User talk:Hodja Nasreddin: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:05, 3 January 2009

Email

Please use my wikipedia email option if you want to reach me. Everything you sent will be kept confidential. However, I usually do not reply to wikipedia emails and prefer open actions or discussions on wiki.Biophys (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration 3RR

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
RfB candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report

No RfXs since 05:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC).—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online}

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cold War

Hi - I thought this might be of some interest to you. One area you might want to expand is the influence of Solzhenitsyn on the Cold War (and human rights/Helsinki in general); also, the space race and scientific competition is only mentioned (Sputnik specifically, but no mention of the moon landing) - perhaps also areas you may wish to look into. Still, overall it's quite good, I think. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few random comments just to start from something. There are many more.Biophys (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I appreciate it. I'll look into the points you raised and see what I can come up with. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, on the Korea/Vietnam point, here's the situation. Plenty of sources say there was no direct military engagement. And depending on how you define that, it may be accurate. However, the Soviet role in both Korea and Vietnam was probably big enough that it merits a footnote. Here's what I found: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Would you like to use these sources to write a footnote? Something like: "While no full-blown shooting war ever took place between the superpowers, Soviet involvement in Korea and possibly Vietnam saw direct clashes with American forces. In Korea, Soviet pilots engaged in every major air battle from 1950 on and inflicted heavy casualties on US/UN air units.^[1] In Vietnam, the Soviets provided weapons, advisors and ground-based air defense personnel".^[2] (Or: "The Soviets sent around 1000 pilots and additional aviation support personnel to North Vietnam, where they often sortied against American aircraft conducting air strikes".^[3]) How does that sound? Biruitorul ^Talk 20:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should keep in mind that the involvement of Soviet air forces (actually all "Korean" air forces were Soviet) was an important factor of this war. That was the only war after WW II when US had no air superiority. The beginning of the war was ordered personally by Stalin, and the war ended the day he died. Sorry, I have an urgent work this summer, and can not do anything serious here.Biophys (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I'll propose it on the talk page. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet in Putin’s Russia: Reinventing a Technology of Authoritarianism

Found this reference on the net. Did you heard or read about it ?

Also this might be useful [7] --Molobo (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This is a good source on Internet censorship in general. I am glad that you was unblocked. Hope to see you around.Biophys (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)here.Biophys (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award!

		For Bravery - 3rd degree
		You are hereby awarded this Ukrainian National Award "For Bravery" for starting Media freedom in Russia and being brave enough to write/edit articles about controversial Russian subjects. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice to know there are Russian editors who are not constantly writing about controversial Ukrainian subjects (UPA, Golodomor) but who know there are things wrong in there own country, hence a Ukrainian award! Not everything in Ukraine is stellar too BTW :) Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Web Brigades

Not sure if you have heard this, but according to this [8] (July 19, 2008) many are speculating that the FSB is "making appeals in Russian Internet forums calling for all Russian hackers to unite and launch a large-scale attack" on Ukraine the Baltics etc. Could this be used to help the article? Ostap 03:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see another article. If you can read Russian, you might also read this "Russian version of governing the history". This is not a joke and corroborated by other sources like books by Anatoliy Golitsyn. Biophys (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation?

This edit of yours does not restore a citation, despite an edit summary saying that it does. It does restore an uncited quotation. Also, the first portion of it restores a sentence fragment "He conceded that". Could you please take a look and work out what you meant to do? - Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is direct citation from book by Richard Pipes Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime, Vintage books, Random House Inc., New York, 1995, ISBN 0-394-50242-6, page 259. - as indicated in the page (see the diff). Word "conceded" can be replaced by "asserted" or something else.Biophys (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! The citation should come after the quotation. It was completely confusing as it stood. I'll fix. - Jmabel | Talk 19:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I draw your attention to the fact that Pipes is not directly quoting hitler, but quoting Rauschning allegedly quoting Hitler. Rauschning is generallly not viewed as entirely reliable. I must stress that I am in no way speaking from a revisionist viewpoint - rather the opposite - but it is fairly clear that Rauschning did not meet with Hitler to anything like the extent claimed. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why we should use good secondary sources like this book by Pipes (see WP:Verifiability). We have no obligation to dig out hundreds of primary sources cited in a secondary source. This is work for professional historians like Pipes. Any way, this was cited from the book by Pipes, and the attribution has been provided. Nothing else is needed.Biophys (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the article talk page. I still feel the way the quote is presented in the article article to be misleading as stands. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but let's discuss it there. I will double check.Biophys (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zemskov's data

Sorry for delayed response. I don't share your doubts about Zemskov'd data for two reasons: First, Zemskov used KGB's data that were intended for internal use only. So peoples who wrote those papers had no reason to conceal anything. Sometimes, they even had to exaggerate a number of prisoners: you probably know that during a 'big purge' they had a 'plan', a minimal number of people's enemies to be arrested for certain period in certain region. Of course, sometimes they, probably, had to understate those numbers, but, again, I see no reason for them do that systematically.
Second reason to believe those numbers is as follows. I looked through several research papers that criticized Getty, Ritterspoon, Zemskov's articles. I found that the major criticism was focused on conclusions they made (they tried to estimate a number of Stalin's victims based on Gulag population). And this criticism seems quite reasonable, because far not all victims were Gulag prisoners. However, as regards to the data themselves, no serious doubts in their validity were raised. Therefore, I conclude Zemskov's numbers to be trustworthy, although his conclusions drawn from them are sometimes dubious.
I agree that those numbers are lower estimate rather than a real number of victims, however, the only unbiased way to deal with it is to show those numbers and then explain concretely how many victims left unaccounted and what are the reasons for these statements. Otherwise it would be a fiction, not a Wikipedia article.
All the best--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for response. First of all, could you please provide correct citation here as I asked? Who is author and what is the title of the article (in the book by Russian Academy of Sciences)? You have inserted this segment to many WP articles. As about Zemskov data (used by many researchers), they were disputed for example by Antonov-Ovseenko. The numbers of prisoners in Gulag produced by NKVD/KGB itself is possibly 10 times lower than in reality, according to him. Soviet Union organizations are famous for producing completely bogus numbers, as can be supported by many sources. All economic production data for example are fake, and Gulag data are possibly not exception. One of problems: old Soviet military and intelligence archives are actually closed, so verification is not really possible.Biophys (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zemskov data, take two

Frankly, I don't understand this type arguments. Albats earned her PhD in Harvard and published several scholarly books therefore she is trustworthy. Zemskov's data, although they are being used by many researchers, are questionable because Antonov-Ovseenko raised a concern about their validity.
Many researchers and political writers like Albats, Solzhenitsyn, Mikoyan and others wrote books that contain estimations - and this was absolutely reasonable because archive data were unavailable. Oleg Khlevnyuk, Viktor Zemskov and Arsenii Roginsky provide numbers. You are scientist and I am scientist too, therefore we both understand a difference between estimations and exact numbers. Estimations are handwavings, you cannot discuss them seriously. Numbers, even when they are not correct, are something you can discuss.
For example, if I tell you I don't believe Albats, you argue she got her PhD in Harvard. If you tell me Zemskov's data are incorrect, I can ask you what are possible reasons for that? For instance, if someone argue that unexpectedly large number of prisoners was liberated from camps means nothing because in reality they were seriously ill and were expected to die in close future, therefore the real number of Stalin's victims was greater that Zemskov's data tell - I take this argument seriously. However if someone tell me that archive data are incorrect because they produced by NKVD that is known to be intrinsically malicious, probably, even towards future historians - beat me, I cannot take it seriously. By the way. Google Scholar gives 22 citations to the Getti, Ritterspoon, Zemskov's paper - and 15 to Albats' The State Within a State. More interestingly, jstor gives only 7 to 9 papers discussing Albats' book, and about 100 articles discuss Zemskov's work. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches do not prove anything at all. This is not a valid method to assess notability of anything. All estimates on this subject are based on unreliable sources. Therefore, they differ by at least ten times. I did not tell that researcher X is better than researcher Y (although Getty is an openly "revisionist" historian unlike Antonov-Ovseenko). I am telling that we can not represent any disputed statistics as fact, no matter if this is Zemskov, Albats, Ovseenko, or whoever else. All published alternative numbers (and yes, Ovseenko provided his numbers) must be presented per WP:NPOV.Biophys (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You tell: "However if someone tell me that archive data are incorrect because they produced by NKVD that is known to be intrinsically malicious, probably, even towards future historians - beat me, I cannot take it seriously.". Yes, I can not take KGB data seriously because this particular organization was caught many times while planting some professional disinformation (there are many sources). Do you regard a proven professional disinformation organization a reliable source?Biophys (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read me carefully, you probably noticed I meant Google Scholar, not Google, those two are absolutely different. Google Scholar deals with scholarly publications and the number of citations provided by Google Scholar is broadly recognized (along with the data of Thompson Institute) among scientists (at least in my area, Biophysics/Molecular Biology) a criterion of the importance of someone's work.
I admit, it might not work for historical articles. That is why I looked through Jstor, that is focused mostly on humanitarian sciences, and the difference appeared to be even more dramatic. Why don't you comment that?
Your arguments about KGB disinformation are funny. If some organization is able to carry out a disinformation campaign, than its classified data intended for internal use are even more trustworthy. KGB, as well as, CIA, for instance, were created, among other, to carry out disinformation campaigns. During a long period, whole Soviet Union was a military organization, therefore some (considerable) level of disinformation had to be present there. However, it has no relation to the validity of archive numbers.
I would like you to understand that few years ago I considered Albats and similar authors as the only reliable source of information. However, recently I found that there are many scholarly articles where other data were presented. And those data look more convincing for me because they more resemble the results of scientific research.
Best regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not cite directly the internal KGB documents, as Albats did in her book. You cite Zemskov. This is fine. If another scholar tells that KGB/Zemskov data are disinformation, citing him is also fine per WP:NPOV. This is all. Please note that even ISI citation index is a poor measure of someone's notability, just as any other formal measure. Please, let's stop this discussion, as this is already a second circle.Biophys (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I never told Albats book contain disinformation. In contrast to you, I don't blame anybody in such intentions. I just proposed to take into account that quite different numbers are present in different sources and some of them look more convincing. If you are really a scientist, especially a Biophysicist, you probably understand that such my statement doesn't imply any of those sources to contain disinformation.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not me who told about wrong numbers. That was Antonov-Ovseeenko, and I will provide a reference to his book as time allows.Biophys (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speech freedom in Russia -- Andrey Kuznetsov

Добрый день, Андрей. Извините, что на русском, но так быстрее и проще.

Прежде всего хотел бы извиниться за свои может быть, не всегда корректные действия в прошлом.

Теперь о главном. Прежде всего, хотел бы уверить Вас, что наши цели и задачи в общем и целом совпадают. Также как и Вы, я хочу демократии в России, соблюдения прав и свобод гражданина, свободной прессы.

