Jump to content

User talk:Alex Bakharev: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
FYI
Line 1,223: Line 1,223:
==FYI==
==FYI==
Hi Alex. I am not quite sure what Ellol is doing in [[Russian apartment bombings]]. He made a series of constructive changes yesterday. That's fine. I did a lot of other changes too. They are not reverts, and I certainly did not revert anything Ellol did. Now he blindly reverts all my work. Why can not he start from the current version and correct whatever should be corrected? Could you look at the issue please? I think we can sort this out ourselves rather than complain at different noticeboards. Thank you. Your comments were very helpful in the past.[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys|talk]]) 15:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Alex. I am not quite sure what Ellol is doing in [[Russian apartment bombings]]. He made a series of constructive changes yesterday. That's fine. I did a lot of other changes too. They are not reverts, and I certainly did not revert anything Ellol did. Now he blindly reverts all my work. Why can not he start from the current version and correct whatever should be corrected? Could you look at the issue please? I think we can sort this out ourselves rather than complain at different noticeboards. Thank you. Your comments were very helpful in the past.[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys|talk]]) 15:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
:I hope this is all resolved by now.[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys|talk]]) 20:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:03, 22 February 2010


New article

Could I ask you to please create a new article called Rifle Division (Soviet Union)?

If you choose to create this article, it should have the first three sections from the article List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957, with the later having a link to the new article.

If you do this, please remove the words "'''rifle [[division (military)|division]]s''' ([[infantry]])" in the second paragraph of the third section, and replace with the link to new article (if you wish).

Please reply here and not at the IP talk page.

Спасибо --58.168.119.43 (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Alex, this is banned User:Mrg3105 talking. I don't recommend cooperating with him, and I'm just about to block this anon IP. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 06:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, socks avoiding bans should be blocked; sorry, Mrg, go ahead, Buckshot06... I personally see no problems in making contributions on behalf of blocked users if I myself is convinced that those particular contributions are constructive and non-controversial. I could accept such suggestions by Email if needed Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not particularly convinced that this was an instance of straightforwardly abusive sockpuppetry and that the indefblock of the master account by an admin who had a conflict with Mrg was warranted. Clearly, this wasn't an instance of block evasion. Scrutiny evasion at most, and did he broke his editing restriction during that period? I am not sure. Colchicum (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)::[reply]
Well, formally it is a case of an abusive (avoiding arbcom restrictions) sockpuppetry (self-admitted). What I am not convinced is that this deserves a permaban. Mrg was blocked for a couple of months now, would somebody agree to help me in mentoring him? IMHO mrg is quite valuable for his expertise that over-weights his sins: over-combative attitude to things of low importance and low to medium level incivility. I think it would make a good case to ask Roger to unblock him Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Lida Vorig

Hello, I want to ask that, what can wikipedia do about armenian user who flags all normal articles about Azerbaijan? If you check this user:Lida Vorig history, she flags Azerbaijani articles for no reason and nominates without knowing the Wikipedia's policy.

Could you please help me, what to do?--NovaSkola (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have checked a few random contributions from the editor and they appear to be constructive and even hardly controversial. If there are specific disruptive edits please provide diffs. What worries me is that the new user has an unusually good command on wiki policies and jargon. It might mean that he is a sock of a banned or restricted user (because there are plenty of such users involved in AA conflict). If you have specific ideas who he might be please advise me or another administrator (you might use wikimail for more privacy). Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Alex, thanks for your reply. She puts small contributions but I found she is adding a lot of unrelevant info by disinforming the people.

1st case could be in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huseyn_Arablinski&action=history and writing comment that Seems to fit his personality 2nd case, writing that Shusha is not part of Azerbaijan, despite whole UN and world counts as this city is part of Azerbaijan. It is questioning country's soverigny. See for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Latif_Karimov&action=history 3rd case, removing the word "Azerbaijani" from categories about Azerbaijani people by disinforming the nation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masud_ibn_Davud&diff=prev&oldid=310307129 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmud_ibn_Sa%27ad&diff=prev&oldid=310306985 4th case, adding again not notable info, saying Eynulla Fatullayev is kidnapped, actually this stuff never happened to him. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Kidnapped_Azerbaijani_people&diff=prev&oldid=310315717

This user is previously warned by user:CaliforniaAliBaba for adding speedy deletions to Azerbaijani!!

I think there is enough evidence to ban her from editing Azerbaijani articles.--NovaSkola (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not sure that her edits are obviously bad faith, every edit you have mention does look as good faith, although probably biased toward Armenian view point. I can not act here singlehandly. If you think her behavior is covered by one of Arbcom Azeri-Armenian decision the please go to WP:AE, otherwise please start an editorial WP:RFC Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:InfoboxM

A tag has been placed on Template:InfoboxM requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 16:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Could you look into this IP who is removing referenced info and shouting about it: [1]. Thanks!Faustian (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot on please?

Hi Alex, I don't know if you are back from your trip, but if you are, could you please get the fantastically useful User:AlexNewArtBot working again? It has been off for 2 or 3 days now I think. All very best wishes and thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Sorry to bother you but do you have any details on why this page [2]] was locked.

I can see that edit warring occured but wondered if there was any debate anywhere

The article seems to attract a lot of conflict (due to the obv problems associated with WW2 and the pogrom)

thanksChaosdruid (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was semiprotected because of disruptive IP editing and edit war (as requested by Faustin on my talk page atwo sections above). I think that articles during hot edit warring periods should be semiprotected to avoid sockpuppeting via IP editing, otherwise editors playing by the rules editors are often forced to violations of 3RR or excessive reversions. IP editing is good for noncontraversial by casual editors, editorial disputes are better left to registered users Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 14:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev (disambiguation)

Hi, remember this?

  • 02:48, 31 July 2007 Alex Bakharev protected "Kiev (disambiguation)"‎ (disruptive editing by IPs/socks [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

As this was a couple of years ago I've started a review to see if it's still considered necessary. See the talk page. --TS 03:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto History of Kiev:

  • 07:36, 2 August 2007 Alex Bakharev (talk | contribs) protected History of Kiev ‎ (attack of Kyivization puppets [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

See Talk:History of Kiev. --TS 04:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Good to see you back Alex. :-) If you could back the bot back up and running I know several of us would be very greatful. Thanks for all your hard work.Singingdaisies (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

InfoboxM documentation

I moved the doc page from infoboxM (which I deleted) to User:Alex Bakharev/InfoboxM/doc. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dodolev, Evgeny

Could you be more specific regarding your tag? What do you suggest? To remove or to add smth? FHMRUSSIA (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)FHMRUSSIA (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dudintsev, Not by Bread Alone

Thanks for the work. Totally stunned to see there were no articles on these. I came upon them through my work improving the Khrushchev article, and spent an evening distracted from that project to work on these!--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor

Hello,

There is one editor who has made many statements at the Holodomor discussion page - however, apart from this person, nobody has ever questioned the POV status of the article. If anything, this article may very well be the epitome of various POV editors working together to create a balanced article with valid references - everything which remains in this article has stood up to all kinds of scrutiny. Could you please explain why a POV tag is needed now? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, for once I have not added the tag, I just deleted the other two of the tags, because I see no indications that they are warranted. I would not edit war to get the POV tag back. If you ask me I feel the article is biased. I do not like you removing the links to the Soviet famine of 1932–1933, I do not feel the translation of the word Holodomor is a correct Ukrainian or Russian. There are many other problems with the article. Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I did not say that you added the tags, but rather asked how I can improve the article so that the tag is not needed. Could you please point to some specifics, or even general things? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys

I need a third opinion about this. As I've explained at Talk:Russian apartment bombings, Biophys has once again reverted the lead section to his favourite version, a version that is OVER A YEAR OLD.[3] I have criticised this version of the lead many times, made dozens of improvements on it (along with other editors), yet Biophys decides to ignore all this. Again, the version he reverted to is over a year old.

I hate to say this, but this isn't the first time Biophys performs a wholesale revert of something to his favourite version (regardless of how old that version might be.) He has done this many times on the apartment bombings article, and also on Alexander Litvinenko as well, for example. Could you please give him a warning that such behaviour is not acceptable? I think this is a clear case of article ownership. Constantly reverting to a year old version is completely unacceptable. If you don't want to do anything about this, can you at least please give me advice on what to do about this? He seems to be doing this over and over again. Offliner (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex. Thank you for your participation in discussion. I would like to cooperate on various issues as much as possible, and I do not mean only this article. And in fact, I have been cooperative by not editing certain articles. But if others do not want to cooperate with me even on relatively minor issues, then what can I do? Any good advice from you would be very welcome. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I can confirm that Biophys is a disruptive user who too often refuses to continue discussing issues and just reverts, which results in edit warring. His reverts are often sneaky; he writes one thing in the edit summary but does another, usually entirely reverting the article to his version.

For example, here on June 15, 2009 he reverted to his version from Nov. 3, 2008! As you can see here the versions are exactly the same (31 intermediate changes deleted). He hoped that no one would notice, and it worked until this week.

