User talk:Russavia/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OKBs and builders

There's a discussion at WT:AIR/NC#Infobox data for companies about adding a field for OKBs and for the actual builders of Soviet aircraft. We're probably going to add a "builder" field for "Who actually built the aircraft if different from the design organisation". We may add a separate field for "design organisation" for "Company or bureau who designed or holds the design rights to the aircraft", or we may use the existing field. If interested, you can add your input.

We're going to need data from reliable sources on the builders/constuctors of Soviet/Russian aircraft, and if you have any sources you can add for this to the articles, that would be very helpful, even if you choose not to participate in the discussions. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

We have added a separate field for "design group" afterall. This should give us enough flexibility to be accurate, and allow us to include an individual designer and design group where needed. - BilCat (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for advising of this. Wouldn't "design group" best be "design bureau" for soviet aircraft? "design group" doesn't make much sense. Also "manufactured by" and "built by" would also be the same thing--one of these is in essence redundant. As to where aircraft were built, the book Soviet Transports is a good reference for civilian transports - other books such as the Red Star series are also good. I have a good online source for all of those books in PDF format, but won't post links here due to copyright concerns and the like - mainly I would hate for someone to report the links and lose them for all of us. --Russavia Let's dialogue 12:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The reasons why we chose those terms, along with how they are to be used, are discussed at the link I gave you above. Feel free to comment there, as this is just a trial implementation now to see how it looks/works, what problems may come up, and to get broader comments. - BilCat (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, on a sidenote, I have been busy getting permission from photographers to upload their photos to Commons, and in the last 24 hours I have been able to get permission for us to upload some 10,000+ photos to Commons -- this is in addition to the tens of thousands we already have access to. There are sooooo many photos, with some subjects now open for uploading (such as Iranian military aviation and the like), but it appears only I am making use of these resources. How to get more aviation project involved in the uploading of these photos---we have the ability to use it, and it seems pointless to let them go to waste.

An example of some of the pics are:

  • UAA Il-62 in 1971
    UAA Il-62 in 1971
  • Ethiopian DC-3 in 1974
    Ethiopian DC-3 in 1974
  • Myanmar AF MiG-29
    Myanmar AF MiG-29
  • Contrails from Tu-154
    Contrails from Tu-154
  • Myanmar AF F27
    Myanmar AF F27
  • Cambodian AF Mi-26
    Cambodian AF Mi-26
  • Drukair 146
    Drukair 146
  • Iranian Red Crescent Mi-171
    Iranian Red Crescent Mi-171

Any ideas on how to get all hands on deck? --Russavia Let's dialogue 12:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to post notices at any relevant projects, inclding WP:AIR, WP:AVIATION, WP:AIRLINES, WP:AIRPORTS, and perhaps WP:MILHIST. Posting notices at several places on Commons would also be a good thing, as there are users who frequent Commons but not en.wp. User:Cobatfor has a lot of experience in finding and uploading images to Commons, and he might be willing to help out if he has the time, and he may know of other users who might also be willing to help out. My experience in uploading images is small, but if you have the relevant licenses accessible in one place, I'd be willing to take a look and see what I can do. - BilCat (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

added Lokomotiv section to plane crash article

I've added a 'background' paragraph of the team to the plane crash article. It's pared down from what was proposed, to be relevant. I put it first after the lead, but maybe it belongs in another location in the article. I am adding cites, and there are several already. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  • lol Kolokol1 just suggested you're an interested person in the discussion on Berezovsky page working for Kremlin, because you contributed to some articles of Russian embassies. Checked your edits history, it has nothing to do with it lol) He's either ill or just a liar. He has by the way confessed he's associated with Berezovsky so I'm reporting conflict of interest finally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard

3RR warning

Please be aware of WP:EW with regard to the Occupation of Balitc States article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Missing Flagicon at Template:Foreign relations of Russia

Hello Russavia I really like the fact that a change has been made to Template:Foreign relations of Russia but I am very dissapointed that the flagicon is removed from the template. Why did this happen twice. I always liked it very much and I feel very sad that I can't edit that template to put the flag of Russia there. I want the flag back. I want you to put the Flag back as soon as possible. Please put the flagicon back in Template:Foreign relations of Russia. Please do it. All of the other foreign relations templates at Wikipedia have flagicons on their templates as well as the Coat of arms. Please put the flagicon back on.

