User talk:Hodja Nasreddin

Welcome!

Hello, Hodja Nasreddin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Russia Portal, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist.

Again, welcome! Alex Bakharev 00:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin, Quotations

Hello, Biophys. I've removed one of your contribs and moved other (see history). But it's mostly technical, i.e. your work is appreciated. I've noticed some of your interest to Quotations -- let's work together to improve them. The thing is, the majority of the section was contributed once by me, and there was no one pro or contra voice. I would give B for the section, but not more. It still needs a large work of adding, removing, and refining. And, again, your work is valued. Remember one of basic principles of Wikipedia, be bold! Thank you. ellol 13:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested...

I noticed your interests that you stated on your user page, and I just thought that you might be interested in the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject. If you like, drop by. I think that you may find it interesting. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 20:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Welcome. :) – ClockworkSoul 07:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-postulated relativity

Hi Biophys, I don't have the impression that his approach is really original. You may see that as a negative remark, but for Wikipedia it can actually work out positive, as such an approach (which I would call "Lorentzian") that was shared by a number of notable, even "authoritive" physicists is certainly more notable (= encyclopedic) than that of one physicist who is unknown in the west.

Thus it may be worth writing a slightly more general article about it, if a respected journal article or book can be found that already discusses the subject (in order to avoid WP:OR). Possibly either "Lorentzian relativity" or "Physical relativity" could be sufficiently general as well as notable topics to which that book belongs. But probably you'd need help from other editors to make such a new article live up to its scope... Harald88 21:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Regards, Harald88 21:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's simply a new way of teaching SR, then there are two ways it could be included in Wikipedia:

1. It was a notable minority viewpoint among teachers of SR.
2. Our editors thought the pedagogical approach would be useful for our readers, and found it not to have any major philisophical differences from ordinary SR teaching.

Is either of these things true? -- SCZenz 17:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I can answer for Biophys (Biophys where are you?).

Point 1: Yes, that is verified to be factual (Lorentz, Poincare, Langevin and several other teachers as well as a number of notable experimantal physicists such as Ives)

Point 2: Not clear what you mean. People such as Bell and of course the above Russian author, if I understand well, emphasized the pedagogical usefulness of the physical interpretation that we inherited from the stationary ether model, even if we don't explicitly use it.

Regards, Harald88 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This month's winner is proteasome!

– ClockworkSoul 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Albumin

I was wondering if I might pick your brain? Yesterday you wrote in peripheral membrane protein that albumin can associate with lipid bilayers under certain experimental conditions in vitro. May I ask what conditions those might be, and what your source is? I ask because this behavior may be interfering with a set of experiments that I'm trying to perform. Many thanks! – ClockworkSoul 17:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! – ClockworkSoul 03:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Peripheral membrane protein

Did you notice that this article has been nominated for the MCB Collaboration of the Month? I see you've been putting alot of work into it, so you might want to add your vote to the stack: it's currently one of the front runners to be next month's collaboration. – ClockworkSoul 18:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nikolay Khokhlov

Hi, Biophys: You left a note on the talk page of the defector Kokhlov and it is entirely possible that someone is pulling your chain. :::Parapsychology::: is the pseudo-science of the supernatural, especially ghosts and demons. Its possible that the U.S. government does study that sort of thing, but it isn't likely that a Soviet defector would be employed in such a potentially sensitive and embarrassing project. It is, however, quite likely that his wife and children may have spent time in gulag. V. Joe 15:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Russian history

Hi, i am historian, tell me more, what you specialize in, i love your edit on beria, i think we need to improve on some other bios too, can i send you suggestions? Nov 20

Yuri Shchekochikhin and Sergei Yushenkov

Hi, thank you for your hard work in developing Yuri Shchekochikhin and Sergei Yushenkov. If we can get them to a really good condition within five days, I am thinking of nominating one or both of these to appear on the Wikipedia front page in the "Did you know?" column of newest articles. [1] Let me know if you have any suggestions for a good "Did you know" phrase for the page. Best wishes, Dryman 21:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Biophys, thanks for your further edits. I have nominated the articles, I think they are in good shape and should have a good chance at being on the front page this week! If you think of any other important facts feel free to add them. It might also help to make a short stub article for Liberal Russia with anything you know about it. I have read that Yushenkov was assassinated just hours after registering Liberal Russia in the 2003 Duma elections [2], if this is true I think it's a very striking coincidence. Dryman 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

On November 29, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yuri Shchekochikhin, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

On November 29, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sergei Yushenkov, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Well done Biophys. Top work, a double strike. Dryman was the kind nominator. Feel free to self-nominate, as the vast majority of entries are such. Thanks again, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Alexander Litvinenko

Okay. You want to take a look at it and cleanup and stuff? Maybe it will be more effective that way? I'm not too familiar with the whole apartment bombing thing. Nishkid64 02:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Galina Starovoitova

Ok, I'll try to take a look at it today. Dryman 18:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RE:Communism and Nazism

One interesting point I found there is that Soviet occupiers in East Europe were actually worse than Nazi occupiers. - Indeed, the Baltic States suffered considerably more from Communist repressions than under Nazi rule (Estonia/Latvia lost about 1/4 of population during the WW2 - mostly due to Communism). Hence the alleged pro-Nazi tendencies (?!) there. The number of victims of Communism of course exceeds that of Nazism [3], since Nazism was obvious evil and was quickly defeated, but commies managed to hold power for 70 yrs. Constanz - Talk 08:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Suvorov on Berlin wall

Hi, I added Suvorov's citation on the wall & communism [4] here. If you happen to take interest in it, you might improve the translation. The original text is here [5].Constanz - Talk 11:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:83.236.12.38

I think it was a good faith effort, but I reverted the user's massive changes. I'm leaving a note on his/her talk page about their edit. Nishkid64 20:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

I'm hoping that with your experitise in membrane proteins you might be able to help me with this one. My lab is working with a peripheral protein that we believe binds to the external side of the cell membrane by adhesion to mannan, and in order to investigate the possibility I would like to enzymatically digest the extracellular mannan from immobilized cells, but I can't seem to find an enzyme that preferentially digests mannan in literature or the Sigma catalogue. Would you happen to know anything offhand that I might be able to use? Many thanks in advance. – ClockworkSoul 17:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

C2 domain

Hello! A bot caught your creation of C2 domain as a possible copyvio from here. Usually, we delete them under a general speedy criteria (G12), but in this case it is not entirely clear. In the terms of use the site claims the database is public for any purpose. Can you confirm this is right, and information copied from such database is not copyvio? You can either reply at my talk page or at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, as I will leave the entry listed there until this is confirmed. Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo 04:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it was a false positive. As User:Wherebot is likely to catch new additions if they are copied, could you please add a note in their talk pages either pointing to the WikiProject discussion, or to the C2 domain precedent? It will make things easier for us to remove them from the copyvio list as soon as they appear. Thanks again! -- ReyBrujo 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Allow me

I, abakharev, award this "Exceptional newcomer" butterfly, in recognition of your excellent contributions to the articles on modern Russian history. We need more of them. Alex Bakharev 12:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: C2 domain, Pfam/Interpro summaries, and copyright

Sorry for the long response time (I was on wikibreak).