Talking to him proved a waste of time, as he would pretend to try, but then stop and continue to revert to his POVed version.

If you look at the history and talk pages of the Soviet human rights article, you can easily see what I mean.

Why should such users go unpunished? -YMB29 (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history indicates you have an adversarial relationship with regard to Biophys' contributions, so you're not an objective party here. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well so does Offliner, so what is your point? Maybe you should look into why we have adversarial relationship with him? I have experienced the same problems with Biophys, so I said that I can confirm. -YMB29 (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys did it again: [4]. It's the same version as before[5][6], only one sentence is altered (this is typical of Biophys: he tries to disguise his wholesale reverts as "compromise versions", which contain only a nominal change.) Can you please give him a warning to make him stop? Offliner (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, I think we came to an agreement with ellol at the article talk page to use word "conspiracy" for defining the FSB involvement (please take a look), but as soon as we did, Offliner reverted everything in a few seconds, without even talking [7].I do not know if you can help, but if you can not (which is understandable), it seems that my effort towards the cooperation had failed.Biophys (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? This second revert of yours is exactly the same as the first one (reversion of the lead to a year old version), take a look at the comparison: [8]. As I've said, such wholesale reverts are completely unacceptable. I don't see any "effort towards cooperation" in your second revert, just edit warring and the usual article ownership. Offliner (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alex knows what cooperation I am talking about.Biophys (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't pretend to be fair and cooperative; your actions show that you are completely opposite of that. -YMB29 (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article about the bombings

Alex, I noted criticism of the FSB involvement theory in the introduction, precisely as was proposed by ellol, but he simply reverted me without even talking. I will continue discussing various issues at the article talk page. But I am also going to edit a number of articles exclusively on this subject until it will be properly covered per WP:NPOV, something that I did not do for a long time.Biophys (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights article

Biophys is continuing his antics in the human rights article. He still thinks it is his article and he can revert anyone's edits at will. He also again misuses sources to push his POV. Is something going to be done about this? His teammate or sock Bobanni is helping him. Is it possible to run checkuser on them? -YMB29 (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/First Roumanian-American congregation

Thank you for your supportive comments! Jayjg (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia

Circassiankama (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)I am a new user but very well aware of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. I am in the process of rectifying several misleading and false statements on the Abkhazia page in Wikipedia. However, in the middle of my cleanup I was sent a message by you informing me that I have not bothered to leave links for my alterations. Please be aware that I am not yet finished and I can easily supply links that will support my edits. Please revert my editions back to what they were. I would greatly appreciate it. With kind regards, CircassianKama[reply]

  • Well, your edits appear to be POV pushing. You are blanking a lot of referenced relevant info, change the neutral name Sukhumi into non-neutral Sukhum as well as introducing unreferenced or poorly referenced info. Remember that the status of Abkhazia is a subject of controversy, most countries consider it as a part of Georgia Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Circassiankama (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Oh, I see. Basically I cannot just leave the window open and add information without immediately including the links backing up this information. Is this correct? If so, then this is no problem. I understand that the issue of Abkhazia is a sensitive one, but no more sensitive than Taiwan, in my opinion. Furthermore, while I understand that Wikipedia strives for neutrality, I do not understand how pandering to the American/Georgian POV of Abkhazia will be considered a neutral point. Can we at least please allow BOTH POV's to be highlighted? I really regret seeing politics play a part in displaying accurate information here. Ah, you may smirk at this comment, but we can certainly try to prove or disprove "popular opinions" through accurate displaying of information (with links, of course) to back our sources up.[reply]

Cheers.

Circassiankama (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Why was my Gia Karkashvili link removed? Also, how is the Confederation of the North Caucasian states "self-styled"? Do you not see this as a rather prejudiced choice of words? I also want to know what terms that Youtube video of a Georgian general threatening to exterminate the entire Abkhaz nation violated. This article is attempting to show the Abkhazian people in an extremely unflattering and negative light. The Georgian army was the one to invade Abkhazia proper after they asked for basic and equal rights and broader autonomy, which (surprise, surprise) the Georgians are FINALLY offering today. Furthermore, the "ethnic cleansing" issue is well disputed and this can be proven as well. That is where my Karkashvili video comes into play. I guess it's ok if a Georgian writes about a mad Abkhaz murdering innocent Georgians, but when it comes to showing that the opposite did occur (and with documented proof), this is going against "POV"?? PLEASE, explain this.[reply]

Circassiankama (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)I am also reading through the entire article at length, and find several, several inconsistencies. I have articles and links which can disprove much of this information. Why is Wikipedia biased? If you are not biased, then why not allow me to contribute and show readers that there is more to Abkhazia than what pro-Georgian sources depict? I am disappointed that much of my contributions were deleted, especially the ones to which I DID add links to verify their content. This is not democratic and correct by any means. I hope that you will reply to me in due time and let me know what is your justification for these decisions. I respectfully request that you answer my inquiries. This is not good at all. You are blatantly displaying incorrect and incredibly biased information about my country of origin.[reply]

Circassiankama (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)In addition, I find these maps at fault as well. We have in our possession several accurate historical maps taken from several historical archives, museums, and texts from around the world which clearly depict Abkhazia as a sovereign state in the past. We also would like these maps to be posted on the page. I guess the main question here is this, Mr. Bakharev: who do you wish to aggravate more: Abkhazians and their supporters (this page is about ABKHAZIA by the way) or Georgians and their supporters (by the way, it is well known in Russia that Stalin commissioned writers to revise their historical texts, again a notion that can proven with links).[reply]

Wikipedia should not play favorites and should not be getting involved in political issues. I request that my comments be regarded or if anything that we are allowed to create a page on this site that we can display our information on and that would not conflict with what the current status quo displays. Thank you, and by no means do I wish to be disrespectful, but you surely do understand my grievances and annoyance towards this situation.

Circassiankama (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Mr. Bakharev, I have patiently waited for answers from you regarding my questions above. Can you reply to me, please? Or am I to assume that you cannot or will not? I do feel that my questions warrant a reply from Wikipedia and those who represent it. I do not understand why my edits cannot be accepted in the Abkhazia page, as they are also verifiable and portray a stronger view of what the Abkhazians (whose land is at the root of this dispute) themselves feel about their OWN territory. Thank you.[reply]

Circassiankama (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Mr. Bakharev, I have noticed that not only factual information about the Georgian invasion of Abkhazia was removed, but pro-Georgian information replaced it. Why was my entry about Gia Karkashvili deleted? Is it fair that this article clearly shows a pro-Georgian sentiment and the Abkhaz side is barely explained, if at all? I have yet to see a response from you. This is one of the most illogical, irresponsible, and unethnical sites I have come across. How can you allow such drivel to be posted about Abkhazia, clearly from a Georgian propoganda-driven perspective, yet not allow Abkhazians themselves to explain their side of this conflict?!?!?! Are you kidding me?!?! Do I need to take this matter to a higher up? Now I do feel like being rude because it is clear you do not care about rectifying this matter. If you are busy with other issues, I understand. But this is not cool at all.....definitely not cool.[reply]

Circassiankama (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Why is it that you can respond to other issues, but not mine? I can see now that it is not due to inability to not log on the Internet. I expect a proper response from you regarding why misinformation, propoganda, and drivel are allowed to be displayed on this page.[reply]

Your message

I have replied on my talk page. Nonetheless, perhaps you could give some answers here to the following questions -

  • 1) In what way is the Israel Shahak page related to the ArbCom decision about Judea and Samaria? Beyond a simple assertion that it is, please.
  • 2) Do you think it is acceptable to imply that a prominent Jewish academic is an anti-Semite and Nazi, and possible holocaust denier, on their Wikipedia page?
  • 3) If someone tries to deal with the issue referred to at point 2), should any edit they make be randomly reverted, on the basis simply of the assertion made by one passing editor, as referred to at point 1)
  • 4) If said editor does pass, might it not be better for them to actually dig a little deeper and look at the underlying issues, which would appear to be fairly serious?

