User talk:Miyokan

Soviet Intervention in Afghanistan article

I agree with the criticisms you posted in the Soviet-Afghanistan article.

Mark Urban wrote an excellent book about this war...it is comprehensive and objective. I wish this book could be referenced in the article. The title is "War in Afghanistan" (1988).

Please contact me on my discussion page with any comments, etc. Kenmore (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

3rd deletion of Guardian reference

May I bring to your attention the following: Talk:Russian_presidential_election,_2008#Election_fairness:_deletions_of_criticism_by_User:Miyokan. You have deleted the same material 3 times. Could you please re-instate the deletion or I will ask an adminstrator to follow this up. Thanks. Pgr94 (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe that Miyokan has a good point in this case.

The author of an article in a media source can make any outlandish, unsupported claim he/she wants without needing to validate the truth of their claims. This is acceptable in journalism, but it is not an acceptable way of footnoting encyclopedia articles. Just because an author asserts that something happened does not necessarily mean that the referenced event did indeed take place. The source of the author’s information needs to be considered in these cases.

Many assertions in Wikipedia articles are footnoted in grotesque and irresponsible ways. This kind of referencing makes a mockery of truth and research, even on an amateur level. The poor footnoting of these articles would make them unacceptable even as college undergraduate papers, never mind using them for an encyclopedia.Kenmore (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan edits

Out of respect (which I actually have for the strength of your edits, esp. in the Kosovo article), I waned you to know that I reverted the larger part of your edits because I think they should be discussed. I have found through hard experience that having a lot of agreement (read: consensus) is the best way to preserve the integrity of the edits you are adding. A little time spent in gathering consensus through discussion beforehand is a lot better than spending a lot more time dealing with tendentious editing by miffed people who felt they "needed" to be consulted before such changes were enacted. As someone who has worked that particular article a lot, I have seen this mentality appear, and would prefer that your time would be better spent securing those edits before their placement. Please do not read any disrespect into my revert. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I know you feel like Hap and Biophys are ganging up on you, but remember to take the higher ground, and only address the edits, and not the editors. Your arguments are strong ones. Stick with them. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

reverts

Please stop reverting all of my edits. And by the way, the sourced information on Ukrainian nationalism is not a theory at all, its a fact. Perhaps inconvenient, but a fact nonetheless. Ostap 02:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your frustration of being stalked

Best to ignore stalkers as much as possible. If someone is so obsessed about you as to scrutinize your edits, please be calm. It maybe a short incident with a good editor getting too upset about something. As for consistent stalkers, laugh this off. Think about it. How pity one's life must me if the person has nothing better to do with their time than follow you around and study your edits! And do not ever respond in kind. See also here. Seek help or confront stalkers only if there is absolutely no choice. --Irpen 09:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Poltava

I'm sorry but you can't overwrite the previous numbers of Swedish casualties because they are supported by a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irtehprwn (talk • contribs) 21:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but what is the credibility of that source? Many Wikipedia articles are supported by citations from non-expert sources, fringe academics, etc. These kinds of citations lack authority and they should not be used to establish the verity of a purported "fact" in a Wikipedia article.

I am not Miyokan (as someone suggested) but I do agree with his reasons for editing some Russian history related articles here.Kenmore (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi, can I ask why did you lie here? The description of the image clearly states that the unit was made up of multiple nationalities, yet in the caption's description you chose to (wrongly) single out one group. I would like to ask you why you did so?

The description from the image is provided below:

