russian and is not even that good a source. TSO1D 22:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral as I don't know Russian. The claim that is a opposition newspaper should be removed anyway, as not proved.--MariusM 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The "claim" is a proven fact to serious Transnistria-watchers. When something is not proven, you do not delete it. You add a request for citation, and then the burden of proof is on the person who included the statement. Before you delete, I know that many here can give you plenty of sources (from OSCE and even the US Embassy in Chisinau) to source the statement. - Mauco 23:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral - gotta visit the site first... --Illythr 15:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Francis. Also, a link is found in Media in Transnistria. bogdan 17:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Can not read it - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Info on Transdniestria / Vladimir Voronin

Delete Blog!? insignificant site, not reliable, author unknown EvilAlex 14:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete . - FrancisTyers · 17:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete There's not really anything much on it, two pages?

Delete Unless it presents new information, different pictures or something else which is not seen elsewhere. This is not the case here. Besides, if it is a blog, Wikipedia does not link to blogs. Not sure if it is blog, but the format looks bloggish. - Mauco 19:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete --TSO1D 22:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete --MariusM 23:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete --Illythr 15:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Under construction? - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Transdniestria.com

Delete insignificant site, not reliable, author unknown EvilAlex 14:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep it is just a news aggregator. The owner is from Transnistria and lives in England. - Mauco 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Not good, not particularly bad. - FrancisTyers · 17:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Again, it's a site solely about the subject matter. --Jonathanpops 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete It's more like a blog. --TSO1D 22:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Insignificant.--MariusM 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what makes a blog, or an insignificant site? Pridnestrovie.net adds atricles to it regualarly, and has an RSS feed on its own site pointing to transdniestria.com, but that may say more about pridnestrovie.net I guess? Edward Lucas, from the above mentioned Economist, has also added articles to transdniestria.com. --Jonathanpops 13:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete bogdan 17:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Amateur site - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Moldovan side

• Moldova Azi: News from Moldova

Keep Informational portal, joint project for Independent Journalism Center, and the Soros Foundation-Moldova. EvilAlex 14:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral --Jonathanpops 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep This is a fairly neutral source with valuable information. --TSO1D 22:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep --MariusM 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Jmabel | Talk 03:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Almost no Transnis info. All about Moldova - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Moldova.org non-governmental country portal

Keep Reliable source, site have been estableshed by Vlad Spanu a senior diplomat at the Moldovan embassy in Washington, well respecded person EvilAlex 14:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep --Jonathanpops 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Because it's there.

Keep --TSO1D 22:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep --MariusM 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 03:22, 28 September 2006.

DELETE Almost all is about Moldova. Little or no Transnis info - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Conflict.md

Keep non political, nongovernmental organizations. Web-page was created with the support of OSCE EvilAlex 14:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep, but for the record: it is clearly not "non political" as EvilAlex will have us believe. And they publish only the Moldovan side of the news. No Transnistrian news articles are ever posted or allowed. - Mauco 14:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep It does show another POV. --Jonathanpops 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete It has some good news stories, but also includes some opinion pieces that border Olvia Press in their objectivity and quality. --TSO1D 22:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that is why we label it Moldovan side. Bias in links is OK when clearly branded as such - Mauco 13:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Is a site with many articles regarding the conflict in Transnistria, important to understand the situation.--MariusM 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Propaganda - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Transnistria.md

Weak Keep Not sure more opposition POV is needed? --Jonathanpops 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep if we want to have a more or less equal number of links for both points of view (again, we don't have to. But if FrancisTyers think that it would be best, then I respect his judgment.) - Mauco 19:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep It does have some useful information and indeed it would be best to have the same number of links for both sides. TSO1D 22:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep It is a site with many article about Transnistria in 3 languages (English, Russian, Romanian). I changed the link to go to the English version, as we are in English Wikipedia.--MariusM 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Dead site? No updates - 82.134.90.244 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

We should probably keep all the external links to both the sides, but rename "side" to "perspective". We should also have an equal number of links in each. The Moldovan links should be about 'Transnistria', not about Moldova. It will be necessary to either remove links from the Transnistrian perspective or add links to the Moldovan perspective to balance this out. - FrancisTyers · 13:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. There is no "equal time" obligation in the link guidelines, per se. If the page is about Transnistria, then it is logical to expect that there would be more Transnistria-related pages than Moldovan pages. To the extent that they biased, we label them with the POV label and that solves it. - Mauco 15:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no obligation, but I find that it helps in dispute resolution. There is no reason not to have an equal amount of links from both sides. We should link rarely. - FrancisTyers · 17:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

FrancisTyers is a better Wikipedian than most of us here, so please listen to what he has to say: We should link rarely. I may also add: Look at Finland for how it is done. Also USA, more links there but it is bigger country. The only difference is that in Transnistria we HAVE TO INCLUDE links for the Moldovan side as well, since that is part of the picture. But they should be links of the same quality and the same criteria should apply. We don't throw links on a site just for the sake of polemics. - Mauco 19:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Imports and exports

Are there any official figures or at least some third-party estimates on the imports and exports of Transnistria? If there are, we should include them in the article. bogdan 13:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I can find the official figures but I already discussed this a couple of months back with TSO1D and we both agreed that we can not trust them. There is a lot of ruckus with the "blockade" thing, so exports and figures of "lost export earnings" are hyped in order to make a political point. If we ourselves don't believe that the numbers are true, why should we include them? Someone less informed will just use the article for his or her own research and will take us at our word. Not good. - Mauco 19:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Astroturfing

It seems that all those pro-Transnistria blogs and sites have false information on who-is and all were created very recently. Could it be Transnistrian governmental astroturfing?

TRANSNIESTRIA IS ONLY AN INTERNET ZONE FOR A SHORT WHILE, THIS MAY EXPLAIN THIS,

For example, transdniestria.info (created 14 August 2006):

Registrant Organization: Dublin Inc

Registrant City: dublin

Registrant State/Province: ireland

Registrant Postal Code: 343w

Registrant Country:IE

Registrant Phone:+1.12345679865

The owner is company Dublin Inc from Dublin, Ireland, with a non-existing postal code (note that 3, 4 and w are one next to the other on the keyboard) and a very unlikely phone with the sequence 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-9-8 :-)

WELL THAT'S SIMPLE, I CHECKED THIS ,THERE ARE NO POST CODES IN DUBLIN AND TO REGISTER THE DOMAIN MANE REGISTRANT FOR IRISH COMAPNIES THEY HAVE TO ENTER SOME SORT OF CODE IN ORDER TO PROCESS ONLINE.