Cheers, again, --Nickhh (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Nick. Below are the answers to your questions:
1) According to the Israel Shahak page he was a prominent political writer on Palestine, violations of the human rights by Israeli government as well as a researcher in the Organic Chemistry field. You were editing (in fact blanking) part related to his political writings, not his achievements as a chemist. As such it is certainly related to Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the topic you are restricted from participation. The main reason you were not blocked but warned is because you might in good faith believe that you are not violating your Arbcom decisions
2) The information on the talk page is referenced to apparently reliable sources. It looks like there is a significant part of the users supposrting POV that the information is important. Usually, we do not establishing neutrality by censoring the information but rather providing facts and arguments supporting both sides.
3) I am not sure I have got your point. Blanking of referenced information require strong arguments on the talk page, otherwise it should be indeed reverted.
4) I am sure that if the issue is indeed serious then somebody who is not bound by Arbcom restrictions would make a strong point arguing towards the blanking of the info. I would not recommend you to press the matter onwiki since your restrictions (I hate then people are restricted from talk pages but it was not my decision) Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in response to the response ..
1) I think most of the criticism that is/has been aimed at him was as much a consequence of his writings on Judaism rather than anything specifically about the Arab-Israeli dispute. And I'm not making any comment about whether anything he says - about chemistry, Judaism, contemporary Middle East politics or his favourite brand of chocolate bar - is right or wrong, I'm simply asserting that WP should not be relying on innuendo to suggest anyone is an anti-Semite, a Nazi or whatever - for whatever reason, unless they obviously are. The intention of the ArbCom restrictions was not to exclude involvement on any page that might have a vague link at some point to the dispute - that way I and everyone else who was scooped up in it would be barred from around 90% of pages here. Tanks? Used in the 1967 war. Jimmy Carter? Brokered the Camp David Accords. Olives? Palestinian olive trees are regularly uprooted by the Israeli army. Etc etc. The point of the ruling in respect of this sort of page was that none of us could edit at them where and when they did deal specifically with the conflict. You may or may not be aware that when another banned editor started extensively editing a page which is probably far closer to being caught in the ban itself, and furthermore took out material relating very directly to Israel, they were found to be acting within the bounds of the ruling. The problem is that wherever you draw a line, there is always somewhere just the other side of it.
2) Just because something can be sourced, it doesn't mean it has to be or should be included in an encyclopedia entry. There's all sorts of other thresholds to cross of course, about reliable sources, the relevance and significance of the material, due weight & neutrality, WP:BLP for article subjects who are still alive etc. If they want an article to say something pointlessly negative (or positive) about someone or something, any determined editor can usually find something online to chuck in, and argue that "no, I'm not saying it, Wikipedia's not saying it - we're just saying that so-and-so said it". That way Wikipedia just gets used as an echo-chamber for every real world smear campaign. Can you imagine what pages here about most politicians, or any vaguely controversial figures, would look like if we just shovelled in every sourced quote of criticism, however vitriolic, from every one of their political opponents? And then "balanced" it by including every sycopantic quote we could cull from the opposing view?
3) You reverted solely on the basis that I was banned from editing the article, according to your edit summary. That's simply an assertion, and a highly questionable one at that, as noted above. You didn't mention any issues with blanking per se, at least initially.
4) You would hope so, but unfortunately my experience is that people tend to hold out for this kind of thing to be kept. Plenty of editors in the past (and more recently) have taken issue with this material, but all it takes is for one or two others to veto any claim of consensus on the point, and once it gets in, it's never taken out.
Apologies, but that was longer than I intended when I started. --Nickhh (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AlexNewArtBot stopped again

It was really nice to have it running again, but now it stopped once again, no new articles since Sept 11th. Thanks Alex for your time and attention, Best, Invertzoo (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see; I am sorry I said it was not working, but it works for us only on a on-again off-again basis. It is the listings for new Gastropod articles I am concerned with. Your bot's results are so extremely useful to us! We really appreciate them when we are able to get them! Many thanks for all your hard work. Invertzoo (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for mediating Litvinenko article. I am sure we can find a reasonable compromise about anything.Biophys (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interview

Hi, Alex. I'm doing a study about Wikipedia (particularly about sysops) for my Masters in Communications and Media Studies at Monash Uni, and was wondering if you would be so kind as to take some time to talk to me. I'm contacting a few editors/sysops in hopes of hearing first-hand accounts of your day-to-day activities are and your relationship with other members of the community. If you're in Melbourne and can spare some time for a friendly talk (no more than 30 minutes), I'd greatly appreciate it :)

Please let me know if you're interested. Cheers, --In continente (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

You've got mail. AdjustShift (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of plotting

Could you please release some more info about what was discussed on this list, especially regarding myself? (In your comment on AN/I, you focused on what the plotters were doing against Russavia.) What kind of plotting was there going on against me? Also, was Martintg a member of this group? I'm pretty amazed by all this, and I think someone should let me know (sooner or later) what exactly was going on there. Offliner (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very important question

I have to ask you this and I'm going to trust that you answer this truthfully. Whom, in addition to Arb Com, did you give access, either directly or indirectly, to this purported "archive"? In your statement at ANI you said "I could provide it to any administrator I trust". Which ones? I think I have a right to know to whom my personal information which had been hacked from a private account and illegally distributed, was forwarded to. Was there any others in addition to "administrators you can trust"?radek (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I sent the link to the Arbcom mailing list, 10 minutes prior to this I had given the link to a former Arbitrator as he requested additional info about my AN/I posting. That is all the people I have given the link. It is dead now. On the other hand I have an impression that many more people have received the link and downloaded the files. I guess that either the downloader him/herself shared the link with other people or they know a tool that allow search Rapidshare files. Later User:Deacon of Pndapetzim requested a copy of the archive. He is an admin who I trust and he has a legitimate business related to those archives so I intend to honor his request (I am actually in process of sending the archive to him). No other people were given the archive or the link to it. I hope this helps Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the purported "archive" contains personal information from people who would not like to have any of it shared, including myself, with Deacon I ask you THAT YOU DO NOT send him the "archive".radek (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to emphasize this yet once again because it's really important - you do not have my permission to send information containing my private emails, which were obtained and disseminated through illegal hacking, whether these are genuine, faked or doctored - to ANYONE and in particular not to Deacon. I believe I already stated this at AN/I and I am only repeating myself out of courtesy.radek (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not sure you have the rights (either by Wiki policies or by the law) to prevent me from sharing information related to an Arbcom case with a few trusted individuals (wikipedia admins and arbitrators), still to make you a favor I would not disseminate the content of those archives unless I authorized by Arbcom. In the case of Deacon it is to late unfortunately, the transmission is already finished. You can ask Deacon not to read your Emails, if there are valid reasons for this. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The valid reason is that these are my personal, off Wiki, private emails which might have been tampered with!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. WHY are you not understanding this??????radek (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC) And if you're not freakin' sure that I have the rights to make this request, then you should also be not freakin' sure that you have the right to disseminate this information without my permission. It's my privacy that you're violating here, despite the fact that I've asked you at least once, in no uncertain terms not to do that. And if you're not sure if you have a right to violate someone's privacy then you should assume that you do not have such a right.radek (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am sorry that you have taken it personally. I have read most of those Email and I can assure that none of them is concerned about your personal life. 99% of them are concerned with attempts to subvert working of an important volunteer project named Wikipedia and to get your fellow editors banned for not assuming good faith then there was none. I think that investigating of this document by a few trusted officers of the volunteer organization that may help to make the atmosphere more constructive and clear a few people from the libel is worth the very limited violation of privacy it might caused. I have spent a lot of my personal time trying to establish a productive atmosphere comfortable for all productive editors having different political views. I helps all sides to be aware of the arguments of their opponents instead of censoring it. This work was subverted and irreparably destroyed (as the most prominent editors have left) mostly by the actions of your and similar groups . Sorry but I feel quite strongly about it. I propose to limit the discussion of the matter or we can both violate WP:CIVIL policy. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Then I really don't think you have anything that's in the least bit genuine as LOT of the talk, if not MOST of it, on the list was about personal things that had only a tangential relationship to Wikipedia (in that they were said to other Wikipedians) - which is why I was so upset about your actions (still am, though this last comment has relaxed me a bit in regard to the security and privacy issues involved). Still, these were private emails - even if they were fake, they purported to be private emails - and whatever their content you had (have) no right to share them with others without my explicit permission. They were in fact personal private emails even if they only included something as simple as my actual name.radek (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you doubt the authenticity of the mails I would suggest you to ask arbcom for a copy of the mailings and validate yourself. As the info on the webmail servers are usually difficult to alter you can easily prove if an email is altered. If you suggest that I misrepresent the content of your mail list then you are interested in wider distrubution of the archive so that everybody could check it for themselves Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might very well be truthfully representing whatever it is that you have (and no, I am not interested in wider distribution of this "archive" - in fact I strongly object to it), while at the same time misrepresenting the content of "my" list.radek (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You have been named as one of the parties to this case. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old unanswered question

Are you ever going to get around to doing the necessary to resolve the problem with the truncated AlexNewArtBot archive pages for the Ireland WikiProject that I asked at User talk:Alex Bakharev/Archive24#Search results question more than 7 months ago? Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:TandS Nikitins Vivaldy.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:TandS Nikitins Vivaldy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AlexNewArtBot in pt.wiki?

Hi! I am interested in your wonderful bot. Would you like to run it in Portuguese Wikipedia? I can adapt the sub-pages and the rest of his local configuration. Perhaps you could turn it from your computer or maybe an independent server..