Мои действия ни в коем случае не являются своего рода идеологической войной и т.п. Однако есть один фактор, который Вы, как житель Соединенных Штатов, возможно не в полной мере представляете себе. Неверно, что любая критика состояния России приведёт к положительному результату. К положительному результату может привести только адекватная критика, неадекватная может и приводит лишь к росту паранойи и негативного имиджа Соединенных Штатов, вызывая своего рода защитную реакцию. В любом случае, должен происходить здоровый обмен мнениями, российские журналисты в целом достаточно адекватны. Вы ведь не владеете парой-тройкой нефтяных компаний, чтобы обогатиться в случае серъезного похолодания русско-американских отношений?

Надеюсь на конструктивное сотрудничество на страницах Википедии.

Евгений.

ellol (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rough translation courtesy GOOGLE TRANSLATE.

Good day, Andrew. Sorry, that the Russian, but it faster and easier.

First of all I would like to apologize for its perhaps not always correct actions in the past.

Now on the home. First of all, I would like to assure you that our goals and objectives generally coincide. Like you, I want democracy in Russia, respect the rights and freedoms of citizens, free press.

My actions in no way is a kind of ideological war, etc. But there is one factor that you, as a resident of the United States may not fully imagine. Is not true that any criticism of the state of Russia will lead to a positive outcome. By the positive result could only lead critic adequate, inadequate and can only lead to increased paranoia and the negative image of the United States, causing a kind of defensive reaction. In any case, should be a healthy exchange of views, Russian journalists generally quite adequate. You do not own a pair-troika oil companies that enriched if honest cold Russian-American relations?

I look forward to constructive cooperation on the pages of Wikipedia.

Eugene.

Please remember this is ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA Bobanni (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what's the matter when it's a personal message? I do not use offensive language nor make any veiled or overt threats. Just I can more natively express my ideas speaking in Russian, I hope Biophys didn't forget that language either. ellol (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like do you know, that "Национализм" and "Nationalism" are different notions in fact? -- it's not that easy. -- sorry. ellol (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or like, Japanese have four different words to say "thank you" in different situations; -- language does matter, in fact. ellol (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Any disputes here have nothing to do with US-Russia relations. I can not make these relations worse, just as you can not make them better. Everything in WP has been already described in other sources. None of us is doing original research or propaganda here.Biophys (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I just wanted to make it clear that in the end we stand on the common ideological ground. ellol (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I am not sure though what "ideological ground" you are talking about. As about "oil companies", it was not me who dropped down Russian stock market. That was someone else.Biophys (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a battleground. There are plenty ways to describe the same event. For exapmle, compare these two statements: Kennedy was assassinated by Osvald. Other sources state that was done by KGB and Kennedy was assassinated by KGB. Other sources state that Osvald did that alone. Both of them are formally neutral, aren't they? And Wikipedia is becoming more and more influential, so it can do relation between countries better or worse. Otherwise, there are no reason to play this game.
Best regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the honest opinion. You just said that "Wikipedia is a battleground", and that "Otherwise, there are no reason to play this game". But I see this completely differently. Wikipedia is influential because it is a good educational site. I am working here to educate myself and others, not to play stupid edit wars or promote propaganda of any kind. Yes, one can tell that everything affects everything. For example, an WP article about Osvald or Andrei Lugovoy might infuriate Putin who will sell WMD to Iran, which will lead to WW III. This is a popular science fiction concept of course.Biophys (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S. Ossetia

What do you mean?[9] In the CNN video Medvedev says it's trying to "protect its civilians". The BBC article also quotes the Russian president. - Pieter_v (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean "its" in the phrase of Medvedev? What does it mean "ours"? It means these people (one can tell civilians) who live in South Ossetia and hold Russian passports. That is what I am trying to tell. The "citizenship" is a dubious matter. Are you sure that none of them are Georgian citizens?Biophys (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think we mean the same stuff, I just wanted to add how this is the view point of the president of Russia, and not that of international observers per se. - Pieter_v (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curent version cites statements by the Russian and Georgian presidents. The meaning of their statements is unclear. Russian side claims to protect inhabitants of South Ossetia who hold Russian passports. This should be explained. Of course this is only a claim. Real goals could be completely different, such as keeping high oil prices, a dismissal of Medvedev by Putin, personal animosity of Putin and Saakashvilli, profits from illegal arm trade in South Ossetia extracted by certain individuals, or whatever. What I am talking about is much easier. What is the official Casus belli from the Russian side? Let's explain it.Biophys (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I always wonder is, why do Russians support independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but oppose any other type of independence such as Chechnya and Kosovo. Do you know their argument? - Pieter_v (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally support independence of everyone per the Right of nations for self-determination. Russian nationalists actually do not support independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They support these territories to be annexed by Russia (the "independence" is only a talk to achieve that goal). In fact, this goal has been already achieved: these territories and their leaders are completely controlled by the Russian leadership. In this war, Russia simply protects something that already de facto belongs to her. Being quite logical, they do not support independence Chechnya (this is a de juro Russian property), as well as Kosovo (this belongs to their Serbian slavic brother's empire).Biophys (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what do Ossetians/Abkhazians want themselves? Do they want independence, or to be a part of the Russian Federation? Also isn't the area said to be South Ossetia quite big for such a small population? The Ossetians already expanded their territory when they ethnic cleansed the Ingush people (See the Ossetian-Ingush conflict). - Pieter_v (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, did you live in the Caucasus? What republic/oblast? - Pieter_v (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had many mountaineering and hiking trips there. I know best Abkhasia and Western and Central Caucasus. Ironically, most hospitable people lived at the Kodori Gorge, a future separation line between the Abkhasia and Georgia (but I was there before the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict). I have never been in Chechnya - not recommended for tourists. My friends had serious problems there - in the old Soviet times.Biophys (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really those were still in the Soviet days? The Soviet days of the chechen-ingush assr aren't very well covered because of the censorship back then. What problems did they have, were they abducted ? ;) - Pieter_v (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there were shooting and threats by youngsters, simply because the people were Russian tourists, but intervention of older people from a village helped to resolve the situation. Yes, that was before the Chechen independence.Biophys (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reply to your another question... South Ossetians probably want to unite with North Ossetians, but a lot of Georgians live in South Ossetia, and they want to be in Georgia. Abkhasians want independence. But one should remember that they were only around 25% or less of population, and Georgians were ~40% of populations before the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict, and the Georgians were forcefully evicted or run away during the conflict. As about Ossetian-Ingush conflict, that is a long-term result of Stalinist national politics. The republics state lines have been intentionally created in a such way to divide people of the same ethnicity (e.g. Ossetians) and "unite" peoples whit long-term animosities (e.g. Karachaevtsy and Cherkessy).Biophys (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Fun fact btw, Stalin's ethnicy is unsure, so one can't say he's either Georgian, or Georgian-born (He's Soviet born). There's a lot of indications that Stalin was at least part Ossetian. Check some books about it. (concerning that discussion you linked) - Pieter_v (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Russia.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Hey there. One of the parties to this mediation is presently on holiday. So we'll proceed when he gets back. Thanks. —Sean Whitton / 10:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's back. Would you kindly e-mail me an e-mail address for you; I much prefer to mediate over e-mail unless you have any objections. My address is sean //AT\\ silentflame //DOT\\ com - thanks. —Sean Whitton / 10:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please use "E-mail this user" wikipedia option. I stated my position here. I will support any agreement made by other sides. If you want me to make a compromise version of the text, I would prefer to make it openly in WP.Biophys (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

THANKS for keeping a check on colfer's repeated obsession to prevent my edits (thrice done without valid explanation!!)..shoud we move this part to 'internation reactions article'/ '..condemning russia' article (links given in "interntl. rctn"section) after giving a one/ two line summary in the present aricle?Cityvalyu (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way. This is the only independent estimate of the civilian casualties, it should stay and be given more weight. Colchicum (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Colchicum. A lot of propaganda is going on. I think we should remove all highly biased and unreliable at the time of war statements of combatant's media (Russian, Georgian, and Ossetian) with regard to human rights violations, and only use statements by international human rights organizations and most reputable media outlets like New York Times. Unfortunately, I will be unavailable during next few days.Biophys (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that HRW is a good source. I removed some HRW material by mistake when reverting Cityvalyu (talk · contribs). Please see Talk:2008 South Ossetia war#Human Rights Watch segregation. I explained that "there is no precedent to organize by source" in my first edit summary, by the way. -Colfer2 (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colfer2, you made seven "Undids" yesterday in this article, as one can see from your edit history. As about your "ideological objectives", they are clear from : this edit. Your involvenet is not constructive, to tell this politely.Biophys (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illarionov. Biophys (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources

Ethnic cleansing of Georgians

We burned to the ground all Georgian towns and villages in South Ossetia

“We burned these houses. We want to make sure that they [the Georgians] can’t come back, because if they do come back, this will be a Georgian enclave again and this should not happen.” The officer went on to describe events during the fighting, including the execution of a Georgian armed man...[10]

'Putin has given us an order that everyone must leave or be shot'

According to Georgia, the rebels broke the truce by firing not just artillery, but heavy artillery (120 mm pieces that they were not supposed to have there in first place, according to the 1990s truce - but they had) and killing 10 Georgian peacekeepers and civilians in the villages. Ossetians evacuated their civilians, that is children, women and old people (leaving a very large militia, of course, which means masses of male "civilians" ready to take arms and don some kind of uniform at any time, which they did), they also brought volunteers from Russia. In short, they were fully prepared and the "civilians" left were mostly militiamen. The evacuation was not secret, it was totally official: "Women, children and old men remove from several villages of Znaursky area and Tskhinvali. Evacuation has begun on August, 2nd 2008г., informs RIA Novosti news agency." (August 5th, 2008)

Georian version Great supplementary materials.

Flaunting impunity in Russia's 'security zone' By Lawrence Sheets, September 10, 2008, Herald Tribune

Good work

I don't know how you can handle all the crap you get on wikipedia. Keep up the good work. Ostap 05:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can not handle the crap.Biophys (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you appear to handle it quite well. I have never seen you lose your composure on wikipedia. Ostap 00:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think you might be dealing with a sockpuppet above. Ostap 00:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of whom do you think?Biophys (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kostan1 is the latest of User:M.V.E.i.. The evidence is both striking and I'd say quite conclusive, indeed it is posted all over this wiki. Ostap 02:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Do you mean similar English errors and his habit to post all his "achievements" at his user page?Biophys (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is far more obvious than that. Take for instance, his first edit. this, those who have experience with him know about this.

He edits the same articles, the same subjects, has the same strong POV, and perhaps most obviously of all has all the same spelling errors. He seemed to be doing better with that early on.