As Wikipedia is under the GFDL, and not the GPL, I am not sure if we can use their summaries. What do you think of the matter?

-- Where 00:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Novartis/GNF has contacted us to talk about collaboration and importing data. This could fit well with your use of Pfam. The talk page is here. Thanks. TimVickers 19:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. If they gave permission, then it is fine. I was under the impression from the letter posted on the talk page that they only gave permission provided derivative works were distributed under the GPL though? I'm not sure. If you think you have permission, I will add the links to Wherebot's ignore list. -- Where 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Putin-chan's poem

Sorry about the usage of "Putin-chan," as it is a joke between me and a friend--kind of a slip of the mind. I am not really sure if a satirical poem on Putin is appropriate. I would have to say it isn't that absurd when it comes to how Putin is perceived in Russian media, but I don't believe it is acceptable for the article. My suggestion is to remove it, and ask in the talk page what other people's thoughts are. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits

Your edits in Active Measures and disinformation are of polar quality. While the fist one is based on solid sources, the edits of the second one are your quite dubious interpretations and shaky sources. While you have some points there, I will come to it later. Meanwhile you please find sources for your two changes in disinformation in the intro and about propaganda. Why would you want to compare it with "propaganda" anyway? `'mikka 02:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See disinformation talk page. I used another Encyclopedia as source. It has been compared already with "propaganda" prior to my edit.Biophys

Re: Vandalism

I define spam as deliberately saturating Wikipedia entries with links from a particular source(s). You are clearly guilty of this. On the one hand, one may do this to a moderate degree if the intent is to provide sources for an article, but when it amounts to essentially "selling" a writer, a website, a book, etc., then it's spam. A good number of the books you listed in the Terrorism "Further Reading" section are irrelevant to the topic. Robert Spencer writes about terrorism, but that issue is not specific to all of his books. You simply decided to list a bibliography of books which share your view on the causes of terrorism, whether or not those books even relate to the issue. In the Emerson article, you shamelessly plugged in a FrontPageMag link. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum to propagate your views.

Also, don't "warn" me. You're not an administrator. Don't pretend to be some concerned neutral arbitrator. You are not.--Kitrus 08:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein!

– ClockworkSoul 18:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding to Category:Integral membrane proteins

When you add article to this category make sure this category isn't a subcategory of another category the article belongs to - for an example some of the articles are already in the category Category:Proteins, so when you add the same article to Category:Integral membrane proteins, which is subcategory of Category:Proteins down the category tree, things get a little redundant. What you need to do is to remove the parent category. -- Boris 05:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I will do it. Biophys 06:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: La Russophob

An editor has nominated the article La Russophob for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Russophob. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article La Russophob during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 13:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hello! I'd just like to emphasize that you can add to the article during the deletion debate, especially if you think you can add independant sourcing. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

MscL

Hello,

I saw your MscL article and i would like to ask you, please, write something about MscS too, and TREK, TRAAK etc! Please, please, please!!!

Shchekochikhin

As you seem interested in his biography, could you please take a look at Three Whales Corruption Scandal and edit it if necessary? I feel unable to deal with lengthy articles now. Colchicum 18:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

O'K, I will take a look. But you know this subject much better than me. Biophys

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vlad fedorov

I have filed a request concerning Vlad Fedorov's conduct. You could take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vlad fedorov. Colchicum 14:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I will wait a little and see what happens before making a comment.Ultramarine 17:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Hodja Nasreddin)

Hello, Hodja Nasreddin. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hodja Nasreddin, where you may want to participate. -- Vlad fedorov 19:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to notify you that my request for comment on your stalking and harrassing behaviour was signed by Ellol.Vlad fedorov 22:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I could not help but notice

that your Vladimir Putin =====> "national phallus" addition to the phallus article has been removed. This is the second time the same posting has been removed, both times by the same editor, User:Alex Bakharev. Carptrash 02:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Comment

Comments have been made on the mediation page between you and Vlad fedorov at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10 Boris Stomakhin. Diez2 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What was that all about?!

Seems like you are the creator of 'Category:Victims of Russian political repressions'.Ok,I have only one question.What were you looking at?Check that category.Firstly,the demise of Dudayev can not be considered a 'political repression' because he wasn't a dissident,he was a warlord and a self-proclaimed President.Oh,and he was blown up during a war(xasualties always happen during wars).You can also find Litvinenko,Yushenkov,Yandarbiyev (note:the Kremlin's involvment in their deaths has not been proven).I'm surprised I didn't see Politkovskaya in that category.Until the Kremlin's involvment gets proven they canot be considered "victims of Russian political repressions".Dimts 20:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIV

Please be cool and civil when the editorial conflict gets hot. Calling your opponents names never helped to anyone. This was over the top. Happy editing Alex Bakharev 05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

First, how can you call this "personal attack" if I did not name any specific "person" in my message? Second, I think that wikistalking case is obvious and proven, as follows from these comments: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#New_episodes_of_wikistalking_by_Vlad Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#Statement_of_the_dispute. This is not the case of good faith editing when negotiations can help. This can only go to mediation and arbitration. Biophys 15:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Enemy of Islam

Hi, my dear friend,

Please pay attention to the sources of this article. I put comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enemy of Islam and described my reasons and you can find more in Talk:Enemy of Islam about the sources.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

O'K, maybe I was wrong. I have changed my vote.Biophys 03:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Internet Trolls

Hey. Good job with "trolls v2.0." Much better than before. As for removing my comments, I thank you for that, since that was dumb on my part. Hopefully you got my last message, and since what You Know Who said, it's possible that there's a double account. CPTGbr 03:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree.Biophys 03:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw that the article was deleted, and it was the worst possible scenario. Go with my first suggestion, or just repost the article at a later date if you have it archived on your computer. CPTGbr 02:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I have the copy. But I have to think how to improve the article, make a better title (probably no "trolls"); maybe the subject should be a little bit different. It will take some time.Biophys 03:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I believe the vote against the Troll thing was canvassed by a certain someone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vlad_fedorov#Thanks . I myself am pretty disgusted. CPTGbr 18:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Police Squad

The Censorship in China is much different than the police squad. I suggest you look at it.

Yes, I have looked. Yes, it is different, since the Chinese government prefers to simply block the unwanted web sites. However, they also seem to have "squads" that play a role of political police in the Internet and harass blogers, much like their colleagues in Russia. Biophys 19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: the other user... file an RFC attempt either on the article or the user in question. Or ask for third opinion. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I did. That did not help: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov Biophys 19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Take it to mediation then. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV report

Hi there. I deleted your report there as there were no specific instances cited against that user, apart from mentioning a few articles. I note from the editor in question's talk page that he wasn't warned about his transgressions. Recommend trying to dialog with that user if he's engaging in vandalism/revert-warring/3rr or whatever. Right now, I can't see any issues - Alison^☺ 03:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Therefore that user has made personal attack on me.Vlad fedorov 05:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite so fast. You made a number of very questionable edits so far. You are involved in what looks like revert warring on a number of different articles while making disparaging comments in your edit history. Please work to resolve your differences with other editors rather than blindly reverting to your version. If you do that too many times, you will be blocked for WP:3RR violations - Alison^☺ 05:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop your uncivil behaviour and personal attacks.