Fair enough. I just did the fact checking on this, and it is true. There is no zip numbers (postal codes) in Dublin, Ireland. - Mauco 22:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

ALSO MOST DOMAIN REGISTERS DON'T GIVE THEIR PHONE NUMBERS AND INSTEAD IGNORE THE BOX AND USE THE 123456789,,,,ITS THE DEFAULT SETTING.

I just did a random sample of fifteen domain names. What he says here is partly true, partly false. But it is certainly not unusual. I don't know where we are even going with this, but if someone is trying to prove who is or who is not a KGB agent, this is getting a bit silly... - Mauco 22:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Another site, pridnestrovie.net (created 20 January 2006), is owned by Robinson Corbett-Smith, who is living in a Mexico hotel. This is the fictional guy mentioned in the Economist article, about the domain icdiss.org (created 14 January 2006). visitpmr.com (created 13 March 2006) was registered to the same hotel address, but by "Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica". ' AGAIN I CHECKED THIS OUT,,,,,,THAT SITE PRIDNESTROVIE.NET MENTIONS IT'S WAS PART FUNDED BY FROM ICDISS .ORG.....SO WHAT IS THE POINT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY.

THESE SITES WERE REGISTERED IN THE SAME HOTEL....SO THEY ARE CONNECTED......BUT WHY AND SODOES IT MATTER,,,,,,

It actually doesn't matter, colleague, except to someone who can not pursue a logical argument based on the facts. You see, when you want to "win" a debate, you can either do so on the merit of your case - - but if you don't have a case, you are forced to instead discredit and delegitimize the other side. I have done extensive fact checking on information from Tiraspol Times (see Archive 5 for the expose and sources). And I have found the news source to be 100% accurate. It is biased in favor of Transnistria, of course, but it is still truthful and factually correct. Maybe the reason that it is biased to Transnistria is why these haters here don't want us to use it as a source. But as a source, it stands up to scrutiny. I know, and anyone who says otherwise must explain why, based on actual errors in any of the articles, instead of just pointing to things like IPs and domain registrations. - Mauco 22:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

tiraspoltimes.com (created 26 June 2006) is the only site from the series with an address which looks real, being from Tiraspol. But interestingly, this site links other sites from the series, like in this article: http://tiraspoltimes.com/node/130/ and the icdiss.org is also linked from another site: http://pridnestrovie.net/node/300 .

AGAIN I REALLY DO NOT SEE WHERE AND WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY,,,,,,

Another interesting point is that pridnestrovie.net and tiraspoltimes.com use the same software for the articles, which leads that the conclusion that Mr. Corbett-Smith is somehow related to tiraspoltimes.com as well. :-)

HALF THE WORLD USES THE SAME SOFTWARE....

Anyway, the company which has developed these sites deserves my kudos. Excellent design and content. I think I'll write a letter of recommendation to the government of North Korea: I definitely think you can something for them, too. :-) bogdan 15:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't really compare Trannsistria to North Korea. But it was still funny. - Mauco 16:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: my suspicion is confirmed: the sites: icdiss.org, pridnestrovie.net, tiraspoltimes.com, visitpmr.com have the same IP address (69.61.9.50) and are hosted on the same server. bogdan 15:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

EVERYONE IN TRASPOL IS ON THE SAME IP ADDRESS....

Good work! I have a journalist friend who I will send this info too. It could be that they just used the same web design company (because there are more than 800 other sites with the same IP), but I know that he will still be interested in this. Thanks. - Mauco 16:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Bogdan, I thought the same thing. North Korea, Cuba, Nagorno-Karabakh, Iran, any country that is knocked down on by the "West" could all do with such splendid slick propaganda. Seriously. I really want to visit this place to see what its about. - FrancisTyers · 17:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Revisionism

Does anyone else think that the following sentence is POV?

"The unrecognised state made a declaration of independence in September 2, 1990, and gradually imposed its power at most of pretended teritorry through a campaign of intimidation and forced eviction of Moldova's loyalist civil servants."

The user who added it claims in the changelog that this phrasing is the result of discussions with Jamason.[28] ....Ahem... Why don't we hear what Jamason has to say? I know that he is too modest to say so, but Jamason is a historian and the foremost Transnistria-scholar in the United States, and we are very lucky to have him as a fellow editor among us. - Mauco 01:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

De facto independence revisited

Since a conversation between Marius and myself was invoked in his recent change of the leading paragraph of this article, I would like to clarify why I do not entirely agree with this change and then end with a suggestion that might be acceptable to both of us.

In regard to my problems, I have two points. First, I am not entirely sure that the PMR authorities “imposed” their power in “most” the region by intimidation and violence. Simply put, in most of Transnistria this was unnecessary. A subtle treatment of the consolidation of PMR power should rightly include the intense conflicts that Marius correctly points out which regularly occurred in such contested areas as the Dubossary raion and the Slobozia raion. In both of these locations the OSTK controlled local city government but not raion governmental structures, and in Dubossary in particular, loyalist civil servants—including the police—were under something of a constant siege from late 1990. In other areas as well, loyalist civil servants were harassed and sometimes physically abused (so were separatists and OSTK activists). However, most often the various civil servants of Transnistria were as sympathetic to the OSTK cause as was the majority of the population at large. In most cases, individuals voluntarily integrated themselves and their institutions into the emerging Transnistrian state.

Second, what constitutes "power" in this instance? I would argue that the elected local governments that came together to create the PMR in November 1990 were in firm control of the situation on the ground in Transnistria from the time of the elections in February 1990. The OSTK leaders drove the agenda in the region, their supporters hounded loyalist civil servants out of office, and the urban population repeatedly prevented local loyalist police and special forces police from restoring Moldovan sovereignty in instances of crisis (e.g. in Dubossary in November 1990 and March 1991). I believe that OSTK leaders had the power in Transnistria from early 1990 and derived this power from their general popularity as much as from their ability to physically oust opponents from local governmental institutions.

As an alternative to Marius's phrasing, I would suggest something along the lines of the following: In November 1990, municipal governments throughout Transnistria declared their independence from the central government in Chisinau. Consolidation of the nascent state's power was difficult and protracted, particularly in areas north and south of the PMR's capital, Tiraspol', where support for independence was relatively lower and much of the professional civil service core remained loyal to the government in Chisinau. I would welcome Marius to develop the theme of this difficulty in the consolidation of PMR power—including its often violent nature—in the body of the article and in related pages. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I do not think the—ideally succinct—introductory paragraph is the place for that elaboration.