And of course this pretty much makes it certain: Kostan1 "By grand-grandfather was a peasent executed by the NKVD in 1930 because of a lie of his neighbour about "anti-Soviet agitation"

MVEi. "Me whose grand-grand-father was a peasent killed in 1930 by the Cheka/NKVD for "anti-soviet agitation" (and that was alie invented by neighbours " Even his family history is the same. I tried to ignore the fact that he has returned (I am starting to feel bad for him and he is not revert warring with me at least) but if he is giving you trouble you might want to report him. Ostap 03:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ostap. I have blocked him Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I didn't really want to get him blocked. He seemed to have acted better, even learned from his past blocks. But I guess others have had more experience with him. Ostap 03:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex was right. He must be blocked per WP policies.Biophys (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what about User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog? He has very similar pattern of edits as indef-blocked User:HanzoHattori (Chechnya, Caucasus, My Lai events, Ninja in popular culture, Iraq) as anyone can see - [11], [12]. Alæxis_¿question? 09:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep it is him, I have blocked Captain as well. I proposed on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Productive_socks to change the bans into the community restrictions. Please contribute Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see a checkuser report, but the patterns are indeed very similar. I am sure you both knew that the patterns are similar for a long time ago, but decided to react only now for whatever reason...Biophys (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, crap! Did I start this?! Ostap 16:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not you. Please see my last messages at talk pages.Biophys (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

[13] --Koretek (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sorry, but I can not be involved here. You have the same rights as anyone else. Please go ahead and do whatever you want to do.Biophys (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

Yes, I knew about the editing style similarity for a few days. Since I'm not a big fan of indef blocks I did not notify any admins about it but only warned him a couple of times about his incivilty (at the Talk:2008 South Ossetia War) but this hasn't achieved anything, imho.

I've posted my message at your talk because of what I had seen there, in the very section I've posted to. It reminded me that there existed another user with the same problems. Best regards. Alæxis_¿question? 17:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren ^(talk) 22:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interview

An interview of Andrei Soldatov to Yevgenia Albats at the Echo of Moscow:

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Тогда я хочу спрсоить А.Солдатова - Андрей, много ходит разговоров о том, что существуют так называемые "веб-бригады", что в интернете на разных форумах сидят профессиональные люди, которые вводят дезорганизацию в работе форума, вводят разговор, дискуссию в сторону уже совсем чего-то непотребного – есть даже исследования, сделаннные французами на эту тему. Что вы можете по этому поводу скзаать?

А.СОЛДАТОВ: Во-первых, касается это не только формуров. Есть более определенные вещи – например, если вспомните. Такая технология использовалась во время войны в Ираке – буквально за два месяца до взятия Багдада появился сайт, посвященный иракской войне, где группа людей, которые назывались сотрудниками ГРУ, опубликовали то, что они называли "сводками руководителя ГРУ", где расписывалось, как американцы проигрывают войну. Там указывались какие-то данные - вот еще 5 танков подбили, все это на фоне антиамериканской истерии, все это очень хорошо потреблялось. И, в принципе, этот сайт закончил существование только тогда, когда американцы уже вошли в Багдад, и окзаалось, что все эти подбитые танки то ли были, то ли нет - вобещм, результат не изменило. Второй момент тоже очень любопытный - если вспомните события в Нальчике, то буквально там была очень интересная цепь событий, когда буквально на следующий день вышло заявление МИД о том, что сайт "Кавказ-центр" это очень плохой ресурс, а через два дня появилось две команды, котоыре обозвали себя хакерами, две команды людей, которые формально независимы от государства – такое объединение молодежи, правда, очень скоординированное - которые стали заниматсья тем, что стали организовывать хакерские атаки на "Кавказ-Центр". То есть, активность может быть любая. Это может касатсья не только контента, но вот, например, "забанить" "Кавказ-Центр".

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Но есть веб-бригады, или это придумка испуганных интернет-пользователей?

А.СОЛДАТОВ: Я не думаю, что это придумка. Потому что я по собственному сайту могу судить - у меня происходили такие моменты. Особенно, когда происходят такие события, как "Норд-Ост", например.

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Где и кто этим занимается?

А.СОЛДАТОВ: Я думаю, что сложно четко сказать, при каких управлениях точно эти люди существуют – там разные структуры называют, называют Центр информационной безопасности, еще там есть некие моменты.

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Это какие федеральные структуры?

А.СОЛДАТОВ: Понимаете, у нас были две структуры, которые занимаются интернетом - ФАПСИ и ФСБ. Потом, когда ФАПСИ не стало, то главная такая структура, о которой все забыли, это так называемый "Третий главк", назывался он Главное управление радиоэлектронной разведки на средствах связи.

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Бывшее 16-е управление КГБ.

А.СОЛДАТОВ: Да, страшная структура. Ну, как страшная - такая эффективная структура, она занималась лурдесом, Камранью, в том числе, они занималсь разведкой в интернет. Все это влилось в состав ФСБ, так что сейчас фактически можно сказатЬ, что есть одна структура, которая этим занимается. Плюс еще МВД, в котором есть соответствующее управление, где тоже сидят люди довольно компетентыне, которые умеют этим заниматься.

A brief summary:

both experts on Russian intelligence/FSB matters believe that "Internet brigades" do exist;
one such team of people, who called themselves GRU officers, was actively involved in a disinformation campaign prior to US invasion of Iraq according to Soldatov;
the teams are involved in hackers attacks, and they attacked Soldatov's own site during the Moscow theater hostage crisis;
the teams are coordinated by the Russian department of Signals intelligence, which is a part of the FSB and has been formerly a part of 16th KGB department;
there are also such teams in Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs.

It is a matter of common knowledge that such "brigades" are very active at Russian "opposition" web sites. In this internet discussion members of such "brigade" react to a criticism of Russian foregn policy by Andrei Piontkovsky. They use personal and anti-Jewish slander to "defame" the opponent.

"They are actually hiring staff to curse online", said Liu Di, a Chinese student who was arrested for posting her comments in blogs.^[1]

^ China's secret Internet police target critics with web of propaganda, by Jonathan Watts in Beijing, June 14, 2005, Guardian Unlimited

New Great Game AfD

I think you should know one of the editors who argued so vigorously against the New Cold War article is now trying to do the same thing the New Great Game on AfD--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian apartment bombings.

Hi. I am probably jumping the gun, here, so apologies if you are actually doing it as I write. That paragraph you are moving hasn't been put back in yet. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought everyone, including you, agree that last paragraph of introduction should be moved elsewhere. Right? So, I moved this paragraph.Biophys (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To where? I thought you were going to put it somewhere further down in the article. Sorry if that is what you did, and I'm just too daft to notice. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

" Prospects for future investigation" of course. Please see the diff.Biophys (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That's cleared that up. I am daft. I need a longer screen!! I saw the -390 count, assumed you had cut the para, and were going to paste it back in later. I wondered why you didn't do it in one edit. Very sorry. I must learn not to use the assume word (except when assuming Good Faith, of course). Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC) p.s. you can delete this whole section to hide my shame, if you want ;) Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am watching with interest your current contributions. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC) there appears to be a transcription error in the second para. please clarify.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's simply move somewhere. I do not like some of the changes but respect opinion of Colchicum. If he said: "this is not good", something must be improved. I finished this series of changes for now. Need more work later.Biophys (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right. This version is at least better than what was there before. Well done. However, the second paragraph is not the same as that agreed on the talk page. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC). And it's not in Putin's statement. Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me (again) if I am wrong, but wasn't Yeltsin the President at the time of the bombings, not Putin (who seems to be President For Life now, one way or another - different job title, same powers)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the dates. This time it was you that messed up;) I have demoted Putin to his Prime Minister job, and altered the text of the second para to what was agreed (plus of course leaving your bit about Prime Minister Putin)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ryazan bomb. The main article said it was on the 23rd. Your recent edit left it at the 23rd. But the agreed text on the talk page says it was the 22nd. Which is right? (because I don't know!!!). Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order 270

Dear Biophys. Could you please explain me why did you removed one of two points of view as irrelevant? In present version 80% are mentioned as an established fact, although detailed statistics that is provided in source I added refutes the present statement. If two sources give mutually contradicting information, both of them should be mentioned.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC) --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this is obvious. a deleted segment of text does not tell anything at all about "Order 270". You have already included this segment to a lot of different articles. Let's not create content forks. If you want to conduct this or other similar discussions, please use talk pages of articles rather than my talk page. Thank you.Biophys (talk)

The first part of this paragraph is irrelevant in the same extent. To my opinion, the whole paragraph should be removed, however, since I didn't want any edit war, I just added a piece of text that helps to create more balanced vision. I am not intended to initiate a long discussion on this subject, that is why I decided not to create a new section in the article talk page. I thought addressing directly to author of the concrete editing to be a normal way for cooperation, however, if you are uncomfortable with that (in this concrete case), feel free to remove this section from your talk page. Very truly yours,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. If you think "the whole paragraph should be removed", let's remove it.Biophys (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new version looks better. Actually, it probably makes sense to discuss separately the order by itself and its implementation, because, as you know, there is a huge difference between those two things in Russia. I have a feeling you think I am a Stalin's advocate. That is not the case. The only thing I mean is that, in contrast to Germany, no orders were observed in the Soviet Union automatically and literally (both you and I know the Stalin's Constitution wasn't observed, for instance). So despite the cannibal nature of this order, the real tendency might be different, and it might change during the course of the war. I wouldn't say I know the real state of things; I just point your attention at two different sets of data, each of them cannot be disregarded by formal reasons and each of them require careful consideration. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

personal attack?

If you're accusing me of making personal attacks by pointing out your apparent dishonesty, then what were you doing here? Is that not a personal attack? I think it was not only a personal attack, but a threat, even though I did end up explaining my mistake. something you have yet to do. LokiiT (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read WP:CIV. It tells: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia..Biophys (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply

Hey, I think it's too bad that you're fed up at the moment. The affair with Getman images probably did the trick. I don't really know anything about that (provide me with a link if you want). The Getman images are really awesome and I've read all of them. Remember that images aren't supposed to be important for articles though, it's text and sources that matter. As a replacement you can place a link at the bottom of a page (about gulag for example) linking to the images such as "Nikolai Getman Images from Gulag". You can also use the description of the images as sources.

I agree that the unbelievable amount of Russian users that have signed up to argue at the S. Ossetia page is absurd. They've all signed up to edit war over something in the news and demographics win as there's far more Russian citizens than Georgians. I think they will decrease in the future though once time passes by, thankfully they refrain from editing other articles too. Some Georgian users have resumed editing after being carpet bombed too.