Best regards, Kim richard (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I have also helped user:Gribeco adapting fr:user:Salebot (an anti-vandal bot) to pt:user:Salebot and pt:user:Proxybot (an anti-proxies bot). Maybe he can helps you with the expressions needed for the code. The local config I will take care, if you agree. But, if you cannot, there's no problem! Greats Kim richard (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No results for gastropod articles again

Hi Alex, four days ago you wrote: "Maybe some search result is not upating due to the problems in the config file? Which search result you are concerned with? Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)"

So yes I guess there is some problem with the "config file" as far as the gastropod new articles go. This used not to happen a long time ago but has been happening often recently. If I can be of any help please ask me. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid russian boy Alex

Be more clever Alex, because your falsification of information is to obvious! Best regards from Europe! --93.141.21.3 (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded

As you may know Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded has many of User:AlexNewArtBot's archive pages in it. For this reason I propose simplifying them so that [[10]] (scroll to the bottom to see the effect on the page) becomes like User:Rich_Farmbrough/temp37. What do you think? I could change the existing members of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded, if you are happy for me to do that. Rich Farmbrough, 13:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • Rich, thanks for the suggestion! Indeed, exceeding size of the template by bot pages affects the bot usability and should be addressed at some stage. Originally, the bot created results in the format you have suggested but later people argued that using {{la}} and {{user}} gives a lot of benefits to users of the search results. Maybe I should switch back. The problem is that changing the format of the bot entries may cause the bot to create duplicating entries and/or break the archiving of the search results. Thus, please do not modify the current search results by the bot. On the other hand, modifyying the archives of the search results (pages with the names matching pattern User:AlexNewArtBot//.*//archive\d+ )should not break anything. If you could modify them accordingly to your suggestions or simply subst all the templates it would be great! Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Pavel Popovich

В статье Pavel Popovich вчера стояла дата смерти 29 сентября, у нас стояла30-е. Тем не менее, умер он в Гурзуфе в 23 часа по местному времени. В пресее указывается именно 29, например вот это . Я просмотрел историю правок и обнаружил, что эту дату внесла участница Arina.Moroz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) у которой, хотя и зарегистрировалась в январе, довольно мало правок, а активизировалась она только после смерти Поповича. Посмотри, что там.--Torin (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed 30->29 in a few more places. Moroz seems to make an honest mistake, nothing actionable here Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Space institutions

We discussed with another user[11] that Category:Soviet and Russian space institutions (A) should be renamed to Category:Soviet space instutions (B), because currently A is pretty redundant, since we have Category:Space industry companies of Russia (C) which has all the same companies as A. If we rename A=>B, then there would be no overlap however, since C is about present-day corporations of Russia. Offliner (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hellow!

How are you? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Konotop

Hello Alex! Could you please look in the article of the battle of Konotop? Hillock65 ignores the discussion and removes sourced information, accusing me of an Edit War which he is part of himself. He expressed threats to let me being blocked. Could you please make your opinion there? --Voyevoda (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot

Hi there. Your bot AlexNewArtBot has wrongly placed this article into some wrong and bizarre categories. I'm hereby asking you to completely remove any trace of the article's name from your bot's list. Especially insultive and bizarre is the inclusion of your bot of this article into a page with the name "User:AlexNewArtBot/PornFeedNameLog". Please stop this automated erroneous action from your bot. Amsaim (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you confirm my speculation at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Erroneous_Bot_from_an_Admin? I do offer a suggestion for the future though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moskovskiy Komsomolets

About your revert of my anonymous edit in the article Battle of Tskhinvali. What means WP:RUS in that case? Honestly, do you read Moskovskij Komsomolets? Just a rhetorical question. — Al3xil ✉ 20:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding, Alex Bakharev. — Al3xil ✉ 14:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, there is still no sourcing for this less-common spelling. I want to see a source before I accede to it. Can you provide one, since the other user is unable to? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ты по-русски понимаешь или юзербокс на странице участника для красоты? Ясно же видно в приложенном скане, что именно это название используется на титульной странице газеты. Извините, Александр, за эту разборку, но мне уже кажется, этот товарищ притворяется, что по приведенной ссылке не сходил. Если нужен скан более свежего номера газеты, то могу привести и его. Объясните, пожалуйста, сами ему ситуацию, если это требуется, потому что после его "I'll be happy to revert your edits..." желания доказывать что-то таким людям нет. Еще раз извините за доставленные неудобства. — Al3xil ✉ 00:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about your NewArtBot

Alex: a concern about your bot was brought to me, see User_talk:Rlevse#Erroneous_Bot_from_an_admin, specifically the User:AlexNewArtBot/PornFeedNameLog. I looked into it and I am genuinely concerned. For one thing, I know the bot was approved in 2007, but was it approved for this task? Secondly, it is a porn list and I clicked on about 8 items listed there at random and none of them show a connection to porn. You even have an arctic museum listed there and several living people without porn connections. This is a SERIOUS BLP issue. Please fix this function (getting it approved if it's not) quickly or remove the function, otherwise, I'll have to block the bot and deflag it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions from Xeno. When can you get to this? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

User:AlexNewArtBot

I'd be interested in setting up some rules for WikiProject Comics but am blanking a little on how to do it. I take it I should think about if an article is in a certaoin category, or contains one of our templates and so on? Hiding T 10:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About an edit war

Alex Bakharev, can I make a request to you if there is a need for it? Three times this user reverted my edit without any explanations [12]. I explained again the reason of my actions on the discussion page. If this does not help, can you tell him to stop his destructive actions, maybe he will listen the administrator. Thanks in advance. — Al3xil ✉ 14:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible unprotection of Liberal Democratic Party of Russia

Hi, I noticed that you permanently semi-protected Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. I don't think that article should be semi-protected forever and that now, after 7 months, it should be unprotected. If you agree with me, please unprotect it. Thanks. Svick (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discovering this, Svick! I have unprotected it. There are no reasons for this page to be indefinetly semiprotected, I must accidentally select a wrong menu item. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Svick (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Alex Bakharev's Day!

User:Alex Bakharev has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Alex Bakharev's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Alex Bakharev!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need some advice

I need some advice on how to deal with a serial POV pusher. If you take a look at the edits of Gazpr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), you will notice that he is doing many POV-pushing edits. His agenda appears to be to portray Gazprom as an evil organization who wants to take over Europe. He created a POV-fork of Energy policy of the European Union[13] and started inserting links to it everywhere[14]. In addition, he made this tendentious edit[15] to Frank-Walter Steinmeier with the obvious aim of portraying him as a minion of the Kremlin. The edit is totally WP:UNDUE, against WP:NPOV and probably against WP:BLP. According to this user, even nuclear energy is just "a way to reduce Europe's alarming energy dependence on Gazprom and the Kremlin"[16]. He has also made this disruptive edit, to redirect a valid link to his POV-fork article: [17]. I've asked him to stop, and said that I see his edits as very tendentious[18], but he has not responded and is still continuing his POV pushing.

I've reverted some of his edits, but I need advice on what to do (I think most of his edits should be reverted per our neutrality policy; should I do it?) What should I do if he continues and does not respond to any messages? The account was created on 23 September, and it's unlikely this is his first Wikipedia account. Offliner (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do about Gazpr? He has again restored the material without responding to the concerns on talk. He does not demonstrate why the material is relevant and he is just using the article as a WP:COATRACK for all kinds of accusations. Offliner (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Wikipedia as a blog

Based on the information provided here, some participants use Wikipedia as a blog. Perhaps you want to interfere. SA ru (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I and Radekcz are on the opposite sides of an Arbcom case, so I am probably not an uninvolved administrator here. Radek is understandably upset about the case so I would rather allow him to ventilate his grievances for a while unless somebody else is upset Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Hi there Alex, I am new here and I'm looking to upload posters but I can't seem to upload them. Why is that? JKSarang (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no they aren't free images. These are just posters for dramas. When go to actually submit the photo, it says I am not a Confirmed User. Ah, okay it works now Alex. Thank you! ^^ JKSarang (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I vaguely remember the discussion now. At some stage it was decided that there is no point in uploading free images to en-wiki rather than the commons and the rules for the non-free rules are so tricky that no user with less than five days experience on wiki is able to comprehend them. Thus they have blocked very new users from uploading pictures to the project. Anyway you are now considered a seasoned wiki editors with enough knowledge of our policies to edit semiprotected articles and upload non-free images. Congratulations! Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communist terrorism

It seems that article Left-wing terrorism has been deleted as inherently POV back in 2006 [19]. So how it came that it has been re-created under name Communist terrorism?--Dojarca (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, the 2006 article (it is still visible in the revision history of the redirect) is completely different from the 2009 article. I do not think the speedy deletion as a recreated material is applicable here. You can send the article to AfD and the fact that the topic was previously recognized as an inherently POV is a strong argument toward deletion. Still I personally would vote keep on such an AfD as I think that the topic is valid and the article is usable Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baiting and luring

If and when you have the time, please read this: [[20]]

Sander Säde is trying to lure me into the belief that he is the whistleblower, whom I called a "rat". He is even "accepting" my invitation to the whistleblower to come to Belgium and get some beer. Note that I had already warned him what his words meant.

The problem is that Vecumbra deleted my explanation at Sander Säde's talk page with the words "Dictionary definitions of "rat" consitute harassment, if you have something constructive to say, say it at the case".