Of course all thoughts on this matter are welcome. I will make the edit in 24 hours if there is no more discussion. Jamason 04:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither here nor there. This input is great, but the above-the-fold (above content box) is not the place for a treatment of any of these complex themes. Why don't we take that whole discussion out of the intro para altogether, period. Then have it appear somewhere soon - early in the article, but not in the first para. Mention that they declared independence on 2 September 1990. This is neutral. It doesn't state to what extent they had effective control because that follows a few paragraphs later, in the same article. Here's the new, shorter paragraph which is neutral and doesn't get boggled down in detail from the get-go:

Transnistria, officially Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublika ("Trans-Dniester Moldovan Republic"), PMR (short form: Pridnestrovie) is a region of the Republic of Moldova in Eastern Europe. It declared independence on September 2, 1990, but its independence has never been recognized and the sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention. Transnistria continues to claim independence and maintains de facto sovereignty over its territory.

Nice and sweet, and to the point. Naturally, the explanation of the gradual de facto sovereignty and the info on the 1992 war should also be included. But not on top. Rather, in the sections on this page where detail belongs: Internal politics, history and war parts. - Mauco 05:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Most" of the pretended teritory highlight the fact that even today some teritories are not under the control of PMR (Cocieri, Coşniţa, Varnitsa). As Jamason told, Rîbniţa was the first area where the police went under PMR jurisdiction, and this was only in autumn 1991 (one year after declaration of independence). And intimidation of Chişinău loyalists was a PMR-wide fact and is present even today.--MariusM 08:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to the shortening of the introduction especially if it inspired everyone to expand their pet projects in the article below where I would tend to be strongly inclusionist. Also, regarding the above, our stumbling block seems to be the word "most." I have made several attempts to explain why I think it is inappropriate and I am not sure why it continues to be an issue of contention. Dubossary raion (excluding Dubossary city) and Slobozia raion plus Cocieri, Coşniţa, Varnitsa clearly do not equal "most" of Transnistria. Jamason 13:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your agreement has been noted and the new intro is now in place. Thanks for helping to clarify this issue. As regards the pet projects, they can go under the 'history section' (in the case of the dispute for power between Chisinau-supporters and Tiraspol-supporters) or the 'border issues' section (the latter is the most appropriate for the partial-Dubossary + Cocieri, Coşniţa, Varnitsa issue). - Mauco 13:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Jamason, nobody claimed that Dubossary raion (excluding Dubossary city) and Slobozia raion equal "most" of Transnistria. On contrary, the version I put said the oposite: The unrecognize state gradually imposed its power to the most of pretended teritory, that mean a recognision of the fact that PMR manage to control the majority of teritory it claim (however, not the entire claimed teritory, considering Coşniţa, Cocieri and Varniţa areas; or, if we take PMR constitution, they claim further teritories in Basarabia, that belonged to Camenca, Slobozia and Dubăsari rayons). The idea of explaining with more details in the history section is good, I would try to do it when I would have time. My opinion is that OSTK had control mainly in urban areas, but in rural areas (not only Dubăsari or Slobozia) people showed little interest in the independence of PMR.--MariusM 18:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Marius that this should be explained more deeply, and that this should be done in the history section or some similar sub-section. The problem we got into was that something like this is too complex to be covered in a single sentence in the intro paragraph, and that any attempt to do so will inevitably distort the complexity. But that is fixed now with the neutral into, and hopefully Marius and all of us can add a more detailed explanation of this issue in the body of the text. That's the right way of doing it, thanks Marius. - Mauco 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OSCE backs "exceptional claims" of fraud in the referendum

This is what "Tiraspol Times" is saying: [29] It seems HCHRM report is not any more "exceptional claims".--MariusM 14:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this the same Tiraspol Times which is referenced above as "Kremlen propoganda" and which you yourself wants deleted? Interesting... Thanks for the link. But actually, to be intellectually honest, you should point out that neither Tiraspol Times nor OSCE makes any reference whatsoever to HCHRM or to any of their four or five quite exceptional claims. OSCE's beef seems to be with some other issues; mostly the formulation of the question and what OSCE sees as a restrictive media climate (a criticism which they have applied in equal measure to Moldova). - Mauco 14:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, no direct refference was made at HCHRM by OSCE. HCHRM and OSCE are independent organisations, they arrive separately at the same conclusion. Is not me who labeled Tiraspol Times as Kremlin propaganda, but yes, I voted for this link deletion.--MariusM 14:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently my request for intellectual honesty fell on deaf ears. To say that "they arrived at the same conclusion" is an overbroad statement which is a bit true and a bit false, but more false than true. I have responded in detail on the proper talk page (the talk page for the refendum), so as to not fork the discussion. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." - Mauco 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tiraspol Times, 2

I was bold and removed all the Tiraspol Times references and links from Wikipedia articles, because such links would be against our standards:

• We don't know what Tiraspol Times is. It appeared out of nowhere on the internet less than two months ago, so they have no reputation, whatsoever.

NOT TRUE ALL ITS JOURNALISTS ARE WELL KNOOWN ON THE EURO CURCUT , THEY HAVE BEEN CHECKED OUT AND THEY ARE CREDIBLE.

• They claim to be independent, but it's very obvious that they are not.

HOW SO, THEY HAVE SIGNED UP TO THE INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED INT CODES OF CONDUCTS AND HAVE NOT A SINGLE COMPLAIN REGISTERED AGAINST THEM BY FELLOW NEWS ORGS.

• They are clearly pro-government and interestingly, sharing the same software, the same server and the same IP with governmental official sites.

AS DOES EVERYONE ELSE IN TIRASPOL.

PRO GOVERNMENT.....THEY SEEM TO SPEND THERE TIME TEARING THE GOVERNMENT THERE TO RIBBONS

As such, they fail to be what we call a "reliable source". How can we trust it when we know nothing about it? bogdan 15:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

YOU MEAN YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT.

I hate to always have to be forced to be the devil's advocate, but all of your arguments have a counter-argument so this matter is clearly still open for discussion.

• News sources often appear suddenly, otherwise how would any new website start? I am probably the only person here who took time out to do a lot of factrunning on one of their articles, and I was positively surprised with the results.
• They promote opposition candidates and they have been very hard on Smirnov in some articles, which is clearly not the government line. Remember, they can be independent of the government without at the same time sharing the Moldovan view. There are many in Transnistria who don't like the government but like Moldova even less. They are still opposition and they are still independent.
• The pro-government is an interpretation. It would be more accurate to say that they are clearly pro-independence and anti-unification (which is a natural position since it is shared by 9 out of 10 of their readership, if we go by the referendum results).
• Sharing the same software and server with other sites is normal in a small place like Transnistria. After all, how many web design firms are there? So all sites tend to overlap. Case in point: Yesterday, parliament launched their new website http://www.vspmr.org which is on the same IP and same server (and uses the same webcompany, iLogic) as Sheriff and as half of all the other companies with a web presence in Transnistria. What does that tell you? Absolutely nothing "incriminating", except that it is small place and you probably only have 2 or 3 really good web designers.