I'd advice you to take a brake for a while and then come back. I'd sure miss your presence, you know we've already lost a good editor. The most important thing however is that you enjoy editing. Grey Fox (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good note. I guess some people became the victims of informational carpet bombing. I listen news and discussions from Russia on a regular basis, and believe me, I have never seen such Nazi-type rhetorics in the old Soviet times. Most people are so convinced. An attack to Crimean peninsula tomorrow would get an overhelming support. That is what state control of mass media means. Biophys (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I do not think you ever listen this man.Biophys (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this large amount of nationalism is also the result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The collapse felt like a defeat for Russia, and after defeat, nationalism usually follows. Just like with Germany after WWI. This could lead to much bigger conflicts though. The relationship between Russians and other ethnic groups inside Russia isn't very good to put it softly. The ironic thing is that these ethnic groups are growing rapidly in terms of population size, while ethnic Russians are sharply decreasing. Who knows how big internal conflicts will grow? Grey Fox (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only Russian population declines but also many ethnic minorities. In fact Russia will soon be populated by Chinese who are coming in large numbers. But I want to tell you the story about the images. 1. An official permission to use these images from Jamestown Foundation has been obtained by email. 2. An official OTRS ticket from Wikimedia has been issued. 3. Someone decided to delete the images and arranged a deletion discussion at wikimedia commons. Four users voted 2:2 (some had a doubt that Foundation has a copyright on the images, even though the images were placed at the Foundation web site). 4. Everything has been deleted. Keep in mind that copyright requirements for images in Wikipedia and Commons are different, and they are more stringent in Commons. I will wait a little if the matter is settled in Commons. If not, I will download some of these images to wikipedia to have a new deletion discussion here. Since the requirements for WP and Commons are different, these images will not qualify for speedy deletion, without additional discussion.Biophys (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, I am not suppose to know what they are doing in Commons. I can see however, posted text of e-mail with Foundation permission and a number of OTRS ticket there. I can also see there some objections by User:Nishkid64, but this is only an opinion of this user. So, placing images here would be a legitimate procedure. Is not it?Biophys (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Ossetia war

Hi. First I think there should be a straw poll on what most users think the title should be, or whether we should split the article. Then it should be taken to WP:RM. Right now I don't see a clear consensus so I can't move the page, but once there is one I will do so. Khoikhoi 04:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do not see any possibility to reach consensus about anything with a number of recent users who have few edits in WP. We should change our rules to allow established users decide such question. Otherwise all articles on hot political topics will be total mess, as they are right now.Biophys (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should wait a few weeks then. Or maybe some move requests do only include established users, I'm not sure. You're going to have to ask another admin regarding that one. Khoikhoi 19:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Biophys (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Thanks for your message. I created a similar Ru:WP article there. Have a look at these [14] [15] - you are certain to enjoy it thoroughly as did I. It appears to confirm some things you told me months ago and that i then thought were a tad paranoid. Very informative and revealing, isn't it?Muscovite99 (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the closest would be "to dump om smb". But my point was actually the next post by Mitrius (read it carefully): you might not remember it but he quotes the phrase, which i wrote on your discussion page almost a year ago! And he imputes it to me.Muscovite99 (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not realize that he means you. But there was no "canvassing" on your side because I did not vote in Russian WP. As about your alleged incivility in English WP, there was an RfC about it. The record-keeping is amazing. Same here, in English WP.Biophys (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing referred to smth much more recent (by-the-by where exactly is this banned; i actually merely notified people of a pending discussion -- many of them reacted the opposite way i would wish they did). Also: what the letters "rm" at the beginning of editirs' comments mean? Is it just "remark"?Muscovite99 (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you did not do anything wrong by notifying me. Please see WP:Canvassing. I usually use "rm" for "remove" (as for files in UNIX).Biophys (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Russian political prisoners

I have nominated Category:Russian political prisoners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at

here Talk:2008 South Ossetia war#Important new info.Muscovite99 (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this info is of immense import, especially given that it comes from Russia's quasi-official sources. See my last edits in the article (it might take some defending).Muscovite99 (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i've had a look at the Dmitry Medvedev article - it is utterly pathetic. If you feel up to it, improve on it using material from the Russ equivalent (easpecially para 2.1.1 there - there's plenty of English-language sources there).Muscovite99 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind this. Biophys (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing we can do about it [16]. WP has become a tool of Russian state propaganda. Foundation can not fight with the state.Biophys (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My condolences

I have seen much of the recent situation unfold. I hope you do not leave due to the harassment and intimidation (which was obviously the plan). Please stay and keep editing. Ostap 03:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably I will, but I have to spend more time at work. Thank you for support!Biophys (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, after this terrible situation take a short break but come back soon and continue to do the great work you've been doing. We need people like you here! Biruitorul ^Talk 04:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-signing.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was not really that bad. Such things only make me more combative. Unfortunately, I must reduce my participation here to bare minimum because my work suffers.Biophys (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with the concerns above. The speculations about your personality, especially those that could have been interpreted as threats of outing, were completely unacceptable. I hope the message sinks in in the minds of your detractors. That said, I suggest you consider following an advise I gave you earlier. If you care about your privacy, you should restrict off-wiki communication, separate the accounts for editing the articles in the field of your profession and the article on general historic topics, and carefully think before posting anything to talk pages. For example, outlandish remarks like this in public fora are completely outrageous. Please take my advise close to your heart. --Irpen 15:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will now think more carefully. As about remark you cited, I believe it is completely appropriate and precisely on the subject/content of an article. As about my identity, an experienced WP administrator can establish it in ten minutes, simply based on history and content of my edits, and I know this perfectly well (I am not going to tell the recipe though since it can be used to trace other users). Yet, I want to remain anonymous in WP for a variety of reasons. Biophys (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you plan to stick around. I've seen the list of all the articles you've created and you've done even more productive work than I previously thought. If you're too occupied with work take a break for as long as necessary. I've been doing the same the past month. As for the kiddy trolls you'll encounter while editing political subjects, remember that most of them are probably teens in their early years. One thing I've learned from my previous troubled editing here is that wiki policies can either be your worst enemy or your best friend. Cheers. Grey Fox (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. BTW, if you want to tell something to an administrator, you should use his talk page, not a talk page of another user. Real kiddy trolls are mostly doing vandalism. Those you are talking about can be young, but directed by certain older people.Biophys (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Biophys, I think you are wrong. This is much simpler. Our "best friend" turned out to be a foreign resident with no background in the Soviet Union due to his age as he himself once confessed. Colchicum (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confessed where? You do not mean Grey Fox, right?Biophys (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean M. Colchicum (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.Biophys (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you is edit more with an open mind, there seem to be a lot of editors with the Idee fixe that everything Russia does is good, but I got the idea that you have the Idee fixe that everything that Russia does is bad and will only get worse (for example your claim that Krim will soon be attacked by Russia lacks a smoking gun). We need people like you to control the Putin-fan club but I don't want to see wikipedia turning into the Putin hate club. I will try to get rid of my Idee fixe that everything Yulia Tymoshenko does is great.... naaaa too late.... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! But you got me wrong. I do not hate anyone, including even FSB, and I edited very little article Putin. Please see epigraph at my user page. That is what I really feel. And yes, I am well aware of the danger of Idee fixe - as a scientific worker. I study the subject before making any claims.Biophys (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miyokan has been community banned. Grey Fox (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel threatened

Biophys, if you feel threatened that you are being outed, I strongly advise you to invoke RtV at this account rather than go out of your way to seek the resolution of this problem. You can then return to editing under a new account name. Additionally, if you plan to edit topics in your professional field of speciality AND articles on unrelated to your RL profession political issues, you can do it from different undisclosed accounts as long as you never edit the same article from two accounts and do not vote with both in surveys.

I am not sure you are being outed indeed, but if this is true, this is very unfortunate. Several editors in the past fell victim of their stalkers. I also recommend that if you insist on editing privately, to avoid email communication and any talk page comments or usernames that would allow to suggest your RL background like profession place of origin, college, etc. I don't make such an effort myself but I realize that individual circumstances may be different from person to person. --Irpen 18:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion, but I have a problem with RtV policy. It tells: "The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity. Vanishing means that the individual, not the account, is vanishing. There is no coming back for that individual.". I have no intention of leaving WP forever, at least right now. Also Alex apparently deleted whole my talk page. Was it really necessary? Could he only delete certain threads?Biophys (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I see your page is restored. You do not need to read RtV literally. As long as what you are doing would seem reasonable to most reasonable people, you can do it. This is how the WP works. Abandon this account and start editing from a different one if you feel this account is being compromised. I am not aware of any editing restrictions on you. So, you don't even need to notify any admins of your actions. For better privacy it may also help to disable your email. No one but yourself can make these choices for you. --Irpen 18:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

If you think you've seen the biggest Russian nationalists on wikipedia already, check out User:Kuban kazak's userpage. Basically we have some kind of army officer editing wikipedia. Grey Fox (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as user follows WP rules, he is fine. He can place Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot at his own userpage. Of course I know this user. BTW, I completed my Arbcom evidence and have no intention to continue. Please keep in mind, we have a lot of army officers from various countries editing WP. This is not forbidden.Biophys (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However his image of a hanging rope with a title "Mikahel [Saakashilli], I am waiting for you" is over the top. But I would rather not discuss this matter with him.Biophys (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some links

[17]

Re:Your arbitration case

I think you are quite right, on all counts. Alas, whether the growing bureaucracy of Wikipedia will see it eye to eye with us and do what's best for the project, or will again pass some half-hearted political decision... time will tell.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you were right... Do you think that this would be a solution? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a possible solution, but you would have to decide who of you edited which article first. I tried such solution with another user (my second ArbCom case), but this only worked because we edit in different areas. I am not sure that would be a workable solution in your case, since you have a significant subject overlap.Biophys (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bogorm

A sockpuppetry case has been opened about Bogorm at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bogorm. I had thought it was put to rest with the RFCU, but he/she appears to not want to let go. Your comments would be appreciated as you were involved in the situation and had previously commented on the RFCU. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will check this and comment later.Biophys (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Deacon's usual subjects

Biophys, I've been editing medieval Rus articles since I got to wikipedia, and my main editing interests are as everyone who knows me knows medieval historical topics. Moreover, the Piotrus article in question I had intended to edit for ages to fix Piotrus' mistakes (and I had edited the talk page previously!), but was waiting until I had the time. It had nothing to do with Irpen! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you had any editorial conflicts with Piotrus before this August? I guess you did not. You are great editor, but certain things looked really suspicious, and I commented about this. But ArbCom can sort this out much better than me. I think you made no obvious violations of WP policies, just like Piotrus or Alex Bakahrev. I also do not think your conflict with Piotrus requires an intervention of ArbCom. You should sort this out yourselves.Biophys (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We had a few not so positive encounters (see my reply to Deacon in evidence for details).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bring the arbcom to resolve any conflict with Piotrus. I brought it because I believe Piotrus' behaviour in general needs to be addressed (and it is beyond the stage now where Piotrus himself can be trusted to address it), particularly with regard to his lack of editorial and personal integrity, a quality I value and think all thinking wikipedians ought to value in order for this project to work properly, though in this particular instance because of the particular problems it raises for the relevant huge contentious swathe of wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that is something I can not understand. Starting such case means opening a can of worms and spending a lot of time and nerves, your time and time of others. You must be really convinced that Piotrus is an imminent danger to the entire project. Sorry, but I do not buy this. There is a lot of people who undeniably behave worse than Piotrus and contribute much less good content than him (some of them are participants of this case, but I certainly do not mean you). I can only agree that Piotrus is indeed "defensive" (rather than "combative"), in the sense that he uses smart but allowed by the rules strategies to survive in this hostile environment and contribute to "difficult" political subjects. If he edited less controversial subjects, he would have no problems at all. I believe that climate in this political/history WP section is indeed extraordinary hostile, in a striking contrast to Biology/Chemistry section. Starting an unnecessary case, like this one, only adds more hostilities rather than resolves anything, I am afraid.Biophys (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if I believed things to be as you seem to believe I might have the same opinion as you, survival mechanism, and all. Maybe that is the cause, but it doesn't eliminate the problem. Ironically I believe Piotrus would do better if he edited honestly and with integrity as honest competent editors with power would eventually (eventually I may add) identify with him and come to his aid; that would have included me. C'est la vie. Whether the whole case only adds to the problem or not will depend on the perceptive abilities and bottle of arbcom. And yes, if they rubber-stamp his behaviour this will be a great boost to it and the long-term problems will get worse. I for one will edit on or not regardless, e-european articles will only concern me if I choose to make it so, but I'm entitled and obliged to try to make wiki a better place and to try to promote honest competent editing. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piotrus/Morsels of wikiwisdom