If this is not baiting, I do not understand Wikipedia anymore. And it appears to be done in concertation. What should I do about it? From Vecumbra's words one would think that they actually want me to put it up as evidence at the present arbcom case and then start to accuse me of harassing Sander. While he is the one who came to my talk page, he told me "all the best" and of course it is as plain as daylight that I never called him a rat.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no context in which providing a detailed listing of the dictionary definition of "rat" is a good faith dialog. I have many pages on my watchlist including the one in question. My request was simple, dialog regarding the case should happen at the case. "Concertation?" No, I have stated numerous times I check WP often when I can. The next time you have an accusation to make against me, do the courtesy of notifying me. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I have a million pages on my watchlist" was the excuse when I accused you guys of stalking me and disrupting the project on Hiberniantears' page in May. You don't want to look like you're still engaging in stalking people, do ya? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just like I stalked you regarding your comments behind my back on the talk page of someone who was editing Armenia, which is also on my watchlist. Thank you for your continued denigrations and unconstructive heckling. I have Sander's and Alex's talk on my watchlist. I'm sure someone can confirm that for you. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And over here as well [21], where you baited me by talking about Jewish Bolshevism, as a valid–should I say "objective"?–notion (oh my, what a nice attempt), simple things like common sense notwithstanding. While writing to your mailing list how your appearance could be masked by your involvement on other articles. And at a hell of a lot of other places. That one was a heck of a read some four months later. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded in my evidence responding to yours. What I call it after the fact in private correspondence doesn't change my editorial opinion that my edit was correct, and done before characterizing as anything, and your edit found by the article being on my watchlist. You have a problem with my edit, discuss the edit. You have an accusation, make it at the case. Your "heck of a read" is, unfortunately, your own self-serving self-gratifying interpretation. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you have something better to do than harass me on an admin's talk page? VЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are all harrassing each other. The talk page of another user is not the correct place to be holding discussions such as this; I know if it were my talk page it would peeve me off. Why not take it to your own talk pages, instead of clogging up Alex's talk page with such things. I am sure he has better things to worry about, and frankly so should all of you. --Russavia Dialogue 04:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Russavia. There are no possible gains from a flame on my talk page: I obviously would not take administrative actions over an arbcom case there I am a party. On the other hand losses and disruptions are quite probable, so, please stop, unless you are suggesting me a way to do something positive Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start this thread. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  06:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vecrumba has posted material about you at WP:EEML. [22] Offliner (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnocracy

Hi Alex,

could you respond to the article talk page and indicate how your sources support the re-insertion of Estonia and Latvia into this article. These two countries are already treated in an encyclopedic way in Ethnic_democracy#Latvia_and_Estonia. Thanks. --Martintg (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query regarding block of 80.63.133.74

Hello. Perhaps there is something I am not aware of, but your 55 hour block of 80.63.133.74 (talk · contribs · block log) has me puzzled. The last warning issued to the IP was more than four months ago [23], and regardless, I only show the IP as having made two edits in the past 128 days. While the IP's only edit in the last 61 days is vandalism [24], it does not appear to be the sort of highly egregious stuff that we block on sight. If you could help me understand the block, I would appreciate it. Thank you for your time, — Kralizec! (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Vandalism in the article The Tale of Igor's Campaign

User Galassi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is changing the translitaration of the Old East Slavic (Old Russian) "Igorevě" to "Ihorevě" without providing a reference on the OES translitaration rules, which could prove his version, and without taking into account the reference. Please, prevent him from making further vandalism in this article.

And I would like to know, if such [25][26] deletion of sections on a talk page is allowed? — Glebchik (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at these edits that Glebchik has made: edit summary states that Russificiation is impossible in Galicia because it would be like Germanization of Bavaria; replaced Ukrainian with Russians in [Operation Vistula articvle; and latest onehere. This guy believes that Ukrainians don't exist and engages in edit warring over Ukrainian names, replacing them with Russian ones.Faustian (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is your proof for the version of "Ihorove"? — Glebchik (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nuetral on that particular issue, not knowing enough about it. I'm just saying that your edit history and stated fringe beliefs indicate that your opinions should be treated carefully.Faustian (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that in the Operation Vistula article it was to harsh. However I undid my edit. — Glebchik (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of entries in someone's own talk page (as Galassi did) might be impolite but certainly allowed. Any registered user has some "ownership" of his own talk page Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have against me?

Alex, I think it is time for you to come clean. I know you have something against me, and I would like to know what it is, and why it is like that. --Russavia Dialogue 22:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

Very fast job protecting the articles and warning one side of the dispute. Can you now remind the other party, yellow monkey, that rollback is used for vandalism and talk pages are for discussing disputed changes. Thanks, --Jmundo (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Tony Santiago pictures

Alex, I agree with you. You have handled yourself in a civil manner and through civil conversations agreements can be reached. I will subsitute them. However, I would like to point out that Yellowmonkeys actions came after this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Santiago (2nd nomination) and therefore it seems as a personal vendetta. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I found your VN War article today after it got turned up in Alex's new VN article output. I was surprised to see you added your image there and that you had a Wikipedia article, and then that you had referenced yourself in a lot of articles around the place. I never thought an admin would openly do this. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think it was a personal vendetta. Yellow Monkey does not think that Santiago is notable and he is objecting into inserting his picture to the lists (that require even higher notability). So far it seems to be logical Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Look, I can now fully understand the logic behind my not inserting my image in military related articles. I did so in good faith with the intention of showing a Marine in Vietnam, but now I realize that it was not the vest thing to do and therefore I have replaced the images with others who became notable as military persons. What I do mind is what I consider a personal vendetta/witch-hunt which User: YellowMonkey, who voted against the Tony Santiago article (which is fine), has taken against my person as evidenced by his dedication to making sure that every photo or mention of me in Wikipedia is eliminated [evidence]. These are not random acts of editing, he has taken it to a personal stage and no one has done anything nor told him to put an end to it. Tell me, YellowMonkey, what is wrong with posting an image taken of myself with a notable person? Is it against policy? If so, then provide the evidence and I myself will proceed to delete the images myself. Why not discuss the changes to be made in articles before doing them as is expected by Wiki norm by established editors? Personally I have nothing against YellowMonkey, I just believe that this all could have been handled in a different manner, that's all. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New article tagging for WP:CL

I would like to set up new article tagging for WP:CL but am not sure how to set up your bot. :( Help please?

This bot request may also be relevant.

Thanks! Sai Emrys ¿?✍ 22:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request

Please, protect my page because of frequent vandalism from one ruwiki vandal:[27], [28].--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Ukrainian Insurgent Army

Hello Alex. I'm thinking of notifying at least one editor at Ukrainian Insurgent Army about Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions. I've been trying to persuade people to obey the 1RR restriction on that article. Two editors have had to be personally reminded, and between them they have been adding a lot of steam to the war. (There are also some cool heads working there). The other article that is under a 1RR restriction is Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. An article ban for either one or two individuals for three months would probably restrain the bulk of the problem. Per Digwuren's discretionary sanctions, any admin can invoke such bans but I'd also like to know your opinion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not a big fan of the Digwuren sanctions (because in the past they sometimes lead to lasting limitations on productive users for short temper fits during heated arguments) but I agree that warnings and 1RR restrictions are warranted here. Go ahead and try them. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment. The issue is that both of these editors have been personally warned, and both have broken the 1RR at various times. So far each one has self-reverted on request. The editor who is the one most deserving of admin action broke the 1RR on August 4, 6, 9, 10, September 5 and October 26. He is still a prolific reverter of others' contributions. So the lesson has not really registered in his case. The question is what to do next, if you believe there is a stigma associated with Digwuren. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Alex, understand that with the way this situation sorted itself out last time, the only way for this to resolve itself is for all parties involved to discuss the facts on the talk page before working it into the prose. The version I keep reverting to is the last agreed upon neutral version we chalked up a few months ago; we need to build on top of it, not have to deconstruct Pawel's new invention and start all over.
That said, I'm going to go over all of the cited facts in the Motyka reference and put them in a list, and start fact checking them. I'll be checking out the book Faustian recommended in the thread tomorrow as well while I'm at the library so hopefully there will be multiple support for any claims and not just extreme positions.--Львівське (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, thanks for making space on your talk page for this issue. For the moment no further action is needed since Moreschi blocked one of the editors concerned for two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello, Alex Bakharev. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New article bot

Does it pick up pages created in the meta space? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you Bobanni (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect an article?

Two anonymous IPs keep removing info about Vladimir Vernadsky's Ukrainian nationality (and even the Ukrainian spelling of the man's name) on Vladimir Vernadsky article.Faustian (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Faustian (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Add WikiProject to AlexNewArtBot

Can you please add Wikipedia:WikiProject College football to your bot? Let me know what all information you need to add it. Thanks.—NMajdan•talk 15:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of For Enforcing Peace

I have nominated For Enforcing Peace, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For Enforcing Peace. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 07:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

While I support the attribution to Patrick Armstrong, he's not just a journalist and blogger. http://www.discovery.org/p/246 He has a PhD on USSR's Politics. I am topic-banned, so I cannot edit the article. However, I can create an article for Partick Armstrong, and I can tell you that he's not a mere journo-blogger.