Finally, if you do not feel that they are a reliable souce, you may mark the links with an NPOV tag. This is better than deleting them. I have done so often, before, especially in cases where we have linked to Pridnestrovie.net - for instance, I have added a header or parenthesis which informs the reader Transnistrian viewpoint. - Mauco 17:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that news sources appear and disappear daily, but the new ones are not reputable, because it's takes time to build a repution.

TIRASPOL TIMES IS THE ONLY ONE ANYONE READS IN BRUSSELLS.......SOMETIMES THEY SIDE WITH THE GOVERNMENT THERE, SOMETIMES NOT...THATS WHY ITS REFRESHING

But anyway, everyone who is talking about the "Tiraspol Times", appears to be criticising it or at least making fun of it. :-)

• Radio Free Europe -- using the name of Tom de Waal for an article which he didn't wrote.

CHECK THAT, HIS NAME NEVER APPEARED AS THE WRITER BUT AS A SOURCE...NO FAULT THERE.....AND R FREE EUROPE IS A PROPAGANDA MACHINE ANYHOW

• Transitions Online (not free access)
• Osservatorio sui Balcani (Italian translation of the above, just that it can be accessed for free) -- calls the attempt of Tiraspol Times to find parallels with Kosovo "comical and parodical"

RUSSIAN MFA SAID IT FIRST...CHECK NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE TOO........THEY SAID THE SAME.

If that's the kind of reputation the Tiraspol Times is building, I think it's better to let it out of Wikipedia. bogdan 17:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

ITS BEST TO GET BOTH SIDES OF EVERYTHING, E CANNOT RELY ON MOLDOVAN NEWS ONLY.

This is a controversial subject. You would expect that people who don't agree with Transnisria will always engage in an information war, and sometimes by proxy. Transnistria has been the target of this for years, mostly with the arms accusations. But read the latest report from Saferworld (a UN-funded NGO) which was released yesterday and you will see that this has now safely been laid to rest. Some of the same seems to be happening now with Tiraspol Times. Again, I am not really supposed to be the devil's advocate for them, but fair is fair, Bogdan. We have already analyzed the Tom de Wall situation about, on this page, with regards to RFE/RL, and the RFE/RL portrayal was unfair to say the least. Meanwhile, the jury is still out so let us not be too quick on the trigger here. It would be interesting to hear what Illytr's research brings. - Mauco 17:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's clear that their readership isn't supposed to be the Transnistrians, mainly because it's in English and probably rather few people speak it. Also, it's not intedended to be read by the ex-pats or other people living in Transnistria. I know the way such English-language publications for ex-pats are in Bucharest and Budapest. No, this publication is supposed to be read by people who have no idea what Transnistria is. :-) bogdan 18:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

OF COURSE ITS FOR WESTERN AGENCIES AND DIPLOMATS AND THEY KNOW WHERE TD IS

I'd like to point out that people who have no idea what Transnistria is are very unlikely to find that newspaper in the first place. In fact, when you google or yahoo (heh) "Transnistria" the first link in the list is... care to take a guess? ;-) I'd say, their intention is to at least moderate the opinion on Transnistria of a Western person (which will almost invariably be negative before visiting the site). They are now very young, so whether they will succeed in shattering the mistrust of past grievances and fostering a new spirit of tolerance and mutual respect or sink into state propaganda is still up to them, I think... --Illythr 19:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Okay, I've just received an email from them answering some of the questions I asked. Here it is in its entirety:

Hello Illythr:

Thank you for contacting us with your questions. I will certainly be glad to help.

We have only been in existence since July so we are still in the process of establishing the infrastructure of the newsroom. Like the formation of PMR, this can be a haphazard process but we have great enthusiasm and I am sure that we will get there sooner or later.

CONTACT: We may be reached by email, by phone, or you may visit our temporary offices which are located in Tiraspol at 118, 25 October St. Note that this address change in late October, as we have gotten our separate office space as part inside the Hotel Aist complex and will get a permanent office there. This is the reason why no address is as of yet posted on our website.

INTERVIEW WITH EDITORS: If you wish to conduct an interview with Alex Holt or with Mark Street, our two editors, please let me know if you prefer to do this in person or via phone or via email. I assure that they are both "real people" and very dedicated journalists with experience in international news organizations.

PRINT VERSION: Our newspapers has a monthly summary which is printed in 900 copies and available in offices such as VSPMR (the Supreme Soviet), TSU (the state university) and other places. We do not sell it. This summary is currently only printed monthly. However, our plan is to print it once a week, which is why we call ourselves "The Tiraspol Times & Weekly Review". We do not currently print weekly, since we are just getting started and not yet even 3 months old.

Finally, I may point out that we are far from the only news organization which operates in this manner. With our focus on a mostly-online presence, we reach more readers than we could do if we only had a print version. Our newspaper is similar in many ways to SOUTHEAST EUROPEAN TIMES, at http://www.SETimes.com/, which has an online-only presence, and whose veracity is seldom questioned.

Any mention of Tiraspol Times should make comparisons with Southeast European Times.

All my best, Jason Cooper (staff writer) -- The Tiraspol Times & Weekly Review

> Illythr sent a message using the contact form at
> http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/contact.
>
> Your side is linked from the English Wikipedia page on PMR.
> However, questions have arisen about the legitimacy of your newspaper,

BY WHO ?

> here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transnistria#Transnistrian_side
>
> So, I come here seeking answers to the following questions:
>
> Question1: Is there a paper version of TT available in Tiraspol? If yes,
> how many copies are in circulation?

ITS EASY TO GET BUT NOT IN NEW YORK MAN

>
> Question2: Why can't I (and where can I) find any names, addresses or
> licencing information on the site?

SAME WITH THE WIKIPEADIA.....ONLINE EDITIONS ARE LIKE THAT ....ITS ALL EMAIL.....ANYHOW THEY ARE ON OCTOBER STREET BUT THEIR WESTERN OWNERS ARE MOVING THEM FOR SAFETY REASONS

> This:
> http://www.gazeta.ru/about/
> is what readers expect from a serious online publishing agency.
> And this:
> http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/aboutus.html
> is all I found here. Nothing substantial. Not a name. Insufficient. Raises
> suspicions.

HOLD ON, IF YOU WERE RUNNING A WESTERN NEWS AGENCY IN IRAQ WOULD YOU PUT YOUR ADDRESS ON YOUR WEBPAGE,,,,,,WELL THIS IS A ZONE WHERE WESTERN JOURNOS MAY HAVE OPPOSITION AS YOUR COMMENTS AND SOME ATTACKS HERE SHOW.....CAN YOU BLAME THEM....ANYHOW YOU CAN EMAIL AND THEN THEY CALL YOU OR LET YOU CALL THEM....