RohilPCS (talk) 10:37 4 September 2011 (UTC)

hi koov

Re: Diplomats as "expats"

Hello, Russavia - Please be advised that this issue has been discussed previously at CFD. There is a clear concensus that diplomats (including ambassadors) are not -- I repeat NOT -- to be categorized as "Expatriates". (Have a look thru the other 200 categories if you would like confirmation of this point.) I hope I can count on you not to revert my forthcoming edits in this regard.

As for Russian/Soviet categories, there doesn't appear to be a clear pattern in that area, so I will leave those as-is. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"Help needed to upload photos" huwiki

Hi,

I translated your request into Hungarian. I hope some people will start uploading those photos. Misibacsi (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Great idea! R, I saw your note at WTAIRLINES, and I see there's a vintage Air Jamaica DC-8 pic listed. Are there anymore for AJ there? I rode on that airline as a child, so I'd love to help with some of those. I'd also be interested in any vintage Eastern Airlines photos, and BWIA also. - BilCat (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I looked at SF's photos on airlines.net, and I found the DC-8, plus a 747 for AJ, and I'll try to add them later today. I'm especially interested in finding photos of AJ 727s, but I didn't find any by Steve Fitzgerald. Also, what's the procedure for getiing /downloadign the images, and do we need to cut out the copyright notices before uploading to commons? DO you have a cetral page for the procedures? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Bill, the best way to do it is to do searches on the various sites, not all are on airliners...some are on jetphotos.net for example. Just do the search, and see if any match what we have permission for. For example I know the following are available for uploading:

That's just a small selection of what is available. Eastern not too sure about as yet...

They can all be uploaded to Commons - just use the templates as described on my Commons user page. And of course, pass the word around to other editors.

If you see a photo on there, and need the photographer to be contacted, drop me a line, as it is possible I have already contacted them - I have an excel spreadsheet of 250+ photographers already contacted, and some I have already heard from, others i am waiting to hear from, etc.

any other questions, fire away. --Russavia Let's dialogue 19:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Air Jamaiaca 727s

--Russavia Let's dialogue 19:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Bilcat, commons:Category:Photos by Torsten Maiwald are now available for uploading - those are the AirJam pics above I said template was not yet done - his photos are here. Cheers --Russavia Let's dialogue 11:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much. I may have missed it, but what is the best procedure for acquiring the photos from the website, and preparing the image to be uploaded? (I know how to upload TO commons.) As it stands, I don't know what to do, so I'm not going to be able to help out. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Save the image that you need, remove the black bar at the bottom if possible, and upload it using the templates for the permission/licence. It's pretty straight forward. If you use this link (i.e. the old upload form) this will make it very easy. Don't use the new upload wizard as it makes the process more difficult and long-winded. --Russavia Let's dialogue 06:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to see you leave

I'm really sorry to see you go, although I do understand that at some point the stress simply becomes intolerable. You had to put up with years of harassment by the EEML. And now, suddenly, many editors have joined them in attacking you.

I think your main problem was that you really cared about NPOV (I don't know anyone who has such a perceptive eye for NPOV violations). This put you into conflict with editors who wish to insert their nationalistic bias and conspiracy theories everywhere. The admins and arbitrators were too blind, ignorant or even biased; mostly they could not comprehend what you had to endure due to the constant harassment. And when they did understand, they only offered useless solutions that did not solve the problem. And yes, the EEML has always been very effective in lobbying the admins and getting them to do what the EEML wants.

You were one of the best editors in Wikipedia. But you were a fool, because you did not understand that everyone who tries to fix NPOV violations by certain editors gets attacked, sanctioned and eventually psychologically destroyed. Nanobear (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be honest that you sometimes irritated me by your lack of response to messages on certain things but I always thought you were an excellent editor. As Ezhiki said, when it there not anything which is disappointing on wikipedia.The fucktards exist, you should know this by now. Don't let them get the better of you and return and do what you do best.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

ITN credit

GreyHood Talk 22:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Come back

Please change your mind and come back. Laissez faire, it doesn't matter. Do get involved again.

P.S.: I started to upload the images you suggested to Commons, and also started to include them in a number of articles.