You may find my latest essays there interesting, they are significantly inspired by our current arbcom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you very much. I found your notes very interesting. Unfortunately, I am practically fired from my job, in part due to spending too much time here. I am going to finish with evidence for your case and will not be very active later. Warm regards. I will always remember you and other good wikipedians.Biophys (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Wiki can be addictive. Take a wikiholiday and ensure your real life affairs are in order - but I am glad to hear you are not retiring completely! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I just wanted to have a nice wikiholiday, but I had no other choice but to answer Alex Bakharev.Biophys (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why removed some of your evidence. Remember - I don't think committee pays much attention to talk pages, and they are probably reading the case around now.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I felt uneasy bringing things that are mostly about me (I can live with it), and I wanted to avoid confrontation with Alex. But perhaps this also affects other people, you including. This is the only reason I reverted.Biophys (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:A technical question

Nope, never seen this before. I use SeaMonkey and sometimes pages will fail to load completely, I have to reload them or wait until an edit happens to be able to see them again (using historical version may help, as well as redirects). Try a different browser if your problem persists (what browser are you using)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Now it works. But this particular sub-page did not work from several different browsers, and even from a browser at a different UNIX computer.Biophys (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A technical bug of some kind. WP:VPT would be a good place to ask for details, I think.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quick note

User:Finalyzer violated 3rr at the SO page, you can report him. Grey Fox (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He did not recieve any warning about it. Besides, he is not active for a few hours; so the situation might be inrepreted as "stalled". You may try if you want. He is certainly not a newcomer. I think many SPAs who edit Ossetian war are actually socks.Biophys (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never did it. I am not sure about SPAs who edit Ossetian war. They edit nothing else, so it is difficult to establish whose socks they are, even though they are clearly not newbies. There is another case I might submit, and it probably fells under definition of "3RR violation using sockpuppets", but that violation was a couple of months ago. I am also not sure how well should be justified a case.Biophys (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life Goes On

Hey Biophis, they want to delete Life Goes On (The Article). Do you care to weigh in on whether it needs to be done? Thanks WH Coordinator (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for bugging you again, but Russavia failed to delete Life Goes On (The Article) and is now trying to delete its sources using the copyright angle. Could you weigh in on the dispute^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]? WH Coordinator (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New system at the 3RR noticeboard

Hello Biophys. Regarding your recent edit, which restored the sample report at the bottom of the page. The sample report is no longer kept there. See WT:AN3 for the details of the reform, which are now covered in the instructions at the top of the noticeboard. When people hit 'Click here to add a new report' the text of the sample report is supplied for them to fill in. Some of us believe this is simpler. Also it saves having to keep on restoring the sample report every time it's deleted by mistake. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Invite to join WikiProject Russia

Hi, you are cordially invited to join WikiProject Russia. We are a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Russia.

|As you have shown an interest in Vladimir Putin we thought you might like to take an interest in this WikiProject.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project! --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 08:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am not really interested in Putin and made only a few minor edits in his article, but I might wish to join the project later.Biophys (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will try to collect some refs about Russian history: [18], [19]. Biophys (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[20] [21]

Award

		Ukrainian National Award "For Irreproachable Services - 3rd degree"’
		You are hereby awarded this Ukrainian National Award "For Irreproachable Services - 3rd" because you continue try to bring balance to Russian topics to Wikipedia. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you. No, I gave up.Biophys (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, yes it seems to be hard to bring balance to Russian articles. I tried to balance the lead of Freedom of the press in Russia but after compromising with an other user the intro ended up looking bloody strange... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. I'm so glad it's not just me. I was sort of starting to take it personally.... Jason3777 (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Gavrilov

Hi! I've restored mention about Gavrilov ethnicity, surely it is notable. Another quetion is why his name is spelled Piotr, whereas the better spelling is Pyotr? --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 06:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sick of "ethnicity" and ethnic wars. His "ethnicity" is completely irrelevant and unsourced.Biophys (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gorbachev forms a new party

This was on the news here not too long ago. I know Gorbachev has been in the opposition for quite a while, but how democratic is he really? Is he a better, or simply a very good politician? Grey Fox (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gorbachev wanted to save Soviet Union, not to create democracy. He had two good qualities as a politician: (1) he was a realist and was able to change state policies when realities on the ground required doing so, and (2) he did not want to be remembered as someone with blood on his hands, and therefore he did not use military forces when he could - with a few exceptions.Biophys (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can add a little here. Yes, it's true he plans to form a new party called Independent Democratic Party of Russia, but like the other parties he has formed it will most probably end up with minimal success. One reason for that is that while he still is popular in the west he is far from popular in Russia. And also it's hard to see him as a real opposition to Putin/Medvedev although he do support newspapers like Novaya Gazeta but at the same time has said he supports Putin's politics. Närking (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The sponsoring of this party by businessman Alexander Lebedev is telling. Every businessmen in Russia who wants to support a political party (like Lebedev) asks a permission from the Kremlin (or more often receives a direct order from Kremlin to support certain party). This is the way of doing busines in Russia since the arrest of Khodorkovsky (he was the last who did not ask permission).Biophys (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Peter Cheremushkin

Could a search in Russian find sources for his notability? PS. [22] --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the try to deny his scholarship depends on this [23]?? Elysander (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course.Biophys (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

You seem to have access to The Mitrokhin Archive. If so, could you please check it for Urho Kekkonen's KGB connection. I mean what kind of documents are their on him and what was his exact status. Thу WP article on him does not seem to say anything on te subject.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ханну Рауткаллио, который писал о Кекконене с очень критической точки зрения, и одна из книг называется: "Лаборатория Финляндия. Кекконен и КГБ. 1944-1962-й годы". Она вышла в 1996-м году. И там, ссылаясь на убежавшего из Хельсинки на Запад офицера КГБ Голицына, он прямо пишет, что Кекконен, якобы, был агентом КГБ под кличкой Кима, и что его завербовали в 1948-м году. В Финляндии вообще известно, что вокруг Кекконена, среди его близких друзей и сотрудников, было несколько завербованных КГБ людей, которые с ним работали. Кроме того, Кекконен - все его отношения, которые он поддерживал с Советским Союзом, он поддерживал их через резидентов КГБ, не через посла даже, не по дипломатической линии, а по так называемой партийной линии, они называли это партийной линией, но все делалось через агентов КГБ. [24].

I read about him inserting certain phrases in his speeches - phrases that Soviet politburo wanted him to tell; and of course he met with a KGB representative in an apartment somewhere in Finland, but I do not remember where it was written - a book by Oleg Gordievsky or book by Klepikova [25]. I could find anything in Mitrkhin books.Biophys (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. Oleg Gordievsky and Christopher Andrew (1999). KGB: The Inside Story of its intelligence operations from Lenin to Gorbachev (Russian language edition, Moscow, Centerpoligraph, ISBN 5-227-00437-4, page 575.). After describing Arne Treholt affair, they tell (my approximate translation): "In 1981 the Center also lost its the most important agent in Scandinavia: Finnish president Urho Kekkonen was retired. At this moment, the KGB had at least 160 fully employed agents and "contacts" in Finland, more than in all countries controlled by the 3rd Department of the First Chief Directorate." Later on, KGB tried to place another their "contact" (Akhti Karijalainen) to the presidential position, but failed, according to the book.

Keep in mind that another book (probably by Klepikova) tells the following. Kekkonen was very smart, and he did what the best for the Finland. He did almost nothing for the Soviet Union, but he received a lot of economic help and good trade contracts for his country in return. Besides, he made his country safe by nominally working for the KGB (another Soviet propaganda?). However, all Soviet people who escaped to Finland have been arrested by Finnish police and returned back to Moscow At least two of them were placed to psychuska. Their torture was described by David Satter in his "Age of delirium".Biophys (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your tips. But i was wondering specifically about The Mitrokhin Archive as it is very close to being a certified document wheres all else are essentially allegations. I simply do not have a handy access to it. If you have it at hand, please look it up. If you want to add something to the en:Wiki article about him, use a good link to an IHT article in the Russian one that i recently used.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I now see it is available online (there's a link in the relevant article, but still i cannot access it from where i am: says there's no publisher's permission).Muscovite99 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find anything about Kekkonen in book "KGB in Europe". But the book by Gordievsky and Andrew is at least as reliable source as book by Mitrokhin and the same Andrew.Biophys (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, does this editor also edits a lot in Russian WP?Biophys (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time. Never saw this nick in the Ru WP.Muscovite99 (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of Holodomor

Re this, could you please add a footnote with a quote from the one (or two or more) from the currently four (!) references that say "precisely that"? While at it, could you also remove those that don't? TIA, --Irpen 04:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is already there: Stalin "had achieved the impossible: he had silenced all the talk of hunger... Millions were dying, but the nation hymned the praises of collectivization", said historian and writer Edvard Radzinsky. And so and so on. Sorry, I can not go over the ten circle of arguments.Biophys (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[26] Perhaps you know more about this scholar ? Best regards, --Molobo (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. No, I have no idea. I am not a professional historian. So, I have no obligation to read all non-notable and boring garbage, like writings by Meltukhov or writings about his writings. Sorry.Biophys (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

Regarding this, see this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment

Look at my main page. The manipulation of Wiki was forseen long ago and there is a comment how to do it which I quote... One personal reflection. The main manipulators wouldn't be administrators as that position is too visible. Remember that in communist puppet states, the main ministers weren't the decisive ones but their Soviet 'advisors'. So I would guess in such situation that manipulators who are made into admins would stay in background, only to come in decisive situations, when the main manipulators need help or desire destruction of potential obstacle. PS:Btw this isn't conspiracy theory-we already have examples of political groups like CAMERA or business lobby manipulating Wiki.--Molobo (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The situation with China-related political subjects may be similar.Biophys (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating article missing

Do you realize we have not even a stub for Russian intelligence services - no main article for the Category:Soviet intelligence agencies and Category:Russian intelligence agencies categories? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea.Biophys (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oprichnina

I noticed you took out the "domestic"--I don't think it's quite the way I wrote it, but I did update that a long time ago to be more accurate than what was there. I remember using "domestic" as oprichnina did not extend, for example, to territories that were part of acquisitions or simply farther afield from Moscow. Perhaps there's a better means of describing? Unless my edit was wrong, I want to keep that sense of oprichnina close to home. —PētersV (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It tells now "domestic policy". Please feel free to correct current version any way you like.Biophys (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Zolotov