>
> Sincerely hoping to be wrong, Illythr.

-- I guess I have to apologise to them for being a bit harsh there... --Illythr 18:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

---

They are obviously just starting and finding their voice. Why don't we, instead of just criticizing, actually begin to do some fact-checking and reference running, and if we find something which doesn't check out we post here + inform them of what we think, by posting on their page for that http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/getthefacts.html Just a suggestion. - Mauco 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would gladly follow this advice if I was convinced of the legitimacy of the organization, but I have to say that I still have some lingering doubts. Why would a group of Westernern journalists (with English sounding names) assume control of an insignificant newspaper in Transnistria of all places and demonstrate a pro-PMR bias out of their own initiative? I don' question the factual accuracy of the articles that I have seen (though my research has only been superficial), but the general tone of the articles and their unbalanced selection of facts and stories is not indicative of an objective news source. TSO1D 02:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Compare with Southeast European Times. The journo who wrote to Illythr said it and they are remarkably similar in subject, writing style, contact us page and so on. - Mauco 04:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Check top of my user page. `'mikka (t) 04:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Join the exclusive club!!! - Mauco 04:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Southeast European Times

I picked up on something which the staff writer says in his letter to Illythr: "Our newspaper is similar in many ways to SOUTHEAST EUROPEAN TIMES, at http://www.SETimes.com/, which has an online-only presence, and whose veracity is seldom questioned. Any mention of Tiraspol Times should make comparisons with Southeast European Times." I could find very little info on Wikipedia, just this page Southeast European Times although some other Wikipedia articles have links (external links) to various pages and articles on the www.setimes.com website.
What I couldn't find on the site of the Southeast European Times was information on whether or not they have a print edition or if they publish strictly online. I could also not find any valid contact information. No phone number, no address, not any names of the editors, etc. In fact, Tiraspol Times is positively enlightening in comparison. Comments? - Mauco 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I spent some time today on the setimes.com site. It is a propaganda effort and it appears to be primarily pushing Kosovo's independence right now. In their articles, they call Kosovo a country, just like that. However, Kosovo is no more a country than Transnistria is. Southeast European Times do not qualify it or explain anything, they just state that it is a country. In comparison, the articles on Tiraspol Times use the prefix "unrecognized". They call Transnistria an unrecognized country, usually once per article. Both of them refer to the leader as the president. They are very similar in their style. However, when I compare the two, I have to admit that Tiraspol Times is more honest and Southeast European Times is more distinctly misleading. It is done in a subtle way, and both of them are good at what they do, so it takes a sharp eye to spot it. - Mauco 22:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Carefull to sockpuppetry, spaming and propaganda

A user who has recently manifested interest in this article has been User:Jonathanpops. His first edit to wikipedia was the creation of the article Wiles (since then, the article has turned into a disambg article). That version of the article was, as you can see, about a family living in York, North Yorkshire, UK: "The Wiles Family and Paul Wiles live in York, North Yorkshire, UK. Paul Wiles attended St. Oswald's Primary Sch....". This was on 9 December 2005. He didn`t edit anything until 3 February 2006, when he re-inserted the link to www.transdniestria.com. While there is nothing wrong with that, a whois search for transdniestria.com reveals that the registrant is the webdesing and search optimization firm "York Interweb" located at 15 Wenlock Terrace (the same) York, North Yorkshire YO10 4DU GB. The registrant was a certain Nikola Makarovskyi, a sovietic... oupps, a British citizen with an interesting name, also located at 15 Wenlock Terrace York, North Yorkshire. A look at the site of "York Interweb" shows that Transnistria.com is their project indeed, and that the contact info for "York Interweb" is the same North Yorkshire adress. In March, Jonathanpops again took personal interest over the fate of www.transdniestria.com [30] [31], [32]. In August, he again added to external links to various articles: [33] and [34]. A look on those links shows that the webdesign was done by the same "York Interweb", and a whois search confirms this: both [35] and [36] had been registered from the same adress in 15 Wenlock Terrace, York, North Yorkshire, by a certain Jonathan Malory. Recently, Jonathanpops had been involved in the Talk:Transnistria#External_links voting, where he had naturally voted against the removal of the site in question (www.transdniestria.com). Other users also expressed concern over Jonathanpops, like this one, for the same suspicion over his link to "York Interweb". The connection between Mauco and this Jonathan is suspicious. Maybe because they are both living in the U.K, Mauco doesn`t forget to add links to www.transdniestria.com wherever he passes. On the DMOZ page, the caretaker of the Moldova/Regions page is Mauco [37], and the didn`t forget to add the link, along side of, of course, Pridnestrovie.net, Tiraspol Times, etc... Transdniestria.com appears often in articles dealing with the Trns propaganda [38] [39]. To be noted in this case is that user William Mauco is a versed sockpuppeter (e.g.: User:Jamason, user WTP, [40], [41], etc). By the way, since I mentioned [42], take a look at the comment on the bottom of the article (from the same www.transdniestria.com site), from somone called "Pridnestrovie.net". Looks familiar??? :D Look again: 1, 2, 3 :))). So far Maucov has ignored two [43] [44] of my interventions, so I adress this to other users, who are not infantile and naive (like TSO1D...). I think that this Jonathanpops is either a sock of Mauco, or that betweent the two there`s somekind of bussines deal. BTW, maybe you don`t want your name associated with me Bogdan, but I just had to say that I apreciate your involvement in the Transndniester articles content and links issues. Take care you all! Recently I`ve found out that I`m Paranoid schizophrenic, so now I`m going to have a break, as to take my pills :| Greier 19:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not valid in your case, you must have a mutation or something. Weren't you supposed to be doing your PhD or something or this is a short trolling break? bogdan 20:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A small addition to your piece of art: Maco will try to push transdniestria.com once again look here: [45] “...A lot of people have opinions on this, take a look at transdniestria.com for instance...” EvilAlex 20:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Greier, that post is worrying, seriously. :-) This whole thing could be explained without a conspiracy theory: Jonathan could be just a friend/roommate of a guy named "Nikola" who is from Transnistria. But of course, that doesn't rule out that Mauco is this guy Nikola, of which we know nothing. :-) bogdan 20:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Nikola Makarovskyi (the webmaster of transdniestria.com) but my impression is that he is from Transnistria and that he is affiliated with the SHERIFF group. I have this information from Edward Lucas, a journalist with the Economist, who could not establish this affirmatively but voiced it as an opinion of his in a private email to me. I don't know Jonathanpops either and he is certainly not my sockpuppet. In the past, I have supported the inclusion of http://www.transdniesteria.com as a link and explained why I think it should be included. However, recently I think that the quality of the site leaves something to be desired, and that there are now better news sites for Transnistria (Conflict.md to show the Moldovan bias, and TiraspolTimes.com to show the Transnistrian bias). I have therefore voted for inclusion of BOTH of these two, and I merely suggested a "week keep" for Transdniestria.com. How this can be called "sockpuppetry, spamming and propaganda" is 100% beyond my comprehension, seeing how anyone else here is free to vote as they want. Can anyone who is not a paranoid schizo please enlighten me? - Mauco 20:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what to say, 'Carefull to sockpuppetry' doesn't make any sense in English and there is no such word as 'spaming'... but anyway, you don't need fancy address look ups, transdniestria.com says designed by York Interweb at the bottom. I've already explained all this in my talk. I'm not anybody's room mate, I'm almost 40 years old, and I don't know the name Mauco outside this crazy topic on wikipedia. The only connection I have with Transdniestria, transnistria (whatever) is reading this wikipedia page and transdniestria.com and watching a BBC TV documentary 6 months ago. I'm not anybody's 'sockpuppet' and never will be. I voted to keep or not keep links how I felt was right, to be honest though the whole thing with this page is totally stupid. It would probably be better to not bother having any links at all, pretend they don't exist so it matches the country in the world's eyes. --Jonathanpops 20:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Jonathanpops, I am glad that you are online today. Hopefully someone will be able to do a CheckUser on both you and me, so they can see that we don't have sockpuppets. I detest sockpuppetry. Unfortunately, this means that I am often in a minority all by my lonesome on a single topic because some of our less ethically balanced editors feel differently than I do and don't shy away from creating several user names (see some of the until-now-unknown editors who votes in the link section, above, for instance). Anyway, you should be allowed to post here and to have your own opinion, Jonathanpops, and not be accused of being anyone's sockpuppet. - Mauco 21:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I casted doubts from the begining that Jonathanpops is a sock of Mauco, bat rather bussines partners, so PLEASE!!!!!! You`re not fooling anybody with that dialog you two are having there!!!!! Jonathanpops, if you haven`t heard of sockpuppetry and spamming, don`t turn it on me: either stop playing the retard, or look them up in the dictionary. To return: there is a wikipedia rule (a bureaucreat can help me here) which allows users to willingly test their IPs. What would an IP check not only of you and of Jonathanpops, but of User:Jamason and of User:WTP. If the IPs are different, or that they are not some open proxies, where would they lead? York, Great Britain? But why do I have the feeling that just won`t happen? This is left suspended in the air, like all the questions which you deliberately ignore: who are you Mauco? Where do you live? Also in Yorkshire? What do you work? Where do you work, what company/institution? What does it say on the paycheck you get every month? What is the relation between you, User:Liliana Dioguardi, Nikola Makarovskyi, and ICDISS? What do you do in front of the computer all day long editing Wikipedia and DMOZ, adding only Transdniester-related stuff? These are simmilar questions to that of another paranoid schizo, Edward Lucas: Who funds you ICDISS? Where is it based? Who are the trustees? etc... Heeeeeeloooo!!! Mauco? Did you read that? What is going to be this time: the ignore strategy? The divertionist talk? The conspiracy theory? What?????