Patrick Armstrong received a PhD from Kings College, University of London, England in 1976 and started working for the Canadian government as a defence scientist in 1977. He began a 22-year specialisation on the USSR and then Russia in 1984, and was Political Counsellor in the Canadian Embassy in Moscow from 1993 to 1996. He has been a frequent speaker at the Wilton Park conferences in the UK. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your source I have changed his description to "Canadian political analyst". Is it better now? By all means write an article on the guy, he appears to be notable Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I did an article on him, but I messed up on the technical stuff. Instead of the title being Patrick Armstrong, it should be, as you said Patrick Armstrong(Political Analyst). Can you change it? The article's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Armstrong. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the new article and make Patrick Armstrong a disambig Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You. It's been a pleasure working with you, and I'm looking forward to it next time. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

NowCommons: File:Nalivajko severin.jpg

File:Nalivajko severin.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Nalivajko severin.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Nalivajko severin.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Blocked

Was temporarily blocked for anonymous editing, but it continued once it expired so I had to indef it for now. Q T C 23:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy issues in Russian Wikipedia

The last time you stated that discussing ruwiki issues here is not permissible and even not helpful for enwiki. This is obviously wrong because even a comparison might be helpful. I am curious how the following situation would be resolved in enwiki. Ruwiki users Yaroslav Blanter, Mstislavl and DR are demanding that the Arbitration Committee candidates which seem suspicious to them (not all, just the ones they selected) undergo mandatory checkuser inspection. Moreover, they demand that the suspected individuals appear at a wiki-meeting where they could be photographed. To me these requests seem outrageous and harmful for Wikipedia's reputation. What is your opinion? What would happen in enwiki if someone started such intrusions into the users' privacy? SA ru (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No results for gastropods from bot???

The usually very helpful Alex NewArtBot has not given Project Gastropods any new listings since Nov 11th and it is now the 14th. We await more listings! Hope you are enjoying your trip Alex. Thanks so much for any help you can give, Invertzoo (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Feedback

Hi. Since this is used only for your bot reports, could you userfy (or rename) this template ? I'd like to use the title for another template (currently at Template:Leave feedback). Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

sock?

off hanzo, aka Captain obvious etc? 217.97.233.20 (talk · contribs) matches the editing patterns and the IP is from the same country as the last caught IP socks. --Stor stark7 Speak 23:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC) And this one 82.160.239.145 (talk · contribs)--Stor stark7 Speak 09:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La by User

What's with all the "la by User" entries on your bot's FinlandSearchResult's Archive 5 page? JIP | Talk 17:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

User:AlexNewArtBot/Comics

Hi Alex. I have tried to set up your bot for WikiProject Comics at User:AlexNewArtBot/Comics, but the bot didn;t return anything today. Have I done something wrong? Hiding T 22:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The da Vinci Barnstar
I award Alex Bakharev the da Vinci barnstar for building the excellent AlexNewArtBot. Hiding T 10:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! Alex Bakharev (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the bot

Sorry to trouble you Alex, but how do I get the bot to recognise that I've amended my rules? I altered User:AlexNewArtBot/Comics, but when the bot ran subsequent to my alterations, it used the original rules. Hiding T 23:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Puni Wife.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Puni Wife.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Обрати внимание на вандала

Marijuanasmoke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) навандалил во многих языковых разделах. Сегодня голландцы спохватились и забанили. Потом указали на вандализм в ру-ВП, я забанил этого участника в нашем разделе. --Torin (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Hi, Alex! Perhaps you could answer my question: does this tool count only the views of pages by Wikipedians, or by anyone on the web? Greyhood (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is your bot stuck?

Is your bot stuck? It hasn't added any new entry to the FinlandSearchResult page in five days. JIP | Talk 21:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it seems like it is, at least with the results I watch. BTW Alex, you have a vacation notice that is ~6 months old on the top of your userpage. tedder (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are enjoying your vacation, assuming that you are indeed on vacation. I do however very much look forward to your getting your wonderful bot started again, because at WikiProject Gastropods we really miss the bot's results. Best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Your bot is acting weird

Your bot recently made a sixth archive of the FinlandSearchResult page without adding any new entries to the main page. As a result, the main FinlandSearchResult page now has one entry. If the bot isn't fixed soon, when it makes a seventh archive, the archive will consist of one entry and the main page will be empty. JIP | Talk 07:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Iskander.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Iskander.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. JaGatalk 23:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of ISBN: 0863565190

I have nominated ISBN: 0863565190 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject_Java new articles

Hi Alex,

We did a request to AlexNewArtBot in October for WikiProject_Java, but it does not seem to have been any activity since; there is no log and no change to our 'New' page. Could you confirm if the bot is active and if our request is being processed ??? Thanks,
--  Alain  R 3 4 5 
Techno-Wiki-Geek 20:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name you chose for your feed does not appear to be valid. The instructions say that the feed name "should not contain spaces and other non-letter symbols". The name you've chosen, Java (platform), uses both a space and non-letter symbols. I suggest you change the name to something like JavaPlatform and see if that works. Sarilox (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the tip Mr. Sari Lox...
--  Alain  R 3 4 5 
Techno-Wiki-Geek 04:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have a suggestion for you Alex, about that useful AlexNewArtBot of yours: doing the balancing of the rules for a given topic is quite an art, and therefore, there should be a TEST button for the rules and an entry field for inputting an EXISTING article (or Category, WikiProject banner, whatever), so that we can incrementally tweak those rules easily against several articles. Right now, we have to observe the logs and the list of new articles to draw some conclusions and then set better rules, and that's a long process...
--  Alain  R 3 4 5 
Techno-Wiki-Geek 19:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turku != Turkey

Your bot seems to be applying too simple rules for determining article topics. Every single article about Turku ends up in the TurkeySearchResult page too, even though it has nothing whatsoever to do with Turkey. JIP | Talk 07:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for noticing! The rules are modified 20:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

AlexNewArtBot

Hi, could you please add WikiProject Sri Lanka/New article announcements to your bot, because I am having trouble Compiling the rules? Thanks a lot.--Blackknight12 (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Солженицын и Шолохов

Уважаемый Алексей, извините, что пишу не по-английски.

В статье Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn я сделал ряд правок в разделе, посвящённом отношениям С. и Шолохова. Считаю, что правки достаточно нейтральны. Приведены источники утверждений, удалены нерелевантные источники и текст, не имеющий отношения к взаимоотношениям С. и Шолохова. Однако, Участник Galassi, не приведя новых источников, отменил мою правку. Я удалил одну мёртвую ссылку и обратился к Galassi на его странице обсуждения. К сожалению, я плохо знаю английский язык, чтобы аргументированно разъяснить свою позицию, поэтому написал по-русски в надежде, что Galassi оценит мою и свою последующую правки. Не уверен, что найду у Galassi понимания. Не могу ли попросить Вас то, что я написал по-русски, изложить по-английски на странице обсуждения статьи Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn? С уважением, --Borealis55 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

  • User:Piotrus resigned the administrator tools during the case proceedings and may only seek to regain adminship by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
  • User:Piotrus is banned for three months. At the conclusion of his ban, a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed, shall take effect.
  • User:Digwuren is banned for one year. He is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account, and advise the Arbitration Committee of the name of the account that he will use. Should he not advise the committee by the end of the one year ban, he will remain indefinitely banned until a single account is chosen.
  • User:Digwuren is placed on a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed. This shall take effect following the expiration of both above mentioned bans.
  • The following users are topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year:
  • User:Jacurek is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months.
  • User:Tymek is strongly admonished for having shared his account password. He is directed to keep his account for his own exclusive use, and not to allow any other person to use it under any circumstance.
  • The editors sanctioned above (Piotrus, Digwuren, Martintg, Tymek, Jacurek, Radeksz, Dc76, Vecrumba, Biruitorul, Miacek) are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.
  • All the participants to the mailing list are strongly admonished against coordinating on-wiki behavior off-wiki and directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public. All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Wikipedia itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 17:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - Discuss this[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas

I wish you Merry and Blessed Christmas. Have a great, happy and peaceful time, my friend, and a productive 2010. Hope to see your bot active in new year as well. :) - Darwinek (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!!! Happy holidays to everyone! Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Mary Ansell

I am in the process of hatching an article on Mary Ansell who was hanged in July 1899 for poisoning her sister for insurance money. I note that there was a previous stub back in 2006 which was deleted by you - any info on that please. Her notabity lies in her extreme youth (22, the youngest woman to hang, post-1865 reform) and the genuine concerns about her ability to be held criminally responsible (most of her brothers and sisters had been declared insane)... Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot suggestion

Hi, Alex! Long time no see :)