With warmest regards --Jetstreamer (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Good to have you back Russavia!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Collect

Re [1]: interesting. Collect has made similar implausible claims of uninvolvement elsewhere [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it's a joke. Everytime I see "uninvolved Collect" I piss myself laughing, because it actually indicates that he is knee deep involved. Such as at the AE request, how on earth can he say he is "uninvolved" when he also actively edit warred in removing the POV tag, tried claiming neutrality on the issue, which of course got some bemused comments from other editors. Collect is neither uninvolved or neutral in most things. I have never really bumped into Collect before, and from using wikistalk we had only ever edited around about 6 articles which were the same...and never at the same time, but rather long periods apart. But yet, there "uninvolved" and "neutral" Collect is, at almost every dispute discussion involving myself, making his uninvolved and neutral comments to try and have me sanctioned. So I share your disdain for such behaviour, even moreso when the editor outright lies at a 3RR report and an amendment request involving myself, and pushes for me to be sanctioned and/or banned (refer to the last 2 weeks). Frankly, I have no time for such dishonest editors, and they will themselves get banned before too long because of that dishonesty. Glad I'm not the only one who see this. Good luck with your request too. Russavia Let's dialogue 18:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Your edit of Collect's statement to make him 'involved' seems to be a violation of WP:TPG. Since WP:AE is an admin board, I can't rule out that you might be blocked for modifying someone else's statement. When an editor states that they are 'uninvolved,' it is simply a claim by the person making it. You can interpret their statement with whatever grain of salt you think best. You would normally be free to rebut Collect's statement in your own section, but you can't do so anymore since the report is closed. To avoid problems, I suggest that you revert your own edit to the closed report. Your use of the word 'lies' above also seems to be a personal attack. Please be circumspect about your own behavior if you want to participate in discussions about others' behavior at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I know you mean well and you are just trying to follow Wikipedia's guidelines but I don't see this issue even addressed in the TPG. If "involved"/"uninvolved" is something anyone can be dishonest about, and without consequences (but consequences for those who know) rather than a guide for admins to ascertain the status of a user (hence the formalised nature and the third-person), then what purpose would it serve?
Having said that, I'm open to changing my mind. If you are aware of any precedents supporting the use of misleading editorial status, I'll undo the change, regardless of it being another ridiculous, and obvious, loophole for editorial dishonesty. If there are no precedents, a community discussion regarding misleading uses of "involved/uninvolved" would be interesting.
Based upon this, I must at this time, respectfully decline your request. Russavia Let's dialogue 22:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem is: he identified his status in his own header. You changed the header he wrote, while leaving no acknowledgment on the board of the fact you changed it, making it seem like it was his choice to mark himself as 'involved.' You also did not notify him of the change. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem is Ed, that I could identify myself as an admin, or as Jimbo, or as Jesus Christ; it doesn't make it true in an any sense, and it would be changed. It's the same thing here. Having said that I was going to go to the AE and remove "involved"/"uninvolved" completely, but Lothar beat me to the punch by an hour. That is the solution. By the way, I am not an admin, nor am I Jimbo, nor am I the messiah....I'm just a very naughty boy. Russavia Let's dialogue 08:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not edit other people's statements..

Like you just did at RfArb/A: It's impolite, combative, and in the long run of things, fairly useless to the Arbitrators. See this discussion thread on more Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Statement_by_uninvolved.... Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Refer to User_talk:Russavia#Collect right above here. It is dishonest of an editor to claim to be uninvolved, particular in a thread which is discussing topic bans on two editors in which Collect was more than a willing participant in edit warring, plastering notices on people's talk pages warning them of 3RR, when he was edit warring, and ignoring talk page discussions. It is now becoming a running joke. It may not be of any use to Arbitrators, but it of use to the general community who might be otherwise clueless as to an editor's level of involvement. But hey, if you say it is combative, I won't do it in future. I have removed all pages, except for those in my userspace from my watchlist, am no longer keeping any major tabs on discussions, with the exception of the clarification request, so I thank you for the link; I will post a comment over there. Cheers, Russavia Let's dialogue 19:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I left you a message [3]. No need to discuss anything. This is simply my suggestion. Biophys (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please STOP stalking my edits!! You have NEVER edited the article before, nor have you ever commented on the talk page. Taken in with the recent similar case, it is bloody obvious you are stalking my edits. And when you add the Aeroflot article into the fray, it is fricking obvious that you are still treating WP as a battleground. Isn't it fantastic that here I am, banned from interacting with you, yet you, given your previous (and still current) harrassment on myself, are not hit with a likewise ban. Stop using interaction bans as a weapon to control content, and to lock people who you consider an opponent out of an article. Otherwise you will find yourself getting raked over the coals. Russavia Let's dialogue 01:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
P.S. As well as this being a request for you to stop stalking my edits, this is also a request to leave me alone. That means stay off my talk page! Russavia Let's dialogue 01:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Fine, I have no problem with not coming to your talk page. I thought it would be in your best interests to comply with your editing restrictions, and therefore left this message at your talk page (you was active but did not respond at article talk page for a few hours). Yes, I occasionally talked with Vecrumba and TLAM and watched what they do. They did not mind. Biophys (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Will someone get it thru this editors thick skull that stalking and harrassment is not on. And also tell them to stay away from me Otherwise I will explode. Russavia Let's dialogue 01:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