Regarding the scope of Mauco, I think the best sayd it Edward Lucas: There’s tiraspoltimes.com (published by an elusive Irishman), pridnestrovie.net, visitpmr.com and transdniestria.com. They are well-written – mostly by native-speakers of English – well-designed, and well-targetted at outsiders whose sympathy with the underdog might lead them to support a self-declared state struggling against the disdain of the international community.

This is how it works: Mauco is an employee of ICDISS, and possibly the webmaster Pridnestrovie.net, TiraspolTimes.com and Visitpmr.com. To remind: all of these sites are registered in Latvia and hosted on a server in Mexico. ICDISS.org too is also reg. in Latvia and hosted in Mexico (in fact, on the whois page of Pridnestrovie.net is actually says that the page, I repeat: the official page of the Trns separatist goverment, is in "care of ICDISS.org"). ICDISS, or Mauco as employee, signed a bussiness deal with Jonathan Mallory (wikipedia user Jonathanpops), or with York Interweb, by which they support eachother: you add the link to my site, I add the link to your site, you write apologetic discourses about my site, I write for you, and we all get payd.

This is much more than simple roommates. Those are their jobs, and that was just a simple business deal. They are payd big money by the Smirnovs. After all, those nuclear rockets [46], [47][48] make a pretty damn good profit. But they are amateurs: Edward Lucas: It seems more likely that the ICDISS is a bunch of lightweight opportunists in Washington DC, paid for by tycoons and goons in Transdniestria, perhaps with the encouragement of sympathisers in Moscow. The same money probably pays for the other websites, and also subsidises ‘Breakthrough’, a local youth movement that apes similar pro-Kremlin efforts in Russia. But the involvement is clear: Mauco has managed to make the quality of the Trns-related articles as low as possible. Just look at his edits: some Smirnov PR, creation of the Breakthrough article, link removed, another link removed, etc. And again, to make it clear: Mauco is directly responsable for the content of Pridnestrovie.net, VisitPMR.com and TiraspolTimes.com. The comment by the user called "Pridnestrovie.net" was made on 15th of September. On September 20th, all of a sudden a post appears, and immediatelly mauco comments.

Just another coincidence, Mauco? Part of the BIG C.I.A. conspiracy? Mauco, spare, at least me, of that cheap talk, on how you were invited by TiraspolTimes, and all that gargle... Jonathanpops should be banned for being a spamer, and Mauco should be banned for the constant attempts to lower the quality of Wikipedia by propagandistic eidts. 08:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting rant. Nuff said. :-) - Mauco 16:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to get out more, it's only wikipedia, you know just another website, all be it a large one? I'm not a cahoots with anyone, if I was getting paid by spies/governments or whatever I wouldn't spend my time posting on Wikipedia talk pages. I'm not a spammer, or a spamer, and as for being "Careful [beware] to [of] sockpuppetry..." I don't know why anyone would waste their time on such things. It's a wonderful story though, I might turn it into a novel one day. --Jonathanpops 10:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I hate to agree with you, Jonathanpops (now we will get told that we are meatpuppets by the hatesquad). Someone here obviously needs to grow up, get a life, or both... - Mauco 16:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't argue with opponents ... just delegitimize them

Apparently the fact that User:Illythr sent an email to Tiraspol Times[49] and gave them a link to this page, must have made one of them come here. I note that they didn't post, but they must have read some of the discussion because I just received an email from them, and maybe some of the rest of you did, too (I know Illythr already got one).