I have a question/suggestion about the bot. I've been observing it for quite a while now, and I must say its accuracy is nothing short of amazing (at least for WP:RUSSIA). I was wondering if it would make sense for a bot to do one more useful thing—namely project tagging. If the bot could just add {{WikiProject Russia}} to the talk pages of all new articles, it'd greatly facilitate the assessment process. Finding tagged but unassessed articles is never a problem, but finding untagged articles is slow, tedious, and far from reliable. Having a bot add empty tags would place the corresponding articles to the "unassessed" category, where they can then be dealt with appropriately. Of course, the tagging feature would need to be switchable, so the projects for which the bot accuracy is still not too good would not be flooded with the flow of inaccurate tagging. This would probably help weeding out some junk at the same time. What do you think? Is that feasible?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:10, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ëzhiki! Happy holidays, nice to see you.
I have thought about an automatic tool to paste project notices too. In fact I do not particularly like the idea of using it by the NewArtBot. The bot makes plenty false positive and false negatives and we have a huge backlog in assessments anyway. Maybe it is better to use the categories for making decision. E.g. most of the descendants of Category:Russia should be automatically added to the project. A potential problem I that some branches should not be followed. E.g Category:World War II is a subcat of Category:History of Serbia that is a subcat of Category:Serbia but adding all the zillions of WW2 articles to wikiproject Serbia would be a disaster. I propose the following algorithm for bot's actions: for each project there are three lists of categories: Automatic Addition, Proposed for Automatic Addition, Not follow. The bot automatically adds each article from the first list into the Project. The bot also adds each subcat not already in the lists into the "Proposed for Automatic Addition". Then it could be either added there or to "Not follow". The list manipulations allow easy build of the complete up-to-date "Automatic Addition" category lists in a few iterations and prevent the potential disasters. The categorization is better to be done manually to prevent embarrassing mistakes Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I think you are right that using NewArtBot for project tagging isn't such a great idea after all—the more specialized the bots are, the better, and with addition of assessments the bot tasks are going to be all over the place. Plus, another issue I have not thought of is the matter of the articles which have already been tagged and assessed since being created—adding another WP:RUSSIA tag to a page that already has one isn't exactly helping anybody, and detecting whether another tag already exists isn't always as easy as it sounds.
On the other hand, I think your category drilling suggestion might be a neat idea; providing that the tagging of the categories is indeed done manually. I can help with weeding the cats alright, but do you think you would be able to program a bot to go through the category articles and tag them accordingly (the problem of detecting whether a tag is already in place still remains, though)? If so, it would perhaps be prudent to write a completely separate bot for that task...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:17, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
Regarding identification of the already tagged articles. Am I right that the source of any tagged article includes either {{WikiProject Russia}} or one of the redirects to the template? Thus, matching a regular expression like \{\{\s*(wp|wikipediaproject)\s*russia (just checked [29]) should be a pretty good test? Or the template can be substituted? Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the templates include {{WikiProject Russia}}, (unrecommended) {{WPRUSSIA}}, and (deprecated) {{WikiProject Russian history}}. All three may or may not have various parameters. I don't really know why it's much of a problem to detect whether one of these are already present; I just remember someone trying to do a similar thing with the assessments and running into unspecified problems with detecting the tags. On the other hand, even if, say, 10% of talk pages are ignored and skipped due to those problems, tagging the rest will still be quite helpful. Come to think of it, most (although definitely not all) of the talk pages for the new articles are going to be red; even dealing with just those pages would be tremendous help.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:20, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

File:Gorynin putin.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gorynin putin.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

AlexNewArtBot stopped?

Hi Alex, I think maybe the bot has stopped again? Project Gastropods has had no new listing since January 4th and it is now January 8th. Happy New Year, all best wishes and many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Zworykin kinescope 1929.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Zworykin kinescope 1929.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Replaceable fair use File:Zworykin_kinescope_1929.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Zworykin_kinescope_1929.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alex

I am putting together a page for artist Igor Babailov name of page Igor Babailov. There are a couple of suggestion boxes installed by another administrator when I began to create the page, and after making the corrections the suggestion boxes are still there. I would be grateful for your assistance. Thanks Armychild (Daniel), —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armychild (talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Deleting Cyrillic from English Language Articles

Foreign language names, titles, etc generally are useless in English text articles, and do not belong in them.

Your statement about transliteration made no sense.

This is a general information site, not a philology site; foreign language specialists may find what they need at specializing sites.

I shall continue deleting them when I run across them unless forbidden by official authority. --NCDane (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Your bot's rules are still too loose...

Your bot recently added the article pirate cactus, speedy deleted shortly after its creation, to its FinlandSearchResult page. As far as I can tell, the only reason for this was that the article contained this sentence (quoted verbatim):

Pirate cactus is the finnishing touch 4 a bedroom that feels empty.

Now this does contain the text string "finnish" but the actual article has nothing whatsoever to do with Finland. I would suggest the bot's rules be changed so that it ignores "[Ff]innish" if it's immediately followed by more letters. JIP | Talk 18:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old user just check in

Hi Alex, Can you permanently ip block this article Rumi. Typical ip vandalism. Thank you--Chetori5 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alex.. Take care. --Chetori5 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Пожалуйста, помогите

Будьте любезны, посмотрите ст. Osip Petrov, у меня нулевой английский. Спасибо. 71.183.186.166 (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC) И еще ст. Askold's Grave. Тоже спасибо. 71.183.186.166 (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation:

Please help
Would you please take a look at the article Osip Petrov. My English is bad, thank you. 71.183.186.166 (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And also another article: Askold's Grave. Тhanks again. 71.183.186.166 (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Please try to communicate in English. Dr. F.C. Turner - [USERPAGE|USERTALK] - 14:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communist terrorism

Hi Alex, I and csloat have recently trimmed Communist terrorism, removing unsourced, speculative and/or irrelevant material. Some of the material was moved into revolutionary terror. The article has become a list (synthesis) of some terrorist organizations adhering to some form of ideology loosely connected to Communism. As such it may deserve an AfD. Could you review our recent deletions here before I proceed with rewriting the lead? (Igny (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I made a few comments because Mamalujo left me a notice, but writing anything on general terrorism-related subjects seem to be waste of time, because most of the contributors know little on the subject but have very strong biases. Hence they contribute little new content but remove good content created by others. I will not be involved in this, unless some reasonable compromise emerges.Biophys (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Vandalism

Hey there,

I saw that you temporarily blocked the user(s) with talk page: User_talk:159.233.5.232. He keeps/They keep vandalising, as you can see on the talk page. Is there a way you could block them permanently, or punish any other way?
It may be an institutionals IP, not sure. Thanks,
Dr. F.C. Turner - [USERPAGE|USERTALK] - 14:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

An advice is needed

Dear Alex, could you please have a look at the discussion on the Eastern Front (World War II) talk page ("lead image" section) and on my talk page [30]]. I don't ask you to comment on the discussion's subject, I am interesting in your opinion about my behaviour. I believe I am not doing anything wrong, however, maybe I really violate some rules?
Thank you in advance for your help.
Best regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forget. The issue seems to be resolved.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Alex, I was too optimistic. It seems to me that, although I partially accepted the other side's arguments, he seems not to be ready to listen mine ones. Taking into account that this person is an administrator (and that he seem to ask for other administrators' help in this conflict) I am afraid I have a conflict with an administrator. I definitely need in your advice on what I should do.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A minor bot tweak request

Hi, Alex! On this page, can you please tweak the output so the header is no longer displayed (or add an option to show/suppress it by request)? I am trying to move the listing to the main WP:RUSSIA page, and since it's all tabled out (so to speak), the header does not display properly. A dedicated header will be supplied on that page, though. Is that something that would be relatively painless to do? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:56, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • I have removed the header from the search page. Actually the bot keeps every line on the search page intact unless it is started by star (*) character. Thus, you can do almost anything with decorations of the page. Just keep in mind that the bot adds new material above the first line that starts with star or to the bottom of the page if no entries present. The only problem with this arrangement I have had so far is that if all the entries are archieved then the new ones are added to the bottom causing the decorations intended for the bottom to stick to the top (it happens if the bot is inactive for a week). Also the bot updated the search page by the following algorithm: it slurps the source code of the page, reads the newly found entries from an internal file, removes the duplicates, inserts the newly found entries, writes the updated page. If you are trying to edit the search result page between the slurping and the writing then the results will be lost, but it is only a few minutes a day so you have to have an exceptionally bad luck to encounter this problem Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Alex! If I knew the bot does not update the headers, I wouldn't've bothered you :) Thanks for the rest of the info, too; it's most helpful. I've now added the bot feed to the main WP:RUSSIA page. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:56, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Dzhigarkhanyan.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dzhigarkhanyan.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dzhigarkhanyan.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dzhigarkhanyan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

DYK medal

The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
Congratulations! I noticed your entry sitting over at WP:DYKLIST and saw that you hadn't got a 25CE medal yet... with over 40 contribs. Well done! Arctic Night 13:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

I think your bot is logged out.Synchronism (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

User:Pournick

This user insists on replacing a map (based on a map in UT library) with a made-up map. In doing so, he has violated 3RR in about 10 pages (including Iran, Ethnicities in Iran and several other pages). At least 3 users have warned him in his own talk page, but it's quite useless (also see the relevant discussion [31]). Alefbe (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bakharev: you might like to have a look here, here and here. Kind regards, --BF 15:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hi dear