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising- Photo from Jürgen Stroop Report to Heinrich Himmler from May 1943. The original German caption reads: "Askaris used during the operation". Two Askari or Trawniki guards, peer into a doorway past the bodies of Jews killed during the suppression of the Warsaw ghetto uprising. The unit trained in village of Trawniki was made up of Ukrainians, Russians, Belorussians, Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, ethnic Germans, Kazakhs and Tartars.--Riurik^(discuss) 05:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't assume bad faith and accuse me of lying. The uploaders description says "Two Ukrainian members of the SS, known as "Askaris," peer into a doorway past the bodies of Jews killed during the suppression of the Warsaw ghetto uprising." Furthermore, did you even look at the source?--Miyokan (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My fault on the bad faith. No, I did not look at the source. I see it now. Do you know the original source on which the website is relying to make that identification?--Riurik^(discuss) 05:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It says "Photo credit: Polish National Archives".--Miyokan (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, but that only refers to the actual source of the photograph, not the statement that the two militiamen are "Ukrainian." Do you happen to know what was the source used by the Florida Center for Instructional Technology when they created the Teacher's Guide?--Riurik^(discuss) 05:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course if it says that they got the photo from the Polish National Archives they would have got the caption from there too.--Miyokan (talk) 05:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The PNA provided the photograph, but only on the Florida Center for Instructional Technology website are we told that the militia are specifically Ukrainian, which is not substantiated anywhere else that is why I was asking about it. We do know that they are both Askari; their nationality could be any of the nationalities that were trained in the village of Trawniki: The unit trained in village of Trawniki was made up of Ukrainians, Russians, Belorussians, Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, ethnic Germans, Kazakhs and Tartars. I suggest we describe them accordingly, pending future clarification.--Riurik^(discuss) 06:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth, unless you can find a source of that photo that says that they weren't Ukrainian that is what we go by. "The unit trained in village of Trawniki was made up of Ukrainians, Russians, Belorussians, Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, ethnic Germans, Kazakhs and Tartars." - besides the fact that this is not in the source, this is describing the unit that they were part of, not the photo.--Miyokan (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You are making the claim of nationality, and need to fist establish that they are XYZ before shifting the burden of proof. To do so you argue that their nationality is claimed by a website (Florida Center for Instructional Technology), which got its content from the PNA. One of the requirements of the Verifiability policy is the reliability of sources, which the website does not fulfill in light of the fact that Askari were made up of multiple nationalities, so who says that they were "Ukrainian"? What I am saying is that the website got the photo from the Polish National Archives, which it explicitly credits for the photo. It also disclaims that The original German caption reads: "Askaris used during the operation.". It does not say that these were of a specific nationality. So I argue that the wikipedia's caption should be Two Askaris rather than two "nationality"--Riurik^(discuss) 06:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact the source mentions the German caption and says that they were Ukrainian, there is no contradiction, please see verifiability, not truth, unless you provide a source of that photo that says they were some other nationality that is what we go by.--Miyokan (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't hide behind "verifiability, not truth" if the source is not reliable and if that same source does not say what you say (which is that the two askari are Ukrainian). Source #1 is the website which claims nationality. Source #2 is the original source that was presumably provided by the PNA and is the German original caption. The second, or the original source, identifies the two men as Askari. The first source attributes nationality to them, but has no basis for it and does not substantiated this claim. It is not a reliable source and hence does not fit the Verifiability policy. I think I have expressed my opinion clearly on this and you seem to have expressed yours as well. The Wikipedia caption has to reflect the original source, which says "Two askari". I will make the proper edits to reflect what we have at hand.--Riurik^(discuss) 07:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trying to whitewash this. The website source got their caption from where they got their photo, which is the Polish National Archives, you are assuming that they didn't get the caption from where they got the source, see WP:V. Even if they didn't write where they got the photo from, it doesn't matter per WP:V unless you provide a different source of the same photo that says that they weren't Ukrainian.--Miyokan (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is too much noise here over nothing. This pic does not give much info that can be helpful for this article anyway. All it shows are two men who took part in atrocities. They may have been Ukrainian but even if they were, there is nothing more to this picture that (even if the caption is authentic) adds to the fact that Askaris took part in the pogroms and the Ukrainians wre among them. There is nothing on these men that identifies them Ukrainian or illustrate the Ukrainian part of collaboration in any way. The pro-Nazi parades by nationalists in Lviv with Ukrainian regalia, nationalist priests' public blessings to the collaborant formations, recruitment posters for Waffen-SS Galician division with the Galician Lion and Swastika next to each other, yes. Those would illustrate the topic. But not two thugs kicking out some door in some house, Ukrainian or not. --Irpen 07:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether the picture gives much info is neither here nor there, you can't argue "you can't prove that they weren't Ukrainian", one of wikipedia's cornerstone policies is verifiability, not truth, if that wasn't the case then you can say about hundreds of photos here that you "can't prove they were X", we have a source here that says the were Ukrainian askari, now unless you can provide a different source of the same photo that says that contradicts this then we go by the source. Please don't attempt to whitewash something you saw that you didn't like with invalid arguments like "you can't prove that they were Ukrainian".--Miyokan (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What is that "I don't like"? What am I trying to "whitewash"? Please choose your words more carefully. I replaced the image with much more fitting the article and I will add more if you give me more time. As a general note, please slow down a little. You are a hard-working contributor and I spoke up when you were unfairly treated not once. Do not jump the gun and accuse fellow editors like that. And please try to seek the compromise more often. --Irpen 07:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If that comment offended I apologize. So you don't have comment on the substance of what I wrote? I don't see the potential for any compromise here, we either say Ukrainian askari as the source says and per WP:Verifiability, or we don't.--Miyokan (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And that puts an end to this discussion [1].--Miyokan (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan, I resent your arbitrary choice with words, for example when you wrote that I am trying to whitewash this. All I was trying to do here is to make sure that whatever the claims made on wikipedia are backed up with reliable and verifiable sources. When you make a statement and back it up with an unreliable website, YOU WILL BE CHALLENGED until you produce a reliable and verifiable source.