Came upon the article. I am not disputing what it says, but the definition statement begs the question about the source: "Viktor Vasilyevich Zolotov is the head of personal security service of Russian Prime Minister, and formerly President,Vladimir Putin." I have been assuming that the guy remains in charge of the Presidential Guard Service.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix it, and do not hesitate to fix anything at all.Biophys (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your name as one of the recent contributors thereto. In fact, i am not certain of anything much about this guy: he is probably the most secretive senior figure in the gang. I mean the amount of publicly available up-to-date information on him is close to zilch. But there hasn't been any report of him being transferred from the post he has been in, which means he is, at least technically, the Chief of Medvedev's bodyguards. In fact, the issue is interesting from the political point of view as it appears that Putin continues to be protected exactly the way he was when he was president (i heard this from motorists who drive along Kutuzovsky regularly) and Medvedev is not so much protected as being under virtual arrest. I am to all intents and purposes done with the Ru WP, as things have of late become quite impossible for me there: the thing has been hijacked by the well-known gang, and their yesman Mitrius does the bidding of a couple of editors who in effect give him orders about whom to block -- at least that's the way it looks with me: see here ru:Обсуждение участника:Mitrius#Обход блокировки Muscovite99. SashaT even gives him instructions as to how better block the IP that i allegedly used (to put the link in the reference -- what a crime!). So i might dabble in here a bit more perhaps, but still not much as i am short of time and everything else.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome here! I have learned about this man from Tretiakov book; but I can probably find more. Personal protection is everything, and Putin continue to control these forces. You probably know how Stalin was poisoned by Beria when he dismantled two layers of his personal protection (Poskrebyshev and Kremlin's guards led by Vlasik) discredited by Beria.Biophys (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, this may be fun to watch as a spectacle of deranged paranoid clowns; not so much fun when being kind of under their feet. There were somу silly hopes when Medvedev was appointed (i choose my words carefully), but i have always been saying things would get much messier if Putin decided to retain actual power, as he exactly did. Thanks for encouragemet/Keep me posted as to what's going on. Quite frankly, the one thing i do not like about the enWP is its tool kit - i mean all those signs underneath. For instance, the sign for a citation is not equipped with additional features for multiple citation of the same source. Such things have been fixed in the ru WP. Well, just quibbling.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few edits. His connection to Roman Tsepov is interesting.Biophys (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this article in ru wiki. Very entertaining.Biophys (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have voted to keep it.193.233.14.11 (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers corrected?

I've taken the liberty of correcting your numbers at [27]. Please revert if I made a mistake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hi,

I sent you a mail. Did you receive it? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 23:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. [28].Biophys (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Active reserve (KGB)

On 28 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Active reserve (KGB), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep up the good work! ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GULAG Operation

Could you help or recommend a user who could look for other sources for this article? I'd also like to ensure that I've transliterated the names of two Russian commanders properly (the general should probably be stubbed, I can try to do so after I know his name is ok). There is also a discussion of sources on talk.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion?

Hi,

there's a thread going on at AN/I on the topic of edit wars between User:Kuban kazak and User:Hillock65. While the issues of form appear relatively clear to me, I feel unsteady about the issues of content involved in this case, and if I recall right, you are knowledgeable in this subject matter. Can you share your opinion? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 23:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is not the place to discuss content. One should file either an RfC about this user or an arbitration case.Biophys (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Favour?

If you've got a minute would you mind telling me what the edit summary here implies[29]? I think I've got the gist of it, but my colloquial Russian is a little rusty. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His colloquial Russian is not perfect either -- ни instead of не etc, but here is an approximate translation of his pathetic rant: Well, Folantin got what she deserved. We have beaten up (criminal slang for beaten up) much more special people, but it is better if others beat them up for us. And the best thing is when she does it herself. Colchicum (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. He makes a habit of this kind of thing judging from his user and talk page history. --Folantin (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is correct translation. The use of criminal slang makes the statement very crude. Word "us" makes this an open admission that Kuban kazak operates as a member of a group; and he openly declares this group to be a criminal gang by using this slang. Folantin, do you speak Russian?Biophys (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can read mainstream (mostly formal and literary) Russian although I'm out of practice and I don't have a really comprehensive dictionary to hand. So I was able to check up on Kuban Cossack's misuse of references (see here for a long example - if you spot any mistakes in my version, feel free to correct them). I'm unfamiliar with Russian criminal slang so I'd rather have a native speaker, such as Colchicum or yourself, explain the nuances to me. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Ломать Рога" (break horns) means "beat him/her up" in order to "subdue" in Russian criminal slang ref. to official glossary or [30].Biophys (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been Googling around and the phrase is definitely Russian criminal slang (Уголовный жаргон). It's in the Russian Wikipedia entry for Уголовный жаргон [31] (the equivalent article to Fenya on Wikipedia.en). --Folantin (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this article in Russian WP is unreliable source; and it in fact provides wrong meaning of some words. Good source is the "Dictionary of criminal language", to which I provided link above.Biophys (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case

Hello, Andrey. Regardless of our political disagreements, I used to think of you as of a generally honest person, driven by sincere pursuasions, even if I disagree with the source of them. However, your recent comments on the Piotrus ArbCom case made me to question my initial point.

You made statements that I

1) Am a member of a coordinated team lead by Irpen.

2) Made a personnal threat on you.

3) Re-edited Web-brigades page while you were busy at the Arb Com case as a matter of an organized effort.

First of all, let me explain my position, if there's any misunderstanding. I'm a Russian graduate student, busy in work over my diploma, and I'm not any interested in playing any childish games. Yes, I have my views. And I introduce in Wikipedia articles sourced information, which I believe is reality. I am trying to make positive contributions, besides all -- I did not destroy your work, even though I disagree with many your points. Your allegations that my efforts to improve Wikipedia do not reflect my free will are ridiculous and offensive for me.

I never made a threat of you. The incident with my effort to check your knowledge of modern Russian slang was too much childish, and I apologized later for bringing inconvenience in your Wikipedian life.

Your position offends me. Please, explain it now, or my opinion of you will change to the worse.

Regards, Evgeny. ellol (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

What I provided to ArbCom was an evidence supported by diffs. A brief summary:

I am sure that you made a coded threat using Russian slang, as described in my evidence in "Boris Stomakhin" case.
Irpen and Alex supported you at the ANI (do you need an extra diff?), falsely claiming that your message was not a coded threat. I believe they did it to protect you as their ally.
You also came several times to my talk page with inappropriate comments, and I asked you to stop [32]. In particular, I said: "That [33] was coded death threat using Russian criminal slang. That [34] was bad faith accusation. Here [35] you suggested that I think about you that you are FSB agent. But I have never said that. That is something you said. This is over the top. It was always you who was coming uninvited to my talk page with such claims. Therefore, I suggest that we both stop communicating at out talk pages. Let's use talk pages of articles and discuss strictly article's content." That was my message to you long time ago.
But you still continue coming here with inappropriate comments like that [36]. In the last case, you hint that you know my real name (of course you know after being informed by an SPA), and you suggest that I must be more cooperative with regard to edits related to Russian government.
You indeed follow my edits in several articles related to the Russian government, namely Human rights in Russia, Freedom of the press in Russia, Web brigades, and a couple of others. As a result, I can not edit anything there.

I do not know and do not care who you really are. But that's enough. I strongly suggest that we immediately stop communicating at our talk pages. Thank you. Biophys (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do, I live in Russia, and I care if my country is truly viewed on Wikipedia pages. Perhaps I take too personally incorrect info about my land -- but at least I care.

I participate in Wikipedia absolutely openly. I'm not just a nick, but a real person -- my bio info is correct albeit unextensive.

I'm sure Alex and Irpen took my position, because your allegations were ridiculous. I wish you long years of life -- at least I do not have anything against you as a personality and a living human. Every human life is unique -- you must know this as a biologist.

If you insist, I stop communication. But I want to make it clear, that it's you who are cutting this channel of communication. But note, that if you insist on that, I won't communicate with you anywhere.

What the stupid stuff. We are normal adults, not paranoid girls.

Do not also wait that my attitude to you will stay that good as it was before. ellol (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I care too. If I did not, I would not write anything on Russia-related subjects. But I care about people having real information about Russia, not a propaganda, and not an unreadable mess.Biophys (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I tolerate opinions of other people, they have a right to exist as opinions, at least: I have to do that, because I'm having a full spectra of political opinions inside my family alone. While liberals often think their only opinion is an ultimate truth, without scientific care for that. ellol (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you've followed any of the WP:"CONTROVERSY" over the Baltics, you will note that the Russian Duma, the main legislative body of Russia, passed a declaration reminding Latvia it joined the Soviet Union legally according to international law. That is an opinion with no basis in fact. There are boundless references proving beyond any shadow of a doubt Latvia was invaded, occupied, annexed, and remained occupied for the duration of the Soviet presence. Yet on WP, some editors contend that's an "opinion" no more valid than the opposite contention that "no occupation can last for 50 years." Opinions need no facts. Opinions have the right to exist, but not to be promulgated as worthy of encycopedic fact or reputable scholarly interpretation of historic events (real, staged, or imaginary). —PētersV (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Не бойтесь мора и глада,

А бойтесь единственно только того,

Кто скажет:"Я знаю, как надо!"

I do not. ellol (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then read New Testament. Biophys (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It precisely those who are the most certain, with little--or no--facts, who are indeed to be feared and regarding whom we must always remain vigilant. For myself, at least, I can still distinguish certainty begotten of verifiable facts and events--knowing that new verifiable facts and events may in the future better inform and change that certainty--from the certainty begotten of dogma. —PētersV (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Litvinenko book

Perhaps you know the answer. According to this page [37] litvinenko provided in his book a letters from aslan maskhadov in 2002 about the apartment bombings. See here[38] and here[39]. Are these authentic that you know? Since they're in english I guess they were translated by their government in exile? Grey Fox (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both letters are dated (11/02/2002) but to whom they have been addressed? Only an expert can tell if the signature is authentic. As long as something was published in WP:RS (as these letters were published), they can be used in WP articles. No, I do not know anything specific about the letters. You may also look what book "Death of dissident" tells about Maskhadov.Biophys (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's that time of year again

I've created Soviet repressions. Currently, it is just a stub, but it's an important and well-documented topic, so it should have no trouble at all.

You've been working on related topics before — perhaps you'd like to help? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Termer redirected it. Sure, I worked with it. You may also look some related subjects, such as Human rights in the Soviet Union, Totalitarianism, etc.Biophys (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You've been mentioned on ANI [[40]] by our forum-shopping friend (who's never bothered to read the notice at the top of the page: "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting"). She must be getting pretty desperate. --Folantin (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I guess this has been resolved.Biophys (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As about modern day "Cossacks", this section is empty (why did not he improve that?). I am not sure that Cossacks still exist as a distinct social group.Biophys (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not think so.Biophys (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Bazhanov

Hi Biophys. I saw your note about not having an article on Boris Bazhanov, so I created it. Best wishes! -- Suntag ☼ 22:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Excellent work. His memories are exceptionally interesting reading. I see you also edited Georges Agabekov (author of "Cheka at work") who led a team of Cheka assassins intended to kill Bazhanov on his way through Iran (if I remember correctly).Biophys (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this is neutral/notable/reliable?