Because you had block my other user, I had to write you by this user (my second user) to explain about the map (ethnic map of Iran). I had a discussion about that map with these two usere( User:BehnamFarid, User talk:Alefbe). The discussion was about the "sources" of my map not about "Azeri turks" you can have a look to this wiki page ([32])to see that the terms "Azeri Turk" is correct (pls look at the second line of that page, the word "Azeri Turk" is there). User:BehnamFarid claim that Azeris are not Turk. Anyway, I had answered them in their talk page. I asked them let me to correct some mistakes of the map which I have uploaded a.s.a.p. which I did after less than 20 hours. While the previous map uploaded by User:Persia2099 was wrong even in its source map which dosnt show the right information of ethnic groups in Iran, I searched in the internet and found a better map which is this([33]) then I simplified it myself and uploaded again which is this([34]). So it is my own work but it is not made-up map as User:BehnamFarid claimed you. The source is this [35] link, a map published by university of Texas. So can I put this map in the pages of previous map again which you have deleted as I saw after ending of my blocking period? I'm waiting for your answer. Pls answer me in my main user (pournick talk page) not this one. regards,

You may have a look to my answers to those users, I had copied the main ones here for you, (

1. We shouldnt use wrong references even if it is from a university of Texas. Look at West Azerbaijan. It shows it is totally kurs' land, so where is the turks? I dont wandalize the map I just show the right one.
2. According to description and source of previous image's page, it is User:persia2099's own work which has a plain differences (especially in part of West Azerbaijan) from The image of CIA which he had put below of his own created referenceless image. That map was made up as well.
3. Hi again, I had a look to the web page you've sent it to me.

look at [36] or [37] or[38] and[39]. In some of them city of Urmia and other Turk cities belong to Turkish area, in some other same cities! belong to kurdish area! All are published by uni of Texas, shows that they themselves dont know exact infos about the demography of Azerbaijan and Iran. So these maps are not 100 percent reliable. I'll try to correct some mistakes of my map according to this one [40] which looks the most reliable and detailed map.)

Noofoozi (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC) the same user as Pournick,[reply]

Hi, Pounick/Noofoozi. I am not an expert in this area but O know the policy. All information on Wiki should be sourced, we are working as anonymous entities and our words mean nothing unless sourced to reliable sources. Thus the map should be sourced (maybe to multiple sources). All controversial details should be agreed upon and sourced to reliable sources. Wikipedia is intended to adhere to Neutral point of view. "Azeri Turks" is not an NPOV name of this ethnicity. Please first get a consensus on the content of the map before inserting it to numerous articles. That is why I have not deleted the image as it has a potential to develop into a useful work. Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pournick again

This user evaded the previous block by using another account (User:Noofoozi) to edit in pages like Tabriz. Now he is using these accounts, together with IP account user:188.158.193.106 to vandalize several pages (see for example this edit). Alefbe (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Pls help I am waiting for your reply

also read the abow my previous message.

Users Alefbe and Bahramm 2

are same person and doing vandalism in several pages without any explanation, again. This users are doing vandalism and destroing the pages related to this image [File:Iran ethnicity map2.png]. As I explained you in the abow I have corrected the mistakes (which he claimed) of previous map according to a map published by uni of Texas and put the sources there as well but he still clear the right map and put the wong one again and again without any explanation and reasonable reason. "YOU MAY COMPARE THOSE TWO MAPS YOURSELF TO SEE THE TRUTH. This user does vandalism, pls warn him or block for a while. I answered them many times! he just doing his and report me unfaily to admins and admin block me without any attention to the matter, my answers and his claims.He has changed the correct map again! Pournick (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I strongly doubt they are the same person, there is checkusers who can check it for sure. Anyway they do a correct thing: the map from Uni of Texas is referenced and yours is currently not, also your map has an unacceptable from the neutrality point of view. Fix those problems, get some consensus and I am sure it will be easy to get this map into articles Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you Alex Bakharev ? Why dont you answer me?

I edit that map again after the period of your block after 31h, pls check it. But this admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise because of claims of Alefbe and Bahramm 2 (which r same peron with 2 users) blocked me. He didnt realize that I edited after period of your block by Noofoozi(my second user) not during block. (I myself had put a note in the above about it. and I asked you can I? Pls look above)

Pls pay attention to this matter and talk to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise about problam. It is not fair to block a user with wrong information of other user ( I mean Alefbe or Bahramm 2) without any investigation.

User User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has written me" When you are blocked, you are not allowed to edit through alternate accounts or while logged out, as you did with Noofoozi (talk • contribs) and the IP 188.158.193.106 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS). I have therefore blocked you again for another 48 hrs, for block evasion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)", When an admin wrongly blocks a user without any attention, can I use my other username to talk to him? Should I wait 48h for this wrong block? What about if an admin blocks some one unfairly for 1 year? He should wait for 1 year to tell that admin your block was wrong? Pournick[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pournick" see here for my answers.

I put my answer again in here:

It's just one source just like the another one that i show you. we should produce a map that was acoording to the list of all maps that was produne by university of texas. after all you haven't change the map a bit according to your source some of the the west azerbaijan has a kurdish population that in your map there is no sign of that. dear pournick you just put one source that I gave you for more information but you just put that source in that image and didn't even change the mistake your map. Bahramm 2 (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLS

Pls have a look to sources of that wrong previous map which user Bahramm 2 supports. It has just one source! as well. Even that map is not as same as the source map! pls chech both images to find. Pls look at the top left part of the map.it has plain manipulations! Also I explained you in the abow, the map wich I used as source (published by Texas uni.) is much better and more detailed than previous map which Bahramm 2 strongly supports!. I live in Iran And I know teh previous map supported by Bahramm 2] has many mistakes. Pls have a look to my map and its sources and judge yourselves. The previous map was incredibly! wrong and too much simplified and undetailed in compare of my map and its sources. Pls check it yourself, you'll see which map is better and correct with reliable sources. Pournick

by the way the administrators can check user:Alefbe and my IP and you see that we aren't the same person.Bahramm 2 (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer of Pournick

IP can change anytime u connect to internet in Iran, the ISP gives you another IP, so it is not a rational reason, you r same person, pls just look at his edits and vandalisms. pournick

AlexNewArtBot and the gastropods project

Hi Alex. Over at Project Gastropods we have not had any new articles listed since 16th Feb and it is now 20th Feb, so has the bot stopped or something? We love your bot; it has been so helpful to us! I check it every day first thing, and indirectly it has brought the project many new members. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alex, it is working again. Greatly valued! Invertzoo (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used my second username to answer the admin, not to edit any pages.

also pls answer this: When an admin wrongly blocks a user without enough attention, can I use my other username to talk to that admin? What about if an admin blocks some one unfairly for 1 year? He should wait for 1 year to tell that admin the block of one year ago was wrong? Is it one of wiki rules that blocked user should wait for ending of block, even he cant answer in the talk page of that admin about unfair blocking? I shoud mention that I had edited after 31 hours of my first block not during that 31 hour, pls pay attention, therefore the second block because of breaking of first block was wrong because I didnt break the first block, I dint break second block as well I just answer them in their talk page I didnt edit any pages in encyclopedia. Can I say my points of view? A user called user:Bahramm 2 or user:Alefbe (which r same person) asked for block and an admin blocked me before enough attention. I dont and wont edit any pages in encyclopedia. I havnt got any answer to my questions yet! why the image I have uploaded was vandalism? May I know? just because user:Bahramm 2's claims?Regards,Signed by Pournick

  • Hi, Pournick, answering your question. There are many ways to appeal a block and requesting a review without using "second accounts". One of the simplest is to put {{Unblock}} on your user page (you can still edit your own talk page then blocked). An admin would read the request and review the block. You can send an email to the blocking admin using toolbox/E-mail this user feature of Wikipedia interface. Almost all admins opt-in to receive Wikipedia E-mails (I certainly do). You can also use the mailing list unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org to request an unblock (check https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/unblock-en-l for details). No editing via "second accounts" to circumvent a block. Still many admins (me include) would not usually block a user if he uses another account strictly to argue his unblocking. This is not an entitlement though and please do not count on it, rather use other avenues to appeal the block. I will check the situation with your second blocking soon Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was about to ask Khoikhoi to shorten the block but it appears that you did strong personal attacks on other editors and vandalized their user pages. In this case one month block is correct, if you continue you will be blocked indefinitely. Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, not to tempt you to avoid your block via mutiple accounts I have blocked a couple of your sockpuppets. It does not affect the length of the block of the main account as they were not used abusively Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NewArtbot and List of France national rugby union players

Hi thanks for the great bot, it's such a handy tool. Can you advise why it didn't pick up List of France national rugby union players as a Rugby union new article Gnevin (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi Alex. I am not quite sure what Ellol is doing in Russian apartment bombings. He made a series of constructive changes yesterday. That's fine. I did a lot of other changes too. They are not reverts, and I certainly did not revert anything Ellol did. Now he blindly reverts all my work. Why can not he start from the current version and correct whatever should be corrected? Could you look at the issue please? I think we can sort this out ourselves rather than complain at different noticeboards. Thank you. Your comments were very helpful in the past.Biophys (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is all resolved by now.Biophys (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alex_Bakharev&oldid=345722511"