AE report

I submitted it here. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course you did. LOL. I'll respond in kind to you. Fool. Russavia Let's dialogue 18:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Avicopter AC313

Nice find! Since we do have an article for the Avicopter AC313, I'ved moved the photo there from the Aérospatiale Super Frelon/Z-8 page. - BilCat (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that BilCat, sorry just saw your message now. Got a heap of new permissions as well, with a lot of rare pics becoming available to us. Russavia Let's dialogue 19:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a lazy boy

G'day and yeah, I suppose I really should get myself a Commons identity as well. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Righto, thanks for the links. YSSYguy (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

opinion on Lizzie Phelan

Hi buddy. Would you be so kind as to give your opinion on the Lizzie Phelan entry as a member of the Russian Mass Media task force? Cheers GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi GPF, thanks for the message. At the moment I am having to deal with some pretty serious harrassment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Russavia so right now I can't look at it in any great depth. However, I did have a quick glance at it, and it does look like a "borderline" case somewhat. Try to find as many independent sources as you can. But at the moment, it looks like it is headed for a no consensus decision. If I get a chance in the next day or so, and the AfD is still active, I will see what I can dig up on it for you. Sorry I couldn't be of more immediate assistance to you, given the circumstances I hope you understand. Cheers, Russavia Let's dialogue 15:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainians

I would be grateful for some support at Ukrainians. Some discussion-ignoring vandals want me to break the 3RR rule. Thank you! --Voyevoda (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's best not to edit war on the article -- that goes for both parties. I am currently blocked for a week because of breaching an interaction ban (refer to WP:AE), but even when I come off the block, I am afraid I am not going to be able to help...as much as I support the way you are handling yourself in general (except with some of the reverts) -- at least you are discussing. However, I am quite disturbed by this from SeikoEn

I agree with Livivske. Also, we must write from ukrainian point of view because there is to many different ponit of views, including russian one. To include everyone's opinion, sometimes it would no longer make sense, it is essential that we stick to facts and sources, primary Ukrainian sources because page is about Ukrainiansand their tragedy . There is no POV here, I believe Voyevoda understands that. Thanks!

That to me is the sign that you may have a problem on your hands, in that WP:ADVOCACY is going on in the article. That is most definitely not allowed -- ALL views have to be afforded equal consideration.

I also do support your comments on removing qualifiers from Holodomor -- there is no need to describe it as genocide, when only a small portion of the world recognises it as such -- the term itself is already heavily laden with POV, there is no need to destroy any notion of WP:NPOV any further.

You might be better off requesting an WP:RFC for assistance from uninvolved, third-parties if you still have any concerns. I'm sorry that this is probably not the answer you were hoping for; I have no desire to get involved with yet more editors with rabid nationalistic tendencies as is apparent from that talk page. Keep plodding along and try to find a solution amongst yourselves is all I can say. Russavia Let's dialogue 16:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Halloween

 Sp33dyphil has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!

If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

I'm happy to open my doors to you, while some people aren't willing to do so. Nevertheless, have a good one! --Sp33dyphil © • © 06:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Sp33dyphil. Russavia Let's dialogue 06:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL

User_talk:Galassi#AE. GreyHood Talk 11:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