Please stop your uncivil behavior and personal attacks. Your naming of me as "vandal" is over the top.Vlad fedorov 05:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Boris Stomakhin

My apologies. I did not know there was a mediation case open on this article. It looks like mediation has stalled somewhat--perhaps you could kick-start it. Meanwhile I have re-protected the page for another 2 weeks. Please let me know if a longer protection period is required. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 21:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You could start a Boris Stomakhin/Temp, but I don't know if that would be a waste of time or not. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

internet police squads

Very interestiing topic. I am quite sure that Russian secret services take this issue very seriously, even with paranoia. I don't have any sources, but I a have a similr experience, on a related issue. In early 1980s I was approached by KGB to make for them an expert's conclusion of the possibility that the computer viruses are in fact warfare of the West agains the Soviet Union. When I demonstrated them that viruses do immensely more economical harm in the West than to Soviets, after some thinking the KGB "experts" reformulated the question: is it possible that the computers the Soviet Union buys in the West are "pre-loaded" with software or microchips that may be activated by computer viruses to do some spywork. Later KGB elaborated the idea of "computer polygons", where a PC from the West would be placed into a mock network with simulated activity that may be of inrerest for Western spies, and all the transmissions (network, radio, UV, etc) of the suspect PC were to be monitored to "catch the spy" and figure out how it does this. I bet that good money was allocated for this. Unfortunately, when all this started I got a chance to work abroad, so I don't know how it ended. But I am sure that this kind of ideas didn't die, and with the proliferation of internet they got a new life. Good luck, `'mikka 18:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Could you help with any reliable sources on this subject?Biophys 14:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Try fsb.ru. Don't know if it speaks much about the subject, but at least it is reliable source. ellol 05:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Beslan memorial

I have clarified my closing decision on the AFD subpage. If you disagree with my decision, I encourage you to open up a decision at Deletion Review which is designed to deal with disagreements such as this one. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD for Internet brigades

I have nominated your article Internet brigades for deletion, because it contains original research, misattribution, false translations, and is a POV fork of previously deletd article.Vlad fedorov 05:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Though a supporter of the article, I think that the best course about Internet brigades is to build up articles about the individual incidents, get at least one non-Russian source for each, and not all out of the same book, and be prepared to srongly defend them. Then, in another 6 months with a few dozen solid articles and their sources, to try again.DGG 08:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think there is enough material here for several articles. One needs to consider a wider subject (e.g. "disinformation by Russian secret services" or "active measures on-line") to make several articles. But I would need some help and advice from other editors to do this job.Biophys 13:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Could you give me a piece of advice?

Dear Fang Aili, could you please take a look at my struggle with User:Vlad fedorov. In my opinion, he repeatedly vandalizes articles GRU, Human rights in Russia‎, Nikolai Koltsov, Persecution of political bloggers, Grigory Svirsky, and Active measures. He deletes large fragments of text supported by reliale references, without discussing anything. He does not recognize any sources, even such as Nature Reviews Genetics (in article Nikolai Koltsov). I warned him twice about his alleged vandalism, but he deleted my comments from his talk page. User:Colchicum and me made a request for comments about him, but this did not help:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#New_episodes_of_wikistalking_by_Vlad . What would you recommend? I would highly appreciate your advice.Biophys 03:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to tell you. I don't do a lot of conflict resolution (of other people's conflicts, that is). There is already a mediation case open involving you and Vlad (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10 Boris Stomakhin), as well as the RfC. From looking over various links, it looks like both you and Vlad have certain opinions and are unwilling to compromise. One or both of you will need to step away from the articles in question, or continue until you are both blocked for 3RR. On Wikipedia, like life in general, you're going to run into people with whom you disagree and have no hope of compromise. Just let it go. Have a look at this essay, go outside, listen to the birds sing, and go on with life. This is the best advice I can give you. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.Biophys 15:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unasked, let me also advise you, the same as Fang Aili did. Ignore personal attacks and work for a really solid article. please take a look at what I did with my edits on Internet brigades--I deliberately only went part way. Its the only way to compromise enough to keep a meaningful article. When you really disagree, its usually better to wait until the other guy makes a number of edits rather than jumping on each one. DGG 06:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. As you can see, my English is not good enough, and yes, I do have a bias that comes from my personal experience. So, I would certainly appreciate your help with regard to this article and my other edits.Biophys 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting tool

Use Google Print: [6].-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try.Biophys 17:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you want some scholarly sources on Russian disinformatsia, active measures and propaganda?

Biophys, I found your article on Internet Brigades via slashdot. Mate, your article on this form of propaganda is a brilliant synthesis. I can name several excellent sources on past Russian active measures, propaganda and disinformatsia that correspond exactly with the phenomenon you have described here. See here for most of the sources: http://intellit.muskingum.edu/russia_folder/russiad%26d_folder/russiadis%26dectoc.html In particular you might want to look up the works of 'Dezinformatsia:The strategy of Soviet Disinformation' by Richard H Schultz and Roy Godson (Two highly regarded intelligence scholars). Ladislav Bittman's books 'The KGB and Soviet Disinformation: An insiders view' and 'The Deception Game'. Also see 'The New Image Makers: Soviet Propaganda and Disinformation Today' which is edited by Bittman and contains several scholarly articles by intelligence experts. Two other books which you might want to check out are 'Double Lives: Stalin, Willi Munzenberg and seduction of the intellectuals' by Stephen Koch and 'New Lies for Old: The communist strategy of deception and disinformation' by Anatoliy Golitsyn. These books are 10-20 years old. They don't describe current dezinformatsia operations but Godson and Schultz believe the same active measures infrastructure is there. So the Russians have probably kept the framework, they've just evolved the way the execute the operations. Which is historically how the Russians evolved their disinformation campaigns i.e they were always looking for new ways to propagate the disinfo and propaganda (see part three, especially chapter 9 'Soviet Manipulation of "Religious Circles" by J.A. Emerson Vermaat which describes how soviets moved to targeting international religious movements leading up to and beyond glasnost, which is part of 'The new image makers'). If you have any specific questions for research that might help you shoot me a list of questions here and I'll try help you out with the answers (plus with sources). I have all the books listed above a fair few other texts that might be helpful. Evud 11:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Unfortunately, I do not have these books with me and busy at work. Could you prepare some suggestions or text supported by references for inserting them in the article? Or you can go there and edit the article yourself. Most of these books are rather old and do not describe anything about secret services on-line activities. Biophys 17:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics in Showa Japan

Eugenics in Showa Japan is a malignant venomous article on Japan. For instance, National Eugenic Law is a law that permits the artificial abortion for the maternity protection including economical reasons. Please write your detailed policy again. [[7]]--Azukimonaka 15:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

IPN

Please avoid massive deletion of other people's work. It is sometimes necessary but only under few exceptional circumstances. The edit you reverted may not be optimal but there are some suggestion at talk and none of them includes revert warring or wholesale deletion. Please try to promote a healthy climate of collegiality. Such edits certainly won't help. Yes, sometimes (only sometimes) deletions are unavoidable and I am not telling you they you should never do it. Just show some openness and flexibility as everyone's goal here should be the improvement of the articles by developing their informational content, reliance on sources and style. Thanks, --Irpen 18:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

O'K. Understood.Biophys 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, your contributions are appreciated in that article. Excessive, POVed and unrelated information has no room on Wikipedia, and it needs to be deleted. Hoping to see you around that article and others more often!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to express my appreciation for your patience, perseverance, erudition and sheer dogged determination in ensuring that various referenced viewpoints are reflected in encyclopaedic articles. Keep up the good work and don't let the various WikiLawyers grind you down!...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 18:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And this is especially hilarious, for it is exactly user Piotrus who wrote that Russian sources are not reliable just because they are Russian. So it's basically "look who's talking"! Vlad fedorov 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

May I clarify that my compliment was in regard to Biophys since this is his talk page.