The Florida Center for Instructional Technology was verifiable but it WAS NOT reliable (as the WP:Verifiability requires in the 1st sentence). Encylopedia Britannica is a whole different story. So in the future think twice before accusing others with crap like "whitewashing."

Whitewashing is denying that there was a nuclear explosion at a power plant for days while radiation was spreading, or that the tragedy of Kursk submarine was due to minor difficulties. It is not a challenge of unreliable sources.--Riurik^(discuss) 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again I apologize if I offended. This is not to say that I think my argument or "whitewashing" analysis was wrong, the Flordia Center for Instructional Technology is indeed a reliable source, it is an educational institution and part of the University of South Florida, certainly a reliable source. I hope we leave this with no hard feelings.--Miyokan (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Reconstructed grozny.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Reconstructed grozny.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the edit to AK article

Please see my comment to Nick here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Crime in Russia

Hi, just to inform you about the article Crime in Russia that I have divided the article into nine sections i.e. History, Drug trafficking, Human trafficking, Arms trafficking, Poaching, Homicide, Corruption, Crime statistics and International comparison. Please review the article and since you are a member of WikiProject Russia, I will tell you to please assess the article for the project. I want opinion of Russian editors for the improvement of the article. Any suggestion from you for the development of the article regarding style or NPOV will be appreciated. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Russian sentiment

You keep reverting my corrections to the Anti-Russian sentiment. In particular I corrected that it far from truth that each and everyone in South-East of Ukraine is dreaming of joining with Russia. You keep reverting me in violation of WP:EW and on the werge of WP:3RR. This is a warning to stop and review your actions. --Greggerr (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Travniki men

I think you can find some info from IMT usefull for some articles [2] [3] [4]Jo0doe (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Grozny pictures

Hey can you drop me an e-mail about them?--Kuban Cossack 15:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I added one modern pic to Grozny. If more is needed, let me know. I received an email permission from a Russian journalist to use his pictures under cc-by-sa. --Irpen 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Hi,

Your User:Miyokan/Sandbox is appearing in Categories such as [[5]]…thought you may want to know,

Best Wishes
--Badgernet (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Russian template warning

I am giving you a fair warning. I do not wish to call your work "vandal," but this needs to stop.

We already agreed on three cities that you can click on to enlarge, and you went against this again. You removed the abbreviaions, witch makes the article very runny and uneasy. There is a reason that abbreviations were made for countries, because their full name may be too big to put in a letter. Please do not alter this, this is a universal agreement. And the toolbox on the bottom is a very important part of a template. It helps to make the article easier to reach from the parent article.

I am giving you a fair warning. Please reframe from removing the images, abbrieviatons, and the toolbox from this and all other templates. If this continues, I am either going to get an administrator involved or form a WikiProject to officially standardize these templates. — NuclearVacuum 18:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am letting you be aware that I have brought this issue on the administration of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities, witch does look and agrees with standardization of these templates. And for you and your past deletions and unnecessary edits (witch I am argued with many on your talk), I have brought your behavior upon the knowledge of administrators. [6] I have given you fair warning and you choose to not even acknowledge them. And now if you continue to undo my corrections of your edits, I will bring it on the board of possible blocking you from Wikipedia for 24 hours. Please acknowledge this and read my warnings. I am not trying offer you the information so you are not considered a vandal on Wikipedia. If you wish to be branded one, just keep it up, it won't be long. — NuclearVacuum 01:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I may not own it, I never said I did. But I have experience in these templates and that means I have some say in the argument in them. I agree with your edits to this templates, but there are many flaws on the. Writing the whole name makes the template too big and runny, very "unpolished." This is why I choose the mailing code, it helps to make it easy to read and perfect for these templates. And for the two pictures, you already agreed on making them two in the agreement of changing Novosibirsk's picture. Why are you changing this on your edits. And please stop altering your statement on my talk page.

If you can find me five templates, that are part of the same project, I will take back my statement on that all templates are standardized. — NuclearVacuum 01:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Birch forest Siberia.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Birch forest Siberia.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [7], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Birch forest Siberia.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Polly (Parrot) 02:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Moscow city march 2008.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Moscow city march 2008.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Moscow city march 2008.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:State duma.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:State duma.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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Polly (Parrot) 02:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Moscow Kremlin Wall River.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Moscow Kremlin Wall River.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [8], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Moscow Kremlin Wall River.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Polly (Parrot) 02:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Truce

I know that we are not the best of friends, but this WP:Edit war need to stop. If stopping this war will make this cold war between us stop, I am willing to make sacrifices for this. First off, I am sorry for reporting you and making rude comments about you. I also apologize that I didn't think of ways to cope with this earlier. I now expect an apology from you.