    • LOL that is fucking priceless. So now not only do I have people stalking me on WP, but they are doing it offline as well. That's nice dear. Gotta go, I have a phone call to make. Russavia Let's dialogue 12:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I went to make the phone call, but it was at that point that I realised that I am dead. What am I to do? Russavia Let's dialogue 14:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Geez, I go on vacation for a week, and that's when you choose to die? How inconsiderate! You Aussies have no manners whatsoever. Well, as a consolation, at least we now know that Halloween is every bit as magical as it's claimed to be—any other time during the year your spirit would have certainly already departed!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 1, 2011; 18:13 (UTC)
      • I suppose that now, as a spirit, you has a full and legitimate right to continuously hound and stalk your old dear friends ;) What else occupation there is for spirits, afterall? GreyHood Talk 18:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Ah, yes, you could also just fly around ;) GreyHood Talk 19:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I was checking my gmail account just now (gmail of course standing for ghost mail), and there was this:

Re: Payment Notification:

We are writhing to know if it's true that you are DEAD? Because we received a notification from one MR. Bob Chantler of USA stating that you are DEAD and that you have giving him the right to claim your outstanding inheritance fund of, 5.5 million united state dollars. He stated you died on a CAR accident. He has been calling us regarding this issue, but we cannot proceed with him until we confirm this by not hearing from you after 2 days. Be advised that we have made all arrangements for you to receive and confirm your fund without anymore stress, and without any further delays.

All we need to confirm now is your been DEAD Or still Alive. Because this MAN'S message brought shock to our minds. And we just can't proceed with him until we Reconfirm if this is a reality OR not But if it happened that we did not hear from you after 2 days, then we say: MAY YOUR SOUL REST IN PERFECT PEACE"

YOUR JOY AND SUCCESS REMAINS OUR GOAL.

May the peace of the Lord be with you wherever you may be now.

Your Faithfully,

Mrs.Farida Waziri.

It is nice to know that me being dead really must be true. And at least now I know how I died. But f' it, this isn't going to make my ghost stop haunting those who need to be haunted. Russavia Let's dialogue 15:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Bitchipedia

To anyone who is interested, the photos above have been called "crappy" over at Wikipedia Review by a bitchipedian (Archived link). To them, I say, who the f' cares what you think? Or is it that you simply have nothing better to do than denigrate everything I do on this project. Or perhaps you are just threatened by the very presence of myself on this project. But, hey, if you really think that way, why is it that you don't have the balls to say so onwiki, instead you have to rant about myself on a non-WP website? I guess it's just a sign of utter immaturity and insecurity about oneself.

But what makes it even worse, is that you are publicly denigrating the work of some of the 130+ aviation photographers whom I have contacted, and who have kindly made available their photos for use on the project. Such comments are reprehensible, and make me question what is trying to be achieved by that editor. Unbeknownst to them, I am trying to "recruit" new editors from amongst these photographers, and aviation enthusiasts, and the last thing we need is for totally moronic and denigrating comments like that being made in a public forum. The comments don't denigrate me, but denigrate other contributors to this project.

So please, stop and give yourself a big pat on the back. <begin sarcasm> You are an absolute legend, and we should be holding you up as a shining light of what we look for in editors on this project.</end sarcasm>

Perhaps WR should rename itself to Bitchipedia, after all that's all the site is good for. Russavia Let's dialogue 05:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  • No, mate, it's this site that deserves the title. WR is a breath of fresh air compared to 'pedia. The only consolation is that russky-pedia is even worse. Why waste your own time here? NVO (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too munch about the person in question and his kind. WP may not be perfect, but that's just because we're people. Yet, Wikipedia is the greatest sources of information anywhere in the known universe. They are fascinated enough to read through the project and discuss it in forums. Essentially the complaint from Radek is that because not all articles meet FA standards, the project is BS, and therefore his and his kind do not want to contribute. I suspect their main reason for not wanting to participate is that they believe they cannot contribute at the level of quality they find here. They are awed at the size of the project, that any topic they may or may not have an interest in has an article, the quality of the projects best articles and lists, and the brilliance of our best imagery. It freaks them out, because they think they could not do the quality work they see, and they cling together in an echobox, finding any shortcoming they can of the project instead of joining and finding their potential. Arsenikk (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Arsenikk, the editor in question is a former member of the WP:EEML, whom is still engaging in harrassment and hounding of myself on Wikipedia. We are both currently blocked because of Wikipedia:AE#Russavia. In some areas they are quite productive, but when it comes to me, they are nothing but disruptive. But what really shits me is that this particular editor is conniving. To "our faces", in trying to get me blocked from other areas, he says that I am productive in aviation areas, yet behind our backs he denigrates myself as an editor, and denigrates other contributors in the process. He also claims he doesn't stalk, nor keep tabs of, my edits, yet here he is bitching about myself on another website. And we as a community allow such things to occur, because we as a community are too gutless to let people speak their minds. Mind you, I doubt such a person would try saying such things on Wikipedia, because it knocks themselves off the holier-than-thou pedestal that they have placed themselves on. Russavia Let's dialogue 09:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm shocked to hear such characteristics. The photos above are of a good quality, and some of them are really cool, that's without mentioning their encyclopedic value as related to subjects depicted. One should either really dislike aviation or get too much affected by personal issues to write things like "crappy" about those images. GreyHood Talk 10:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it is total cluelessness to be calling any of the photos above "crappy". Or perhaps they simply have a shitty attitude. But to bitch about them on WR is just weird behaviour to engage in -- especially when they claim they are not keeping tabs on my editing. Wouldn't you say that this is evidence that they are clearly following my edits? :) Russavia Let's dialogue 12:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I should join Bitchipedia and suck up the rear ends of other editors over there. Perhaps I am better off here -- it's enough that one has to deal with dishonest miscreants here, without having to deal with the dregs of Wikipedia outcasts over there as well. Russavia Let's dialogue 10:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Talking about dishonesty. I have been informed that Radek is now trying to excuse his behaviour with this, claiming:

Yeah, ok, I just said that to see if my off-Wiki activities were being stalked, which they apparently are. Some of those pictures are pretty neat-o.?

Frankly, it's rubbish. I was alerted to his initial thread by another Bitchipedia reader. Radek/Volunteer Marek claims that he wants me to stay the hell away from him; one would then assume that he would stay away from me as well. He obviously has been following my edits on Wikipedia, because he has referenced my edits on WR. He could also have referenced those edits that he is seeing from not stalking me, in a more appropriate tone, without denigrating the work of myself on the project, and without denigrating the contributions of other non-editors. Unfortunately, Radek/VM has a long history of denigrating other editors and their work, and often in the most incivil way. Refer to this, where he engages in some heinous personal attacks on User:Estlandia (formerly Miacek), calling him an asshole. Or refer to this (Archived) where he accuses myself of "cheating" at DYK. Such nice behaviour from Radek isn't it?

Now bring this back to his recent stalking of me to Controversies and criticisms of RT. It is obvious from the above he has my talk page on his watchlist.

Here is the version of events:

  • 07:50, 26 October 2011 - Volunteer Marek made this edit, and then took a few hour break.
  • 08:42, 26 October 2011 - Biophys, who has never edited RT (network) before, nor ever used the talk page, posts a warning on my talk page. It is obvious, after his following of edits over at Aeroflot that he is following my edits.
  • 09:01, 26 October 2011 - I respond to my stalker
  • 09:04, 26 October 2011 - I add a note telling my stalker to stay off my talk page
  • 09:29, 26 October 2011 - my stalker returns to post further, after being told to stay away
  • 09:38, 26 October 2011 - I post a general message in response to my stalker coming back to my talk page after telling them to stay away
  • 10:40, 26 October 2011 - An hour after my first stalker comes to my talk page, Marek stalks me over to that article and reverts me outright. Note, he has never edited the article before, nor has he ever used the talk page.
  • Marek claims that he was following the edits of other editors. The editor in question, has only ever edited that article once as per this almost two weeks previously. There is no rhyme nor reason as to why Marek who has never edited that article, nor RT (network) on previous occasions, would put this on his watchlist. It is obvious he has simply plucked a name off the history list, and claimed he has been following their edits.

However, the 62 minute time frame between Biophys coming to my talk page, and Marek's revert, is a pretty good indication of how he got to that article. Taken in with the fact that he is now bitching about me on WR, it is obvious that he is watching my talk page, and his first edit upon his return from a break was to stalk me to that article and engage in an outright revert -- given the nature of Biophys' stalking, which Marek would be aware of (I don't AGF in that these editors always plead ignorance -- only ignorant people will believe it continually), his revert was does knowingly to provoke myself, and given Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Russavia (where Marek was blocked), he was well aware he was breaching his interaction ban. He did this to provoke a reaction in a most disruptive way.

As to Marek claiming I am stalking him over at WR, as one can see, I've been way too busy uploading to Commons, and doing other bits and pieces to bother with stalking others to see what they are bitching about. One can only take his comments over there as another attempt to dig himself out of a hole. Don't let him get away with it yet again. Russavia Let's dialogue 14:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Copy of email sent to Arbcom

In relation to where I am to post anything onwiki, can someone please advise me where this should be done?