Institute_of_National_Remembrance#Criticism_of_IPN_by_Russian_sources.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source is certainly not neutral, ant its reliability might be disputed. A part of this segment is basically a slander, and could be removed. However, it also contains some important factual information (if true): "According to Ogonyok there is no public access to the archives of IPN. This access is restricted only to individuals "authorized by the authorities". Some of the documents in the archive may conatain forgeries made up by secret services in order to coerce people into cooperation. Current lustration by IPN is obligatory for all teachers, journalists, diplomats, ministers, members of parliament, public notaries, local government officials and judges. Each year IPN issues 40 000 certificates for individuals confirming their status as individuals "which never cooperated with secret services"

Is that true? Do I understand correctly that IPN and only IPN has an access to the archives of the former Polish secret services collaborators and informers? Are those archives complete and reliable? Such thing would be impossible in Russia for many reasons. One of them: "trusted contacts" were not necessarily placed to the central archive. However, the list of KGB informers indeed existed according to Lev Ponomaryov commission.Biophys (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This reminds me a real life story that had happened with someone I knew. This man caught a women from his lab when she searched his personal belonging looking for certain papers. Then he suddenly realized that she is a KGB informer, based also on a number of other minor incidents that had happened in the lab before (he worked in a secret scientific institute, so she was probably a regular KGB officer who received her second salary from the KGB). Her reaction was very interesting. She completely denied of being caught, even though he had seen this by his own eyes. She looked at him and said: "You look so tired... You probably have some mental problems. You should rest and perhaps see a doctor...". Next day this man suddenly received a call from his old classmate who happened to work in a psychiatric institution. He said: "Would you like to visit us? I have heard about your problems".Biophys (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I've not read it in detail before, and now that I've - it has an eerie resemblance to content that User:Vlad fedorov failed to insert over a year ago (good parts of it are not true and/or obsolete).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I am not quite sure what is true and what is not (I mean factual claims).Biophys (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your User page is awesome!

Thanks, it's makes me feel better about what I'm writing and doing on Disinformation_campaign_during_the_2008_South_Ossetian_war. The disinformation on this page is incredible. Thanks again for you inspirational User page, Jason3777 (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Biophys (talk)

Nov 4

I know - and this knowledge is part of Irpen's evidence against me :) (this, part of his "Sophisticated incivility" evidence section). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. "Piotrus does not use bad words but resorts to an incivility in a much more sophisticated forms of goading, taunting and baiting of his "enemies"", Irpen said. But that is precisely what Irpen does himself, in addition to many other things.Biophys (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These whole arbitration cases... what kind of results can they give? Can it end up banning a user? I see there's one ongoing for 'kuban kazak' at the moment. I can go through the effort of finding evidence because he has a history of incivility as well as using bad sources and even faking sources, but isn't this better for ANI where sanctions can be given? Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this is very important. Some users may be restricted or banned. You are very welcome to contribute any evidence you wish about any user.Biophys (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. No, ANI did not work (see comment by Moreshi in kuban kazak arbitration case). He can not be blocked because certain administrators support 'kuban kazak' and would vote against ban. Hence this ArbCom case.Biophys (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, I'm done with my contribution. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Trofimoff

Was surprised to find the article very raw. The case is of utter interest as it shows the extent of the ROC collaboration with the KGB espionage efforts. Would you care to check your sources for him.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know this better than me. I will look.Biophys (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valeriya Novodvorskaya

In regards to Valeriya Novodvorskaya, I have for the time being removed the 'controversy' section. There is no doubt that she made these claims, for they are sourced to her own political party website. However, the key to presenting information is to do so in a NPOV way, so I am suggesting that instead of inserting and reverting, etc that it be discussed on the talk page on how to present information in the article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone's claims are stated in a way which does not misrepresent them, how might this be construed as a POV versus NPOV issue? —PētersV (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was a typical misrepresentation of sources using citation out of context. That was done to make a mockery of the person instead of fairly describing her political views. To create an NPOV article, one should briefly summarize her position on various subject. Sure, we have article Bushisms, but this is separate from his biography.Biophys (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a closer look and I agree with you. Over the top rhetoric is the norm for political discourse in Russia. That someone says something does not mean they (a) mean that, or that they (b) advocate it. What the person's position is regarded as or what they advocate for needs to come from (preferably peer-reviewed) scholarly sources--for example, I added her liberal position. Any contentions in the article regarding her opinion or position on issues based directly on interviews is a potential BLP violation. —PētersV (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarification.

I did not paint Cossacks as pro-Nazi! I painted those collaborators as pro-Nazi. I mean during the whole war Wermacht managed to pull together only two corps, a good portion of them based on the White Emerge. Compare that with 17 corps of the RKKA. Compare that with the fact that outside those units ordinary Cossacks would find themselves in units such as aviation, armour, navy.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 19:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to see what you're referring to, but in general, anyone from the Eastern European sphere who fought against the Red Army on the Eastern Front is properly characterized as anti-Soviet. "Pro-Nazi" is a syllogism based on anti-Soviet collaborator = anti-anti-Nazi = pro-Nazi. —PētersV (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Shkuro, one of the leaders of Cossack collaborators famously stated: Better to go with the devil, but against Bolshevism. Well 27 million deaths is quite satanic if you ask me. May he burn in hell...--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It tells: [the subject of the article] "refers to the forced repatriation of pro-Nazi Cossacks and ethnic Russians to the U.S.S.R. at the Second World War..." This actually refers to forced repatriation of civilians (including Cossack women and children) along with militant Cossacks. This statement implicitly justifies the massacre of civilians by NKVD/SMERH, the crime against humanity (they are all "pro-Nazi", hence they got what they deserved). This is enormous POV.Biophys (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Kazak tried to portay Cossacks as Nazi collaberators, but instead that the Cossacks that did collaborate didn't represent all cossacks. "Pro-Nazi" is a weird term perhaps but that diff from KK seems innocent. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was then the point of restoring "pro-Nazi" in many places instead of simply "Cossacks"? "Pro-Nazi" is a standard Soviet propaganda trick. All mass extermination of nations in the Soviet Union was "justified" by the Soviet propaganda on the grounds that the entire nations were "pro-Nazi". Now KK places the same thing in WP about ... Cossacks. I guess PētersV understands this better.Biophys (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the Cossacks in majority did not side with the Nazis. Especially those who lived in the USSR at the start of the war. Also the mass extermination of the Cossacks was called off in 1934, there is a huge story of how Shlokhov's Tikhy Don led to this decision. Stalin after reading it took the matter into his hands and by the late 1930s Cossacks were a recognised minority, there were Red Army units made of them. The Propaganda film Kubanskiye Kazaki might be an over-statement, but it definitely caught the mood of the late 1930s, that after two decades of suffering, things started to brighten up. That's why in majority most Cossacks did not collaborate with Nazis when they arrived. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(od) I did take a read through the Cossacks article in particular WWII. The passage:

At the end of the war in 1945, they surrendered to the British Army in Allied-administered Austria, hoping to join the British to fight Communism. There was little sympathy at the time for a group who were seen as Nazi collaborators and who were reported to have committed atrocities against resistance fighters in Eastern Europe. They were accordingly handed over to the Soviet Government.

in particular needs major work (along with other portrayals of collaboration). By comparison, former Latvian Waffen SS were stationed as Allied military guards at Nuremberg, so the notions of "no sympathy", "Nazi collaborators", "atrocities" against (anti-Nazi) "resistance fighters" all need major work. Biophys is completely correct that Cossack women and children were handed over, hardly Britain's finest moment. Of course, the U.S. sent escaping Jews back to Hitler, not a "finest" moment there either. -PētersV (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more. Indeed the reason why reconciliation is not yet possible is simply because insufficient time has passed. Russian Civil War reconciliation has long ago taken place, particularly for us Cossacks. Maybe in two decades people will have different views on this. Where we disagree is how present actions can distance that point. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Not the finest moment" - this is very diplomatic. I think that was the most shameful betrayal in the recent UK and US history (almost a million people was "transferred" for execution). French did not do this themselves, but allowed NKVD opertate at their territory - there was a Soviet camp not far from the Paris; that stopped when NKVD kindapped French citizens. Never mind, giving up the entire Eastern Europe was even worse. I agree with you about this and also about another subject, but maybe later.Biophys (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Litvinenko

Actually, Biophys, I only mentioned this to arbitrators because you mentioned on an arbcom (of which I am not a part, and it will stay that way), that I was "Protecting Vladimir Putin" by "now removing all negative information about Putin not only from his own BLP, but also from biographies of people who were killed allegedly for making accusations against Putin." I posted my response to this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Russavia in which I stated: "So anyone is welcome to reinsert that accusation against Putin, but it needs to be done in a totally NPOV way." After this discussion restarted, you reinserted the BLP information in exactly the same state. Being very hesitant to revert yourself, in order to stop other accusations against myself, and wanting to keep it out of that arbcom, and not knowing where else to go, I posted something on Kirill Lokshin's talk page. The problem is not the accusation by Litvinenko being presented in his article, because he made it there is no denying that, the problem is the way it was worded and somewhat presented as fact, not an accusation made on the flimsiest of (or no) evidence. You will note on Lokshin's talk page and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#WP:BLP_concerns_and_Biophys I have mentioned the re-insertion of material by yourself, and I do believe it needs to be dealt with; not with a block or any such thing, but with education on WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, etc and how all of these policies blend in with each other in the confines of what we are here to do. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I self-reverted (per your request), but modified the text to keep it as short as possible. I would appreciate if you stop following my edits, stop accusing me at all possible noticeboards and talk pages, and stop reverting me when I am trying to comply with your requests. This looks like harassment.Biophys (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on my talk page, I am not following your edits at all. In regards to making accusations, I have not done this at all, in fact, I have only responded to accusations which you made against myself at an arbcom which has nothing to do with myself; I would have appreciated being told about the accusations instead of seeing them much later, but that's irrelevant. The problem with the edits is the form in which they took. If you don't see this, perhaps you can go and ask uninvolved editors or admins on this and get their input, and then come back to me. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted again a new compromise version that I made to comply with your request [41]. Sorry, but my patience has limits. This discussion is closed.Biophys (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new compromise version which you re-inserted was the exact same version that was in the article previously, down to the very letter, and it was that version which is a total breach of WP:BLP. The evidence speaks for itself. Just be aware, that it is yourself is who ending this discussion, not me. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not down to the very letter, but the essence of the WP:BLP was not changed in the very slightest. But all reasonably sourced info on the claims themselves from reliable sources was removed completely. But as per your wish, this is not something you wish to discuss, so that will be the last word from me on this subject. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was different version. Please stop making claims that you can not support by diffs. Frankly speaking, could you please stop targeting me? Biophys (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Just wanted to stop by and say I cam very close to blocking you for edit warring, remember it takes two to tango. Seeing as you have agreed to no longer edit war/revert a block would be clearly punitive at this time. Remember, just because Russavia is block does not mean it is a open invitation to revert his edits. Tiptoety ^talk 22:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A few weeks ago Russavia started following my edits in a number of articles, but you are quite right: this is not a reason for edit warring. So, I will try to add more sourced content or to fix something that would not be a revert of Russavia.Biophys (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

award

		Russian Barnstar of National Merit
		Great Russia-related contributions.