Basically, I (Mauco) have been invited to pen an opinion piece for Tiraspol Times. If I accept, it will of course be on the condition that there be no censorship and that my words appear in the publication exactly as they are written. However, what I fear more than the censorship of the dreaded "black hole of Transnistria" is the predictably vitriolic reaction of some of the posters here on this page if I agree to write such an article and if it is accepted for publication.

Since Transnistria completed its referendum and it became fairly clear that there is now little likelihood that its people will ever want to join Moldova voluntarily, this has changed the tone of this forum and the formerly civil discourse. New arrivals who never before participated in the page have suddenly become active and not a single day goes by anymore without someone here stooping to personal attacks and disqualifications - be it against myself (as one of the more active editors), yesterday's below-the-belt disqualification of jonathanpops, against any and all pro-Transnistria websites (like Tiraspol Times), and basically anyone who dares to take a view which is less than unquestionably in favor of the official Moldovan/Romanian position on the issue.

Any detached observer can see that these attacks are aimed at delegitimizing dissent. Such discourse implicitly rejects a dissenter's right to participate in the editing of this page. It is ironic that one of the charges which is levied against Transnistria is, precisely, that it suppresses dissent.

Within these colleagues' political imagination, the problem with those who disagree with them is not that they are wrong but that they are evil, paid stooges. This is why we see a stream of replies to opposition arguments not with reasoned rebuttals but with personal attacks.

Because, when it comes down to it, I can have a debate with someone I disagree with. I can share Wikipedia with someone who is merely wrong. But I cannot allow pure evil a role here. I have a duty to stop it, by any means at my disposal.

Now, we see a number of posters here who made this very explicit. In their fantasy ideology, anyone who attempts to see things in a way which gives the benefit of the doubt to Transnistria is just Kremlin's handmaiden.

In this worldview, there is no such thing as an individual Transnistrian identity or voter preference, and if there is, it is suppressed at gunpoint by minions put in place by the Kremlin to quell free (read: pro-Moldovan) speech. Moldova can do no wrong, whereas Russia, in comparison, is the devil incarnate.

Thus, having equated Russia with the devil, anyone who does not explicitly agree with this is, in effect, an agent of Satan. A purveyor of pure evil. Now, lets take this line of argument seriously for a moment, and work through its implications.

If you truly see the world in those terms, don't you have a duty to make absolutely sure that the devil does not get a chance to present its arguments? Aren't you duty-bound to do whatever it takes to prevent that? Doesn't intellectual fraud and academic dishonesty become almost a patriotic obligation if the alternative is to yield even an inch to beelzebub?

But this ideology is fundamentally incompatible with open discourse and the fact-centered collaboration upon which Wikipedia is built.

I can achieve a working relationship with my opponents only if I see political differences as normal, as a result of human beings' natural tendency to have different views on any given subject. But I cannot do so if I think that political differences are the result of the fact that I am good and my opponents are Satan spawn.

If I do agree and accept the invitation to pen a column for "Darth Vader's mouthpiece", I would like to touch upon themes such as these. The distrust and satanization of the other side is not just what keeps us from building better articles on Wikipedia. It is also what keeps the two banks of the Dniester from finding, quite literally, any common ground. - Mauco 02:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I hear you brother!!! We thank you Mother Russia for protecting us from the C.I.A propaganda! The sophistry and fancy words just above are just eyeopeners. This was my fav: If you truly see the world in those terms, don't you have a duty to make absolutely sure that the devil does not get a chance to present its arguments? Aren't you duty-bound to do whatever it takes to prevent that? Doesn't intellectual fraud and academic dishonesty become almost a patriotic obligation if the alternative is to yield even an inch to beelzebub?. I`ve just shed a tear... Belzebub is against the pathetic, USSR nostalgics, matchbox-apartments living, Transdniestria factory workers! Thank you Mauco!!! You are a rose, but a spine in the eyes of thy enemies!!!! Sorry for all of my attacks. The light giver of the world, the magnificent sun, is ugly in the eyes of the mole. You are the sun. You are also the hammer and the sickle Mauco. You are everything for us. Thank you for existing. 08:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you agree to write for Tiraspol Times is your problem. But don't push to include links to Tiraspol Times in Wikipedia. Transnistria can have its side of the story heard in Wikipedia, through the official webpage of PMR.--MariusM 07:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't so much "agree to write for them", but like some other people here, I happened to get an email yesterday and was invited to submit an opinion column (like a letter to the editor, to have my views heard.) I am not joining their staff, if that is what you think. In fact, my main condition will be that they do not change a single word that I write if I decide to go forward. My theme would be about the need for better relations with Chisinau and I will not accept any kind of censorship. - Mauco 16:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Marius, but what do you have against this.... this... this protuberance of democracy called William Mauco?? Didn`t he already sayd that TiraspolTimes.com is totally independent? The fact that TiraspolTimes.com, Smirnov`s myspace account (Pridnestrovie.net) ICDISS.org have all the same registrant and location, is just a little coincidence, part of that BIG coincidence poor Mauco is not responsable of any kind. 09:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Russia is certainly no devil. It's a former great power on its way to become one again. And like any other great power, e.g. the US, Russia doesn't refrain from creating or maintaining shitty situations that suit them, wherever they can. BTW, Darth Vader and the emperor are not such bad guys when you think it over carefully. What they want is order, which includes crushing pretty much all rebels. This is very much like most contemporary conservatives (e.g. Bush).

Now, the problem with Transnistria is that it does not meet the western democracy criteria. Of course Transnistria claims to be a democracy, where the people can freely speak. But I recall you that the communist regimes were "democratic", too. Iran is a democracy, too, much more than some would acknowledge. But the communist states and Iran were/are not "western-like democracies". Regardless of "referenda" that were "free" according to the local authorities. Finally, there is probably a "Teheran times" newspaper, where any supporter of the regime can publish. :) This does not imply freedom of speech.