(Which is not to say that Piotrus is not a wonderful fellow too. And while I'm handing out plaudits may I also take this opportunity to confirm that you appear to be a pretty persevering, dogged sort of character in your editing history too, Vlad!) Enjoy the springtime! ...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 12:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Need signature

I need you to sign here to indicate that you would agree to a formal mediation on the Boris Stomakhin issue. Thank you. Diez2 01:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Boris Stomakhin. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

A couple of points

Hi. Could I please have your opinion on:
This
And on the recently-added last sentence in the article on Russia ("According to Mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles (former head of the Council of Europe human rights division), 'The fledgling Russian democracy is still, of course, far from perfect, but its existence and its successes cannot be denied.'")? I'm not sure this sentence really fits - at least we need a more critical view, but then again, there is already a section on politics, so I'm not sure it's needed at all. Anyway, thank you for your input. Biruitorul 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with your second point and made some changes. First edit needed some sourcing. Biophys 23:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Great - I appreciate it. Biruitorul 01:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Block

Hi Biophys, you have been reported for 3RR violation on Operation Sarindar, and I have blocked you for 24 hours. Please take the time to review our WP:3RR rule, and hopefully you'll come back to edit in a collaborative fashion. Thanks, Crum375 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Email

Hey I got an email from you (the address used your alias, and I don't think you have a yahoo account), and it looks like it's handing out dirty code. Text is as follows:

"b______lga X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000731-0, 06.04.2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean"

CPTGbr 21:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a read

• Chronicles of three nights in Nord-Ost (in Russian) ellol 23:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, may I ask you a personal question? Would you agree or disagree with the following quote:

НА ХРЕН ВСЮ ВАШУ ИДЕОЛОГИЮ! Никакой идеологии в стране не осталось кроме одной еще живой - “Валить Путина! Валить вертикаль!”. Все, кто против Путина, - мои единомышленники. Мне плевать, какие там у них политические взгляды. Раньше не плевать было. А сейчас плевать. Потому что вся политика вс стране кончилась. Потому что вся философия и идеология в стране закончилась. Ее растоптали АКАБным сапогом самые фашистские из всех мировых фашистов - полицейские изверги чекистской хунты. Никакого выбора у нас всех не осталось. Есть только черное и белое. За Путина или против Путина. Третьего не дано.

ellol 23:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I strongly disagree that "Все, кто против Путина, - мои единомышленники." I disagree with these young people from National_Bolshevik_Party, although they only make minor civil infractions. Real fascists (one of them Ramzan Kadyrov), who killed Nikolai Girenko, Anna Politkovskaya and many others, either work in FSB or controlled by FSB. So I would probably agree with the statement about "самые фашистские из всех мировых фашистов - полицейские изверги чекистской хунты." Biophys 01:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

May I ask another question? How do you understand the following phrases: "Сколько метров у твоей видюхи?", "Меня прёт его гламурная тёлка и навороченная тачила", "Бабки рулят", "Путин меня не вставляет", "Пацанские распальцовки на стрелках -- всё-таки цивилизованнее, чем заточка в бок", "КГ/АМ", "Западло не отвечать за базар", "Дело ЮКОСа разрулили по понятиям, а не по закону", "Задолбал толкать фуфло"? I'm certainly interested to understand your level of modern colloquial Russian language. ellol 21:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? What is exactly your point, unless you want to make a WP aricle about new Russian language, which would be an interesting proposal, because it tells a lot about people's everyday life. That point was made by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his book Gulag Archipelago. Or perhaphs you want to tell that I deserved "заточка в бок" "по понятиям, а не по закону", because "Западло не отвечать за базар"? Biophys 00:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Нормально. Про КГ/АМ можете прочитать например здесь. Моя точка зрения, если хотите знать -- Александр Исаевич конечно хороший человек, но глупо и неправильно строить своё мнение о России на основании его книги, написанной хрен знает сколько лет назад. Вы ведь ничего о России не знаете. Вы читаете только книги "либеральной" тусовки, абсолютно односторонний взгляд, а думаете, что это божественная истина. В принципе, нам не о чем говорить. Вы понятия не имеете о той России, которую я знаю и люблю. ellol 07:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Я иногда пытаюсь давать Вам какие-то ссылки на культурные источники, например, на последний альбом ДДТ "Прекрасная любовь" (кстати, перекликающийся с творчеством знаменитого барда ХХ века, Владимира Семёновича Высоцкого). Но Вы не понимаете, что ваши потуги судить о сегодняшней России сродни попыткам химика судить о тензорном исчислении. ellol 11:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

А слабО посчитать свёртку $e_{ijk}\delta _{jk}$? ellol 07:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that Russia is increasingly transformed to one big КОНТОРА (KGB headquaters). Sorry, but I do not want to be a human subject of "контора" - not there, not here, and even not in Wikipedia.Biophys

Мог бы и по-русски сказать: отъебись. А я бы тебя по-русски послал. Ладно, забили. ellol 16:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No way, I am not that stupid. See, you just hinted using Russian criminal slang about stabbing someone to death for making too much noise (of course you did not mean me!). Now you are using f... word, but nothing will happen. If I did someting like that, I would be blocked for a long time, just as Hanzo Hattori. Fine, I must admit you are more civil than Vlad.Biophys 18:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I need to say that I've proposed this user a simple test to check his ability to speak in modern colloquial Russian, for my personal interest. Phrases I selected for that do not have much sense neither taken altogether nor each in particular, because primarilly I tried to use as rich lexics as possible (yes, including criminal slang too, which is however strongly required for anyone pretending to understand society of Russia). I regret, that my actions were considered hostile. ellol 20:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Mansoor Ijaz

I have no idea why you want to support the propaganda for this guy. Everything he had said was a big lie. Which has been proven. The fact that the 911 commission contradicted this guy and that Fox news no longer uses him is proof enough.. As I had said earlier, everyone of his quotes was self made and placed by him. So the fact that he claimed that he did a ceasefire between india and pakistan is bull.