Also, I would like to request the committee to consider that there are 3 distinct issues that need dealing with and/or clarifying here. As such, I would like the committee to deal with one at a time, and in doing so forbid the usual peanut galleries from both sides from commenting.

Issue #1 -- following of my edits by Biophys, his using of a one-way interaction ban as a weapon to lock me out of articles I am clearly editing at the time, and his following my edits in the obvious hope of finding something he can report me for. Only Biophys needs to comment in relation to this -- no other editor has anything of any use to add in relation to this, due to their uninvolvement. There is still an open request at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Russavia in which FPaS is looking at the placing of discretionary sanctions on Biophys forbidding him from interacting with myself. Whilst I thank FPaS, is this still able to be dealt with at the AE level? Or would the Committee prefer to do it?

Issue #2 -- following of my edits by Volunteer Marek, his claiming that he wants me to stay away from him, yet outright reverting of any of my edits, his overly combative attitude (not only directed towards myself, but other editors as well), and successful claim of ignorance of what interaction bans entail, and other information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Russavia#Bitchipedia - no-one else can add anything in relation to any of this due to uninvolvement, except perhaps with the exception of Miacek (now Estlandia), who I know has been attacked continually by Marek (as per the links on my talk page)

Issue #3 -- interaction bans between myself and Martintg aka Tammsalu aka Nug, and to a lesser extent Vecrumba. No-one else has anything of use in relation to this.

I am requesting the above because editors who are not involved directly in the issues above have unfortunately resorted to misrepresentation of issues, either possibly due to their not being involved, and in a couple of cases, due to long-stated desires that I should not be dealt with on a collaborative basis and trying to get me sanctioned for things that are based on pure hogwash.

Please advise, and I will post this on my talk page as well so that it is in the open. Russavia Let's dialogue 21:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

infoboxes

Hi. I have been doing a bit of maintenance, adding infoboxes, among other things, and have found that the majority of articles in WPAviation requiring infoboxes are airline articles. As you seem to be active on the airline front how about adding a few info boxes at Petebutt (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. For the last 2 months I have been heavily involved in getting permissions from hundreds of photographers for use of their photos on Commons, and getting them into articles. First and foremost, my intent was to get content for articles I am working on, which you can see on my userpage, but it has sort of snowballed from there. So most of my time at the current "mainspace" time is getting permissions, getting images up on Commons, fulfilling requests from other editors, and unfortunately very little of the content I really want to get done is getting done. I will be taking a break, at some stage in the next 25 years, and will try to work on content I have been wanting to work on. So at the moment doing things such as infoboxes is at the very bottom of my list. :( Perhaps you could place a note at WT:AIRLINES and see if there are other editors there who can help out with some of that gnomish, and required, editing. Cheers, Russavia Let's dialogue 14:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Excellent,Thanks. It will probably also stimulate editting on the articles too, as I have discovered.
To explain the odd position of my username, I am using Cheome which has a tendency to drop inserts at the top of the page.Petebutt (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Nikita Denisenkov for deletion

notability guidelines for artists (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Saatchi Gallery, London, UK is 100% such resource not mentioning others in External links section.

Proposed deletion And also: Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again. It also has Old prod full tag for further editors

Please open Deletion discussions if you still consider it for deletion.

LavdLet's dialogue 17:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

He has not had any showing at Saatchi -- please read http://www.saatchionline.com/about where it clearly states "In 2006 the Saatchi Gallery in London, known the world over for discovering emerging talent, launched Saatchi Online as a way to give artists not represented by galleries a platform to show their work to a global audience.". It is basically a flickr for painters --- even non-notable ones as this artist as it stands. As to deletion, refer to the AfD at the top of the page. Russavia Let's dialogue 17:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Airliners.net

Just come across this File:UA Express CRJ.jpg image from airliners.net taken by Alejandro Torres, do you have a list somewhere to check if he is one of your uploaders before it is tagged as a copyvio, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have marked it as a copyvio. All photographers who have given permission will be sorted at Commons:Category:Aviation photographers -- Alejandro is one of those photographers I have contacted, and I am just waiting for a reply from. Cheers, Russavia Let's dialogue 09:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. MilborneOne (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Russavia/Archive_22&oldid=1151024091"