Now, Transnistria not being a democracy does not mean that it will not become independent at some point. But not because of democracy. It's just because the Russians keep those people under such a barbarous rule, that any definitive solution will look good to those people. And I'm not anti-Russian here. It's regular great power policy. The US did that, too, in Central and South America. Dpotop 08:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a well-reasoned comment, Dpotop. It was that sort of a discussion which I hoped to invite by publishing my rather long essay on "Don't argue with opponents ... just delegitimize them". Of course, as you can see above, the predictable reactions weren't slow in coming from the usual cast of characters (plus some which were too coward to even sign their name to their attacks). Revealing... - Mauco 16:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Another link in The Economist

The Economist believes that all the web sites cited here, and the Tiraspol Times, are KGB-style pro-Transdnistrean propaganda. While reading one previous post, I foud this very much like conspiracy theory. There is one link in "The Economist", but you need to pay. However, there's another link (still free) in The Economist (the article) which is pretty funny. I start to believe those guys. Dpotop 13:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We can’t reference to this sites anymore:
pridnestrovie.net
icdiss.org
visitpmr.com
tiraspoltimes.com
their reputation beyond repair. Wikipedia became a tool of propaganda- that is the reality.
EvilAlex 14:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

EvilAlex, speaking of propaganda. Here is one of the sites which you yourself pushed hard, over and over again, to try to get included in the Wikipedia link list on several occasions. Without disclosing at the time that you were, in fact, the author and creator and owner of the site: http://transnistria.ru.ru - 16:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The link to the article is this http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7258534 for anyone who wants to read it. It is a great article! I have personally been helping the the author of the article with some background information for a follow-up story which was published earlier this month. - Mauco 16:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

: Actually, to be honest to the truth, Tiraspol Times was not mentioned in the Economist article or tied to KGB-propaganda by the Economist. - Mauco 16:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I cite from the aforementioned article:

"Meanwhile, an e-mail to the ICDISS has produced a response, apparently from Ms Stephenson. She has been interviewed in the Tiraspol Times, an online magazine produced (again, expertly but mysteriously) in support of the authorities there."

Dpotop 16:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the online-only article. I was referring to the one which made it to print (the one which was actually published in "The Economist" magazine. - Mauco 16:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

All of this site use the same IP, all of them have been published within few days of each other. Coincident? I don’t think so. Even Economist article have questions about Tiraspol Times- “an online magazine produced (again, expertly but mysteriously) in support of the authorities there.”
Tiraspol Times have registration in a hotel –“ Tiraspol 118, 25 October St.”- GREAT !!!
Read all of these articles:

• Astroturfing
  
• Radio Free Europe –Tiraspol Times using the name of Tom de Waal for an article which he didn't wrote.
  
• Osservatorio sui Balcani (Italian translation of the above, just that it can be accessed for free) -- calls the attempt of Tiraspol Times to find parallels with Kosovo "comical and parodical". All of this sites appeared just recently and already in a word of sh*t.
  EvilAlex 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that we are going in circles. EvilAlex is repeating the same thing over and over again. And now, I for the - what, 3rd time - have to inform that I already checked out the Tom de Waal thing. It is in Archive 5. "Radio free europe" was wrong, as simple as that. I explained how I did my fact checking and I provided all the sources. Anyone with a bit of time can do the exact same thing. Before mouthing off here, we can check the facts. I did. All of the quotes checked out and were verifiable from reputable third party sources. And as someone else says above, Tom de Waal's name appeared merely as a commentator, not as the writer of the piece. Again, all of this is online guys. - Mauco 22:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

KGB agents

The dispute over who is a KGB agent and who's not is getting silly. I say that we focus on writing the article instead of arguing without a scope.

Now, about the sources, I say that we should stick to reputable sources' or official information. This is not the way:

The Wall Street Journal called in 2005 Transnistria "a major haven for smuggling weapons and women", but Tiraspol Times <<a local website set up two months ago and possibly affiliated with the Transnistrian government>> says that's not true.

References

• Moldova's Ruling Communists Are Leading a Swing to the West, Marc Champion in London and Alan Cullison in Moscow. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Mar 4, 2005. pg. A.13
• http://www.tiraspoltimes.com

If we need to put the opinion of the Transnistrian government, let's use their sources, not via some dubious third-party site, ok? bogdan 18:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.Pridnestrovie.net and http://www.VisitPMR.com are government sites. There are several independent third-party confirmations on this, in addition to the official "about us" pages.[50], [51] - And what is wrong with simply writing to the government and asking? I haven't done that, but I know at one other editor of this page who - when he is in doubt - simply writes and asks, instead of having longwinded discussions on a Talk page about what is, what isn't, what could be, and what might. Ask, and see what they say. - Mauco 23:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Tiraspol Times apppears to have no government affiliation[52], but again, we can always ask. The only "tie" is that they use the same webdesigner and webserver, which is no surprise because there are probably only two or three good companies in Transnistria for that sort of work. It is a small place. Parliament's website is designed and hosted by the same company that did Sheriff's site, and websites for half of the companies in the country. What does that "prove"? - Mauco 23:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Smuggling company masquerading as a state

For the past year or more, I have been trying to track down the elusive report which "funded by" the British Department for International Development and claims that Transnistria is a "smuggling company masquerading as a state." It is not on the department's website and when I contacted them, they said that they have no knowledge of such a report. I have also done all sorts of web searches, and the only references we get are citations of earlier Wikipedia articles and of the BBC article. One paper included it, but it had obviously gotten the quote from the BBC story and not from the report, and in fact no one to date even knows the title of the report or who wrote it. The fact that BBC published it is not proof of anything. BBC has also published that one of the Smirnov sons own Sheriff, and we now know - thanks to Moldpres, no less - that this is not the case. I would appreciate if anyone could help me track down this report. It has been a quest of mine for a long time to find out if it exists. - Mauco 22:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to contact the writer of the BBC article, Lucy Ash bogdan 22:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't hear back from her, please let me know. I don't know her but I am touch with one of her colleagues (also from BBC). So maybe I can help with finding out if she still works there, and maybe get a phone number for her. Just email me privately from my email link and I can probably assist you if you reach a dead end. - Mauco 22:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sheriff not owned by Smirnov

Sheriff is a company with many stockholders - how do you know that Smirnov's son is not between them?--MariusM 09:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain, so if you want to say that Smirnov owns Sheriff, you just have to prove it. However, having said that, there is currently a trend to still try to smuggle misleading or just plain wrong information into the article by not claiming direct responsibility but by attributing them to a third party source. Example: If you say that Sheriff is owned by the Smirnov family, then someone will ask for verification and the claim (which is wrong) can therefore not be included. But if you say "BBC says that Sheriff is owned by Smirnov", then technically the claim is correct and could stay, which means that you succeeded in falsifying the article. You yourself, MariusM, have used this technique to great success and I will be happy to cite half a dozen examples, with logs, if you deny this. But since you ask about Sheriff, I will stay on topic. The most important principle is to remember that we have no obligation to include information that is factually wrong not even as a minority view or third party quote. This is called perpetuating a falsehood and this is contrary to the most basic Wikipedia policy. If BBC said it, or someone else said it, they now stand corrected by us. More often than not, the collaborative power of the Internet is better at correcting details and fact finding than a journalist working for the established mass media (as even such venerable sources as The New York Times have found out many times, to its chagrin). In the case of Sheriff, this was dealt with before you came here. I believe it is in Archive 4. One of the sources was Moldpres, the stateowned news agency of Moldova. There is also background information in the Talk page for Sheriff, regarding this same subject. - Mauco 14:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)