No one knows him in Pakistan. I have relatives who are in the military and was the Pakistan Ambassador to UN he does not even know of this man. He is just a one man ega trip guy. So stop making this up.

trueblood 23:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss this at his talk page. You are very welcome to improve this article. I only asked you to follow WP:SOURCE and WP:BLP policies. This is all.Biophys 00:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to get the tape from fox news on rangel and ijaz

trueblood 04:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Human rights

Hello, Biophys. In 10 December 2006 you've inserted POV of Sergey Kovalev in the article Human rights in Russia: "He provides the following well known examples of the extrajudicial punishment of people by the State: murdering of hostages by the poison gas during Moscow theater hostage crisis, burning school children alive by spetsnaz soldiers who used RPO flamethrowers during Beslan school hostage crisis, death squads in Chechnya, and assassination of Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev", providing a link to his 2006 interview:

Take for example monstrous terrorist act, either in theater, either in Beslan. In fact the decision to apply in "Nord-Ost" poisoning gases had the highest sanction. I am not going to state, that it was authorized personally by the president. But what it means? Any expert can prove as 2x2=4, that at such usage victims are inevitable. In huge volume of theatre it is necessary to use concentration which obviously exceeds the minimal lethal dozes. It is absolutely evident for anybody who understands, what is diffusion of gases in gas medium. Along with that there were no guarantees that insurgents wouldn't explode the building.

We know similar things about Beslan too. Instead of first priority for authority being preservation of lives of hostages, instead of this the first priority was empty boasting, empty state ambitions or some other sort of political reasons. And investigation of these acts as it is usual, as well as in case of explosions of houses in Moscow and Volgodonsk, is surrounded by absolutely senseless secrets and a heap of lie.

I point out, that Kovalev didn't speak about RPO flamethrowers, it wasn't HIS point. I also point out that he said that authorities couldn't not to understand that usage of gas during Theater Siege would cause casualties; it's a bit different from the point that authorities has murdered hostages by gas.

Please, be a bit more careful in future. Happy editing. ellol 10:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I will deal with these issues later, as time allows.Biophys 15:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Btw. Could you please add info on Anatoly Babkin and Valentin Moiseyev into "Politically motivates espionage cases" section? My religion doesn't allow me to do that. ellol 13:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Matrixism Deletion Review

there is yet another deletion review for the article on Matrixism going on at WP:DRV#Matrixism. Thought you might want to stop by to register your opinion. Thanks. D166ER 03:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus

Dear Biophys, this case has already been accepted. Would you desire to provide some evidence regarding the conduct of any of the involved parties, this should be done at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence, as explained here. --Lysy^talk 20:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know. Actually, I would like to make a brief statement with a couple of examples. Probably this can be done later. Are any deadlines?Biophys 03:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Has no-one awarded you a barnstar yet? Axl 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

		The Society Barnstar
		Biophys, for numerous contributions to political articles. Axl 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your mediation request has been taken up by Daniel

Please visit there now to make comments and accept/decline his mediation efforts at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Boris Stomakhin. Thank you. Diez2 23:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was not my request. I only agreed.Biophys 23:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Please proceed to Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Boris Stomakhin and make your statements. Vlad fedorov 05:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling edits

I noticed that you recently made some minor spelling edits on the Anna Politkovskaya article, e.g. "criticised" to "criticized". I don't know if you know this, but "criticised" is the British spelling of the word, whereas "criticized" is the American variant, so you were not actually correcting a misspelling. Also, Wikipedia policy is that if an article is started using one spelling convention then that convention should be used throughout the article for the sake of consistency. Accordingly, articles that have established one consistent style of English spelling should not be edited to conform to a different style. Please see this Manual of Style page for more info. -- Hux 06:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

False plagiarism accusation

Contrary to your accusation here, I never added the text in question. On the contrary, I removed it twice and noted both times in the edit comment that the reason for the removal was copyright violation. I've responded more fully to your accusation at the link above. -- Hux 21:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on my talk page. Kaldari 21:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hux, yes, it was Vlad who inserted this (now I can see it). But I was talking about a different thing. You knew that Hanzo did not inserted this segment, but you made this false report to block Hanzo. As you know, there is no friendship between me and Vlad, and yes, he occasionally did copyright violations, but I simply corrected such things after him and asked do not do it. I suggest that we stop this discussion now. We have nothing to talk about.Biophys 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, Hanzo did insert the section in question after I deleted it and clearly indicated that the reason for the deletion was a copyright violation. My error was in failing to notice that the insertion was very slightly different from the original text - different enough, it seems, for it to not be considered a copyright violation. At no point did I deliberately accuse anyone of anything while knowing that accusation to be false. All this has been clearly explained at Kaldari's talk page.

You, on the other hand, have accused me of trying to get Hanzo blocked via such a false accusation, and of being the original inserter of the copyright text (the latter being the result of your failure to correctly interpret the diffs, it seems). I have done neither of these things and I would appreciate you acknowledging that so that we can end this discussion fairly. -- Hux 06:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That was the diff you provided at talk page of Kaldari. See: [8]. As can see it is your version represents copyright violation, but Hanzo fixed this violation. But now you are showing a different diff. Biophys 08:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not reading the diff correctly. Diffs show the changes that the editor on the right made to the existing text on the left; they don't imply that the editor shown at the top left was responsible for inserting the text that was changed. You can see this for yourself simply by going one step back in the edit list and noting which text I changed: as you can see, I edited the "demonstrations" section, which is a completely different part of the article.

Your accusation is unfounded. -- Hux 13:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Hux. Let's consider the facts. First, Hanzo did not do it . Second, you falsely reported him (and he possibly left WP because of that). Third, you are coming on my talk page to "prove" that you did nothing wrong and blame me. Good bye.Biophys 14:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Please attempt to remain civil. 2) HanzoHattori inserted text that I genuinely thought was identical to copyrighted text. It turns out that there was a very slight difference - enough that my accusation was not reasonable. I therefore withdrew the accusation and apologized for jumping the gun. 3) Once again: I never made an accusation against anyone while knowing that accusation to be false. What I did do was judge HanzoHattori too harshly and for that I have already apologized. 4) I'm posting on your talk page because you accused me of plagiarism and of knowingly making a false accusation against another editor. Neither of these accusations is true and I simply wished to let you know that in order to clear up the mess. I was hoping you would have the good grace to apologize for these baseless accusations but it seems that is unlikely to happen. Oh well. -- Hux 16:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I admit that first claim is untrue. It was not you who did this (as clear after research made by Kaldari), and I apologize for that.Biophys 17:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation

You removed the infobox for this article. I didn't revert your revert, but I simply added the infobox back. Now, can you care to explain to me why proper referencing to the reference section is wrong, and simple links in the article is right? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to know. edit- when I said "reporting" in my edit, I meant reporting to your talkpage. Jonmwang 15:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You inserted information about CIA in the infobox. But the article is not about CIA. Could you please insert correct information or leave the infobox empty? Certainly, I appreciate your effort to improve this article. You can revert it if this is more convenient for you.Biophys 15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap, I didn't even notice that. Sorry. [09:49, 22 May 2007 FrummerThanThou (51,130 bytes) (insert template from CIA)] I usually expect previous information to be valid and over-read it. Dang, sorry for the misunderstanding. Jonmwang 15:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Having your own page deleted

If you create a page, and before anyone else edits it you decide to have it deleted, like what seems to have happened with Category:Ionophores, please put a {{db-self}} at the top of the page, in stead of blanking it. This will attract an administrator to it to have it deleted. I've marked this one for you - since you blanked it, that's enough.