Ostap 19:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thymidine kinase

You have edited a stub "thymidine kinase 1". There is a more extensive article "thymidine kinase". Would it be reasonable to make them one article by includint "thymidine kinase 1" into "thymidine kinase"? Lave (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, thymidine kinase 1 is about a specific human thymidine kinase and a gene (generated by User:ProteinBoxBot), but thymidine kinase is about protein family of thymidine kinase. They should be separate but be linked to each other. Otherwise, we would generate a mess.Biophys (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The thymidine kinase article to a large extent deals with the human thymidine kinase 1, but there is also some about viral TK etc. My suggestion was just meant to avoid confusion. But I have no personal feelings about it, so let us leave it as it is. Lave (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think some degree of overlap is OK.Biophys (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to your contributions. My plan is to add further comments about the clinical use and to add citations about methods for determination in serum and tissue, and also some small additions about the biochemistry (conversion of the enzyme in cells to tetramer and activation by ATP, while the recombinant enzyme cannot be activated in this way). After this I leave TK in peace and start with another tumour marker in the same way - the articles about the tumour markers are all quite incomplete. /Lave (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Sharonov

Date of death unknown...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This not easy to find [42]. Biophys (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I cannot read Russian... :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find the date so far on the internet. The name is very common; there are few sources about this person.Biophys (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golitsyn

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Anatoliy Golitsyn, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 84.71.209.150 (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note

[43].
[44],[45], [46],[47],[48].

Putinjugend

Thanks for your quick addition of sources! I really should have looked for some myself, but I just saw the title, thought it was inflammatory, and automatically clicked 'delete'... on further examination, it seems entirely acceptable. As I've said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend, I don't mind withdrawing the AFD. Terraxos (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Docu's Chechnya

Since you've enjoyed hiking in the caucasus a lot, and seem to have a keen interest in caucasus affairs, as well as human rights in Russia, there's two documentaries that you might find interesting:

A short one called Crying Sun only 25 minutes long and created by the human rights organization Memorial. It's really sad.

A longer documentary is Three comrades (an hour and a half) told by someone who now works for Amnesty International in the Netherlands. It shows the tragic faith of three friends during both wars.

View any of them if you like. As you may have noticed, compared to the past, I've been inactive on chechen related topics for quite some time. I did however do a lot of work, mostly collecting source and archive material, and I'll go active again soon. I'll be away for a couple of weeks though, visiting North America. Grey Fox (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! What places are you going to visit? See you later.Biophys (talk)

Canada, the US and Mexico, starting next tuesday. Grey Fox (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putinjugend is an awesome term. It's making me laugh everytime. Just [49]check them out.Grey Fox (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Farah

Thanks for your help, but I just thought I should explain this one - the article was reduced to stub form by User:Sarcasticidealist in this edit [50], because of his concern that it did not comply with WP:BLP policy. I only added the 'notability' template because someone else had added it to the talk page by mistake, but I agree it probably shouldn't be there at all - he does seem to be notable. However, I would suggest you discuss your reversion of the article with User:Sarcasticidealist, as he's the one who stubbed it in the first place. Terraxos (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for Putinjugend - I think it's out of my hands now. I tried suggesting a merge, but there wasn't much support for that idea - so I'll just leave the discussion to continue and hopefully some sort of consensus will be reached. Terraxos (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see any obvious defamation in Joseph Farah. Obviously, this man holds strong opinions and very "conservative". But after looking at the sources, I must agree - this should be double checked.Biophys (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you speak Russian, maybe this helps the article on putinjugend[51] The results are more than in english. Grey Fox (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putinjugend is an article now? And no a simple disambiguation page. Please confirm your intentions with Putinjugend, because this will determine whether it is left where it is, taken to WP:DRV, or is simply moved to another name. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can take it at DRV after talking with closing administrator. I have nothing to do with it.Biophys (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Yes, I did ask a checkuser. He confirmed that the user was in the same location as Hanzo, in addition to the fact that the RamboKadyrov account has mainly edited topics either previously edited by HH or his socks. See for yourself: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. As for disruptive editing, WP:BAN is very clear that editors cannot evade blocks or bans, and that they are to be re-enforced through the blocking of their sockpuppets. Khoikhoi 03:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. He now apparently admitted of being a sockpuppet. End of story.Biophys (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to "Hi!"

Privet i tebe, Biophys!

I know where he is from and what languages he speaks. It's indicated on his page. But if so (he speaks Russian), why cannot I talk to him in Russian? Anyway, he doesn't reply in Russian either in English. But for sure, he speaks Russian. I've noticed it twice and thrice: he uses an obscene language (English as well). If wiki-community (dislike such a kind of words: community, union, collective - fed up with it) admits his using "blahhhh", "shitload" etc, why do not ask him about it? Sure, no matter now who is it and what he is saying - empty place for me. If no arguments - no dialogue, wright? :))) Could I ask you to learn me to autosign? I click on "sign" button as well as put tildas (Dimitree 19:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)) but no result except my print name (not interactive)... Regards, --Dimitree 19:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)

Just place four tildas (~). It works for me. There is no reason to repeatedly bother a user who does not want to answer.Biophys (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? And who repeatedly bothers him? --23:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Dimitree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)

Take notice of

the pending discussion of Putin's pic on Talk:Vladimir Putin. Also, for your notice: i have extensively edited Putinism, so take a look - i might have inadvertently done something wrong.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple of changes. Let's see how it goes.Biophys (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry XMAS

You may be interested in

Tsarist absolutism.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP user 84.139..

Hi Biophys -

Please consider it before appearing to support the IP user editing from 84.139.*.*. He seems to have some sort of agenda (having to do with Germany, not Russia; I can send you some links), and has been following me on several unrelated articles making uncivil allegations against me.

Take a look at the German wikipedia if you wish (and if you read German). Its text is actually much less anti-Ehrenburg than this, particularly when it comes to allegations of having encouraged violence against German civilians. This charge is treated in great detail there, with an abundance of sources and quotations where Ehrenburg explicitly opposes - in 1945 - any sort of such violence. It also mentions Ehrenburg's phrase "justice, not revenge" as part of his reply to some soldiers who thought he had "gone soft". (There is also a report of an English lady who wrote to Ehrenburg telling him not answer ill with ill, and more of the like; on the whole - on this issue as well as others - it is an admirably well-balanced and well-researched account.) Feketekave (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support the user, but only a specific edit by this user. Please comment at the article talk page. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a remark at the talk page and added sources to a new edit of the main page. Feketekave (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainophobia

Nice. Thank you. Looks better.

You are welcome. Please do not hesitate to ask if you need anything.Biophys (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

I've posted a thread at WP:ANI concerning your recent edits. Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did not you inform me about the alleged problem prior to reporting me to the ANI? Perhaps we would easily come to an agreement. Why bother other busy people? But it is already too late...Biophys (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! Biophys (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Happy New Year to you also, hope it is a good one for you. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Biophys (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info for yourself

I must say that the lack of WP:AGF in regards to my edits is not a good thing. At the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Biophys, you will see information which has been placed by myself on edits and/or merges performed by myself, which have been undone by yourself. Read the entire lot please, and especially take note of the very last part. I will let what I have written speak for me; the rest is up to you. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you are a productive editor: [57][58]. I suggested you peace. OK? Biophys (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Russavia

I've long been wondering about this editor in the aspect: who is really behind this nick? I mean, it cannot possibly be just one normal person. I've looked up his recent edits: he appears to have been at it (i mean editing here) for no less than 20 hours without a respite, his principal task obviously being whitewashing any "compromising material" in Russia-related articles. And he does it quite professionally in every sense, including the obvious lack of genuine interest in the end result, just doing his bit and time. It appears to me to be a mere a proxy for a group of ...(do not want to speculate). And this kind of thing must be illegal here, i assume. I am writing to you as i am not really familiar with the En WP system: it differs quite a bit from the Russian one. On the latter, most issues that require admins' intervention can be raised on ru:ВП:ЗКА, and there does not seem to be an equivalent page here?Muscovite99 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[China-1] China's secret Internet police target critics with web of propaganda, by Jonathan Watts in Beijing, June 14, 2005, Guardian Unlimited

[2] WP:Possibly_unfree_images#Image:Life_goes_on_p1.png

[3] WP:Possibly_unfree_images#Image:Life_goes_on_p2.png

[4] WP:Possibly_unfree_images#Image:Life_goes_on_p3.png

[5] WP:Possibly_unfree_images#Image:Life_goes_on_p4.png

[6] WP:Possibly_unfree_images#Image:Life_goes_on_p5.png

[7] WP:Possibly_unfree_images#Image:Life_goes_on_p6.png

[8] WP:Possibly_unfree_images#Image:Life_goes_on_p7.png

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

@@ Line 897: / Line 897: @@
 :I can see that you are a productive editor: [http://toolserver.org/~sql/afd.php?user=Russavia][http://toolserver.org/~sql/created.php?user=Russavia]. I suggested you peace. OK? [[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys#top|talk]]) 07:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
+==[[User:Russavia]]==
+I've long been wondering about this editor in the aspect: who is really behind this nick? I mean, it cannot possibly be just one normal person. I've looked up his recent edits: he appears to have been at it (i mean editing here) for no less than 20 hours without a respite, his principal task obviously being whitewashing any "compromising material" in Russia-related articles. And he does it quite professionally in every sense, including the obvious lack of genuine interest in the end result, just doing his bit and time. It appears to me to be a mere a proxy for a group of ...(do not want to speculate). And this kind of thing must be illegal here, i assume. I am writing to you as i am not really familiar with the En WP system: it differs quite a bit from the Russian one. On the latter, most issues that require admins' intervention can be raised on [[:ru:ВП:ЗКА]], and there does not seem to be an equivalent page here?[[User:Muscovite99|Muscovite99]] ([[User talk:Muscovite99|talk]]) 22:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:05, 3 January 2009

Email

Welcome!

The Internet in Putin’s Russia: Reinventing a Technology of Authoritarianism

Award!

Web Brigades

Citation?

Zemskov's data

Zemskov data, take two

Speech freedom in Russia -- Andrey Kuznetsov

S. Ossetia

Request for mediation accepted

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

Some sources

Ethnic cleansing of Georgians

Good work

Help

Answer

An interview

New Great Game AfD

Russian apartment bombings.

Order 270

personal attack?

reply

South Ossetia war

Note

CfD nomination of Category:Russian political prisoners

Have a look at

My condolences

If you feel threatened

Userpage

Some links

Re:Your arbitration case

Bogorm

Re:Deacon's usual subjects

Re:A technical question

quick note

Life Goes On

New system at the 3RR noticeboard

An Invite to join WikiProject Russia

Award

Gorbachev forms a new party

Request

Denial of Holodomor

FYI

Scope

Comment on comment

Fascinating article missing

Oprichnina

Numbers corrected?

You've got mail

DYK for Active reserve (KGB)

Opinion?

Favour?

Arbitration case

Reply

Litvinenko book

It's that time of year again

ANI

Boris Bazhanov

Do you think this is neutral/notable/reliable?

Your User page is awesome!

Nov 4

Valeriya Novodvorskaya

For the sake of clarification.

Alexander Litvinenko

award

Thymidine kinase

Golitsyn

A note

Putinjugend

Docu's Chechnya

Reply

Reply to "Hi!"

Take notice of

Merry XMAS

You may be interested in

IP user 84.139.*.*

ANI notice

Happy New Year! Biophys (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

IP user 84.139..