Thank you. I did not mean to delete it.Biophys 13:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Internet brigades

I appreciated your work on this article. If you want to see a specific example, take a look at this arbitration case.--MariusM 17:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. But my time is very limited.Biophys 01:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Response

Hi—sorry for not responding earlier, I was out on a short wikibreak. Yes, the list you maintain makes much sense to me; what is its history, and why was it deleted? What needs to be done to make it acceptable? Let me know if I can help. Like many others, I'm pretty busy with other stuff, but I can try, especially if it doesn't involve prolonged flame wars with nasty characters—I just don't have the stomach for that kind of thing (though I must say I admire your fortitude, I don't know how you can handle it!) As for the second question—yes, sounds good to me. Turgidson 15:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I have created already as List of Soviet agents in the United States. Could you take a look? I deleted some agents whose articles were not included in WP and found references for some others marked in red, but not for all.Biophys 16:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reviews in Russian of Mikhail Meltyukhov

When you have a few spare minutes, could you see if there are any (particulary academic) reviews of Mikhail Meltyukhov in Russian? This Russian historian seems to be mostly unknown outside Russia (like most people who don't write in English :( ) but he has been used as source for some controversial information on Wikipedia; recently we found a source describing his views as 'neo-imperialist and stalinist' - see User_talk:Irpen#Mikhail_Meltyukhov. It would be interesting to see how is he viewed by Russian academia. Thanks, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is considered controversial, especially by "official" historians. He does not seem to be very notable (someone advertised him too much in English Wikipedia). Unfortunately, I am not aware about any contemporary "Russian academics"-historians that could be trusted. I prefer reading books by people like Edvard Radzinsky or "Beria" by Anton Antonov-Ovseenko. See also my comments at Mikhail Meltyukhov page.Biophys 04:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC) I think Meltyukhov satisfies WP notability criteria.Biophys 04:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on Irpen's talkpage. I admit my Russian is imperfect here, and machine translation can only go so far. On the other hand the viewpoint I am expressing is not only my own, but it is also that of Peter Cheremushkin (Moscow State University), who states: Russian historians were unable to take a united stand against those who claim that “nothing wrong happened in Katyn.” Some historical publications have appeared in this context, such as a book by Mikhail Meltyukhov called Soviet-Polish Wars: Military and Political Confrontation in 1918-1939.42."[...] This (Meltyukhov's) point of view can be used to justify the execution of the Polish officers in 1940." [...] "But can this point of view be considered correct if it is so close to Stalinist and neoimperial concepts?"

Anyway, I find Metlyukhov's mention of Katyn right next to the completely discredited claim that 60,000 Russian POWs were killed in Poland in 1919-1921, followed by a claim that this issue must be handled between our countries (as he is writing in 2001, that is presumably Russia, not the Soviet Union) on a reciprocal (!) basis clearly indicates to me that he is setting up a moral equivalence between the supposed 1919-1921 events and 1940 events (and hence implicitly justifying the latter). That is what I find abhorrent. Balcer 05:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I was not clear. Meltukhov did not tell: "It was O'K to execute them". But he almost tells: "the desire of Russians to execute them can be understood. Yes, he seems to try to whitewash the crime, but he is careful not to tell this directly.Biophys 05:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Meltukhov is an intelligent writer, and I am sure he knew what he was doing here. If his words create the appearance that he is trying to whitewash the crime, this must have been his intention. Anyway, as I explained on Irpen's talk page, his action is abhorrent. Imagine a German (or English, French etc) World War II historian who "seemed to try to whitewash the Holocaust, but was careful not to say so directly". Hey, there is such a person, the famous David Irving, and we know what happened to his reputation as a historian. Balcer 05:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that all his writings are like that (I just looked "Missing chance"). For example, he shows some data on Russian-German import/export. Great, but his conclusions and arguments look rather strange in light of these data. Again, he is not telling anything obviously wrong, but he is trying to implicitly imply certain points, and his major point seem to be whitewashing of Stalinism (but of course only as much as it can be whitewashed - he is clever enough to understand that).Biophys 05:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think you now understand the concern me and other editors have with this author, and the use of his works to reference controversial events. We are arguing, in the most reasonable way possible, to remove references to his works where they are used to justify controversial claims, mostly in articles related to Polish-Soviet relations. There have been quite a lot of instances where this has happened, with mainly his book Soviet-Polish Wars referenced frequently in such a fashion. But how can Wikipedia, dedicated to NPOV and reputable sources, trust a work that makes statements like that oune about Katyn. Surely there must be plenty of other reputable reference works about Polish-Russian history that can be used. Why must the most controversial one of them be used with such frequency? Balcer 06:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, got a problem (yes, same article)

I have next to zero experience with the Wikipedia beurocratic procedures, but maybe you'd know what I can do with this[9]? At first, he claimed wrongly that I copy and pasted and reverted me (twice - ignoring me at first). When I explained he was completely wrong and he acknowledged it, he refused to revert to my version anyway.

When I finally did revert it myself, he said he will report me if you do this again[10] - and then reverted again, this time without any explaination (completely destrying whole article).[11] I guess this is some serious disruption, but I don't know what can I do and how. --HanzoHattori 19:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems he was wrong. But what exactly would you like to achieve here?Biophys 20:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know what I can do. Someone ordering him to stop? I don't know? --HanzoHattori 20:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look at the articles and think what I can do.Biophys 20:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nyquist article

Hello Biophys, I am Lastingwar and I noticed that you made an edit over on the Nyquist WP article accidentally stating that J.R.Nyquist is currently a writer for WorldNetDaily. I don't think that this is the case any longer. I think that he resigned from WND when he started writing for Financial Sense and has never written for WND again since then. Do you have any information that Nyquist has written for WND since he resigned from there? If Nyquist is not currently a writer for WND (which I do not think that he is) please revise your edit on him being a current writer for WND. Also, if he is a current writer for other online news sites, please list them explicitly. He is a current writer for Financial Sense and that is stated in the article, but I am not aware that he writes either regularly or at all for other news sites. If he does write for sites other than Financial Sense, please list those explicitly in the article. Thanks. -Lastingwar 22:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not have such information. Could you please correct the article yourself? Please be bold.Biophys 22:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the article. I hesitate to make any modifications since I would rather not get into a reversion war with that anonymous person from the 217.134 IP pool. At first I thought that I might be able to contribute to WP, but after reading many of the discussion pages and modifications histories, I find this whole WP to be quite a hostile place -- something I hadn't really noticed before trying to contribute. I used to think that trying to get papers published was a fairly difficult experience, requiring patience with the peer review process, but this WP place is really quite uncivilized in comparison. I appreciate your efforts to try to bring some sensibility to WP, but I don't know if I'm prepared to do the same quite yet. Thanks. -Lastingwar 02:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I found no problems at all with Biology articles. Biology editors were very friendly, because there are no any divisive political issues there. Try to contribute first to any topics where you are an expert, or topics that are not politically "hot". Also please let me know if you need any help, or if you would like to contribute to any specific article and want an advice on wikipedia-specific problems. Biophys 04:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up those bad edits by that anonymous user (IP 217,134,x,x). I hope that he doesn't initiate another reversion war! -Lastingwar 00:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he did. If you care so much about this article, could you be more involved, please? I guess this article is in a poor shape right now. Biophys 00:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests

A request for arbitration has been filed at the link above. You may make statements there concerning the case. Please keep in mind that this may have a bearing on the arbitrators' acceptance or rejection of the case. Please also keep in mind that your imput is not necessary. Thank you. Diez2 04:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You probably edit the WHOLE Request_for_arbitration page.

This causes editing conflict to MY part of the page which I am editing. If you do, please restrain the editing to your chapter. Thank you. Pierre 04:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I invite you to take part in discussion of the "Horizon 2007-2017" project of political party "Union of Right Forces" at Russian discussion site revolver. Weighted comments would be appreciated. ellol 13:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Novichok/editing

Hello, Biophys;

although your contributions are quite elaborate and well keep on the safe site of the line between open and classified, it might be an additional good idea to put several changes in one edit. It is tiresome to go thru 10+ sequetial edits; moreover, it consume quite some space. Lost Boy 05:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC) (BTW, Biophysics was a minor during my PhD work ;.) )

Thanks. You needed only final version. What was your PhD about? I can only tell that you know physical chemistry after looking at some of your edits. BTW, what do you think about Talk:Moscow hostage crisis chemical agent? I am quite puzzled, since they applied gas, not an aerosol, as far as I know.Biophys 13:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As you know, I came from Russia. The country was militarized like hell. For example, I was doing a purely academic research. But... wait a minute. I did some Quantum chemistry calculations to predict reactivity of certain organophosphate acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, being an undegraduate student. My adviser told that was a series of insecticides, but who knows? It was Lenin the Great who suggested to "terminate our enemies as invasive insects". Poor me, I was thinking about molecular orbitals. Biophys 16:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you asked, I am a chemist by training and work for the better part of two decades in the area of NBC-protection. As it goes, you pick up a few trivia on your way... :-) Greetings, Lost Boy 04:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is great. Then you could contribute more on this subject in WP articles. As you can see, I am not an expert in this field.Biophys 13:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC) For example, I thought about creating article Soviet program of chemical weapons. Could you help? I will be back after a brief vacation.Biophys 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oleg Kashin

Anyway, Oleg Kashin is a great guy. He doesn't make some right-wing elitist out of himself. And you can go to his blog, and write among some recent comments: "Oleg, I disagree with you there, there and there, and consider you that, that and that" And he would reply you in good Russian language: "Иди нахуй", i.e. "Go to dick." He's a great guy. And if you wouldn't just accuse him, you have a chance for a good discussion with one of the most prominent Russian journalists. ellol 14:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The AfD for Oleg Kashin qualified for WP:SNOW. The decision was unanimous. - Cyborg Ninja 17:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So, your argument is "ignore all rules". But you forget to count my vote and did not allow others to vote by closing AfD in 4 hours.Biophys 19:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Like I said, the decision among other users besides the nom was unanimous. You do not have a vote if you are the nom himself -- you are asking for the article to be reviewed. The reasoning you gave (not notable, references, etc) was false according to the other users. If you had a legitimate argument, you should have made it when nominating the article. Otherwise, please try to be constructive to Wikipedia by editing and adding to articles rather than deleting other people's work, or being rude whenever someone (in this case, many) disagrees with you. - Cyborg Ninja 00:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Washita River-related user conduct RfCs

As you're an editor who has had interest in the article Battle of Washita River (which is still under full protection), I want to inform you of the two related user-conduct Requests for Comment that have now been certified:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Custerwest
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori

Best wishes. --Yksin 20:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, a related article RfC has been initiated at Talk:Battle of Washita River#Request for comment. We could really use some comments from people who have been involved with the article. Thanks. --Yksin 02:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Species integration nominated for deletion

As someone who has commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor, you are invited to comment on another article by the same author which I just nominated for deletion. The same author coined a new article Species integration which similar theme with two completely irrelevant references, after the 'most ancient common ancestor' article was deleted. I removed these two irrelevant references, and commented on these on the Talk:Species integration page.

The new nomination/discussion page is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Species integration.

Thanks. Fred Hsu 01:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Roizman

Have a read, it's curious. Blog of Roizman, deputy of Russian Duma. ellol 08:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Valeriya Novodvorskaya

You added category to Valeriya Novodvorskaya: you must add text that supports this category, per wikipedia:Verifiability policy. `'Míkka 01:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. It was described in her book. Biophys 01:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I'd just like to drop a note and thank you for your recent assistance at the Larisa Arap article. Your obvious knowledge of Russian history and culture is of far more assistance than I could provide. While I did attempt to explain to Dima that her edits were actually muddying things up, honestly, she was trying so hard, and I felt that as long as she kept my initial translations, it would help to have her doing general cleanup (like I requested she remove all the Russian names from the article, etc.). I expected once the article's AfD was complete, I would re-write from English articles, and Dima's input on items left out. But lo and behold, the angels bring us you! And I'm more than sure if you communicate with Dima on the article's talk page, she'll be happy to assist you or let you take care of things she's not able to do (her references were um... well, let's just say I fixed the obvious stuff, and I honestly figured I'd be re-writing it from scratch, so didn't feel it was worth the time to remove them all, and I did not wish her to feel as if her work was not helpful.) So, my most sincere gratitude to you for your assistance thus far, and if you're able to stick with it and "adopt" the article, so to speak, that would be wonderful, and if not, if you drop me a line I'll try to start from scratch. It is pretty messy as it stands now. With gratitude, ^Ariel♥Gold 03:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for nice words! I would be glad to help.Biophys 04:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Larisa Arap

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Biophys! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule front\.ru, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot 04:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I placed this apology on the RfC talk page, but it seems in order to give it directly to you too. Again, my sincere apologies.

{from RfC talk page):

You are right, Biophys, this was unacceptable language. And it was my error. I thought that it was the actual language that Custerwest had used in his accusation, & because I forgot to locate & include the diff when I first wrote the RfC, I didn't check the language then. Had it been so, I should have put the term in quotes, as his term. But in fact it wasn't his term, it was my incorrect interpretation of his term. When I added the diff today (having realized I'd forgotten to add it before), I did have his actual language, & saw my error, & should have changed the language of the RfC then. I apologize that I did not do so then. I have no excuse. I did change the RfC language just now -- see diff. I'm very sorry, & hope you will accept my apology. --Yksin 00:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; apology accepted. Sorry for over-reacting. This RfC makes me nervous; I would rather do something else.Biophys 01:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Anatoliy Golitsyn

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Anatoliy Golitsyn, you will be blocked from editing. 217.134.88.8 22:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And you are telling me about vandalism after making such edits in other user's personal pages: [12] [13]!? That is really something.Biophys 23:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing a sock puppet's "personal page" doesn't really count. 217.134.238.77 23:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So, not only you offensively "edit" personal page of another user, but you also blame this user to be a sock puppet, without any grounds!Biophys 23:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh really, interesting that he edits on same pages that you edit. Maybe its a meat puppet. Either way you are a troll spreading political disinformation throughout Wikipedia. 217.134.103.179 23:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So you call me not only "vandal" but also "troll". Please be advised that you can be blocked for violationg WP:CIV policy.Biophys 23:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, how about if I semiprotect your talk page for a while to give you a rest from Mr. 217.134.0.0/16? BTW he also filed a spurious report on you at WP:AIV, which I have taken care of. Give a holler at my talk page if you like, or respond here. Raymond Arritt 23:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, thank you. I simply will not pay attention to his edits for a while.Biophys 23:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You people are doing Wikipedia's reputation no good here, it is becoming a platform for conspiracy theories. 217.134.103.179 23:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Biophys

DearBiophysThank you very march. Understand. Agree. :-)) --Zasdcxz 16:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

PS Need help copy picture. Copyright

Categories

Why did you delete andropov from the Jewish categories? He was a Jew so he fits those categories. M.V.E.i. 18:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

According to WP recommendations, ethnicity of a person should be reflected only if it was important and relevant. For example, if this person was a Zionist or a "jewish activist". Morever, ethnicity of Andropov is questionable, since only one hardly reliable source in his article claims that his mother was a Jew.Biophys 18:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Theres no such thing relevant or irrelevant. It's a fact. It's an interesting detail about where he came from. I'm half Jewish (by the mother) so dont blame me in speculation! Ethnicity is an interesting fact that's worth being mentioned, so please dont delete him from categories which he belongs to. M.V.E.i. 19:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing, Many people before you edited this controversy on his origin section. Your not to decide what will or will not be in the article. M.V.E.i. 19:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever read Wikipedia:Five pillars? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We are trying to make a good Encyclopedia. Any garbage should be removed. First of all, you violate WP:NOR because no source says "Andropov was a Jew". Even your single unreliable source does not say that.

Second, person we are talking about is known as a politician and KGB director (that is why he is notable). How is this related to being a Jew? Did he let the "Jewish people go" from the Soviet Union? This is simply ridiculous to label him as a Jew, as you do.Biophys 21:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I read and ethnicity is an importent part of a mans biography, it's importent information. My source says he was Jewish, and my source is reliable. Just write Andropov Jew in google and you'll get more. And about my link, go to the АНДРОПОВЫ. Thats what written there: АНДРОПОВ (в некоторых источниках указывается - ЛИБЕРМАН) Владимир (†1919, от тифа). Жена - ФАЙНШТЕЙН Евгения Карловна (†1927 в Моздоке), дочь богатого еврейского купца (или, в некоторых публикациях, удочеренная им). Учительница. And in the Russia 1 chanell there was a film about him and this was told their to. More doubts? Write АНДРОПОВ еврей in google.

Second, stop speaking bullshit. He is notable thanks to those facts, and thats why people want to know more information, and ethnicity is one of the things that interest them. I, for example, dont anderstand the article of these Politkovskaya you admire. She is notable as a traitor (or a "chechenians rights fighter" if you want, for me it's the same), so why do we need to know where she was born? When? Why do we need to know the names of her parents? Go and fix your Politkovskaya article. It's ridiculous to delete him from categories like you do. If he lets or if he doesnt let the Jews out of the USSR wont efect his genetics wont it?? He's Jewish, and he's a politician. Which means, he fits the category Jewish politicians. 2+2=4. Many people before you edited this contreversy section. You are not the one to decide if it stays or not. Anyman who had a contreversy on where he came from on Wikipedia has this section. M.V.E.i. 22:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading things like that, I think: "It is good to live in the United States...".Biophys 22:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing good about this. A country which makes buisness with countries like Saudi Arabia which gives money to terrorists all over the world, a country which supported Bin Laden to hurt the USSR and turned him into a terrorists only after he droped them two buildings, by the way, which in my opinion they deserve after bombing Yugoslavia, is not a country i respect. And now back to our matter. I added two more links, both taken from the first page of the Google search of АНДРОПОВ еврей. P.S. Exept bringing Garbochov up Andropov was an exellent leader. An honest one. M.V.E.i. 22:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

STOP RIGHT NOW!

Many before you edited this section and belived this information is importent, so you are not the one to decide if it will or not be here. M.V.E.i. 13:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The controversy on his origin is intersting, and it's a part of his biography. M.V.E.i. 13:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is over

Please proceed to talk page of article Yury Andropov to discuss this. Andropov was an official head of the Soviet state; he has numerous official biographies (Russian and English). You are citing a few unreliable (obscure) Russian sites that contradict hundreds of other sources and claim nonsense - "he was born in a rich Jewish family", etc. Such "yellow press" rumors have no place in wikipedia.Biophys 15:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

FAC for Oxidative phosphorylation

Hi there Biophys, I was wondering if you were interested in helping review this article. Any comments or suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxidative phosphorylation‎ would be very welcome. All the best Tim Vickers 01:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work! I will look more carefully at the article.Biophys 03:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat

Hi, could you please look at the "moving views" section at the bottom of the talk page and write your thoughts? Someone moved your "outside views" section 20 min after you wrote it because of a policy misunderstanding so there was no opportunity to endorse for other editors. Before we close, we could put it back or we could leave it where it ended up (on the talkpage). Bigglove 00:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I'm writing to let you know that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat has been resolved and archived. Thanks for participating. Bigglove 23:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not really understand your actions and disagree with your RfC closing, as probably some other WP users who certified the case... Please keep me informed. I think this user violates a number of WP policies, and I am always ready to comment on that.Biophys 04:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Biophys, I brought a very specific case regarding CSloat's use of a personal attacks and saying he was justified to do this by an assumption of bad faith. He did eventually apologize for what I had complained about, and I accepted his apology. I felt it was right to close the RFC. Maybe I should have waited for the other certifiers; I apologize for not doing this. C Sloat did promise to refrain from personal attacks and assuming bad faith in future. There were other issues that others mentioned (and that I experienced too in more limited exposure). Given the extent of all of these issues, the number of users who have had the same exact problems, and the failure of a community enforced mediation between Sloat and others certifying this RFC, I think if there are further problems a more comprehensive case should be brought to the table. All the best, Bigglove 16:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I do hope that my assumption of good faith will be met in kind by both of you; instead of conspiring on future RfCs we should be trying to turn over a new leaf and collaborate in positive and productive manners. My interactions with Biophys have been very different than mine with you Bigglove; I think you will find that Biophys cannot even tell you which policies he thinks I have violated. The reality is that Biophys was at one time pushing incessantly to include violations of WP:OR and WP:SYN in an article and I resisted these attempts. There were no violations of rules or personal attacks there such as my comments on the Infocus page. Again, Bigglove, I apologize for accusing you of Islamophobia and I hope that we can put this behind us. csloat 17:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)