Now to the business. I see that you have been blocked, so I will make it easy for you to understand. Yes, I do wish to somewhat standardize the city templates. But after another edit war with another user on the same issue, I gave up on totally standardizing them. Granted, you are right about there being no rule about this, witch means both you and I are right. Both of our ideologies on this issue both have pros and cons, rights and wrongs, and most of all, support and criticism. You also need to work on your sources (as do I). When ONE user mentions how abbreviations works for the US and not for Russia, this does not mean that the whole site is on your side. This means there are no other argument and resources on the issue.

Now for an appeasement. I will agree to have two city pictures on the template, as long as you agree to keep the template bar. But I do insist that the image of Moscow on the template be changed. I don't wish to get into detail on why it shouldn't be on there, but I do say there are much better images for the city then this one. OK now, I have made the effort to a truce and end this war. The last piece of this puzzle is for you to agree on a truce. — NuclearVacuum 16:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A vote on Russians

Hello :-)

There's a vote on the Russians talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russians#A_vote

Feel free to state your opinion.

A user want's to beake the image from a one piece into a many piece one. You have links their to what she wants. I oppose. Decide what you support and vote. MaIl89 (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Tolstoy.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Tolstoy.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan or Berkunt?

Miyokan, you have to select one active account (at least for the Russia-related items). Editing the same article (e.g. Russia) from both accounts is a violation of WP:SOCK please select one account and I would permablock the other just to make sure you accidentally would not use both at the same time). Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, you were user Berkunt? Welcome back as Miyokan. You should keep using Miyokan, it sounds better. Ostap 02:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bolshoi Theater image

I had to deleted the image. If you check [9], the image is only licensed as Non-commercial. Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot accept non-commercial licenses the reason is that if we would release Wiki on CD or paper we might need to charge some money for it and it is impossible with NC images present. If you have time to contact this guy might release the image under CC-BY-SA or any other free license that allows commercial use in that case just drop me a note and I will restore the image.

It is a common mistake but we can only accept Flicr if it allows commercial use. Thanks for your work on Russia article Alex Bakharev (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Shuppiluliuma

I am inclined to agree with you. In fact, I noticed said user from their first day editing. At the moment, the evidence is circumstantial (in as far as my ability to legitimately use any sysop tools), but I am indeed monitoring the situation. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

emblem colors

I replied at my talk. Sorry for a delay. Had a busy day. --Irpen 03:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Trotsky

Why "oh dear" when you changed Trotsky's nationality to Russian? He was born in Ukraine and was of Jewish parentage. Neither would have qualified him for Russian nationality either then or now. When he died he was stateless as his Soviet citizenship had been withdrawn when he was expelled. --Mia-etol (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please look up the definition of "nationality" - "people having common origins or traditions and often comprising a nation". "the status of belonging to a particular nation by birth or naturalization ". "The country of a person’s citizenship or country in which the person is deemed a national." In case you didn't know, there was no "Ukraine" nation then, it was part of Russia. He is neither Ukrainian by ethnicity nor nationality.--Miyokan (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. --Mia-etol (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cold War Culture article help

Hello...thanks for your contributions to the Cold War article, even though I deleted a few of them. In spite of this, I would like your input on the Culture during the Cold War article, as I have no knowledge of Russian culture, and it needs more than a Western point of view. I'm hoping that you can contribute positively to that article. Also, do you know how the Soviets thought about the Cold War? There's a question about this on the FA review page, and no one has any answers. For example, did the Soviets even call it the Cold War? Did they have another name, or a name at all? Hires an editor (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Holodomor 1921 famine.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Holodomor 1921 famine.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Holodomor 1921 famine.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Holodomor 1921 famine.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by an adminstrator 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. Yakudza (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Cold War intro edits

Hi, perhaps instead of edit warring, you would be interested to engage youself in a discussion I started here? Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

self revert

I should probably report you for 3RR </sarcasm>. I thought your version was good. Oh well, do whatever you like. Ostap 03:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. You can't be too careful these days. Just so you know, I was joking about the 3rr and the reporting. Ostap 04:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ukraine/archive1

Hello Miyokan. Given your experience with the whole FAC process, I’d really like to hear any comments you might have on the Ukraine article. Best regards, Bogdan ^що? 11:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

[10] Look at table 3, it says Русскоязычные украинцы = 30%, русскоязычные русские = 18%, thus 48%. Where do you see 43-46% use Russian at home? Bogdan ^що? 08:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Bolshoi theatre.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Bolshoi theatre.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Bolshoi theatre.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

--Hillock65 (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainization

Dear Miyokan. I know what you added there is correct, and those guys reverting you know it to. It's obviously political from them. But it will be better if you get a link, reference, stating what you stated. It could be in any language. This symbolic act is needed to keep those monkeys quite. Afro-Russian (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For example, get a few references showing that in Ukraine they dont simply ask for Ukrainian subtitles, but Russian radio stations and cinemas are closed down because they use Russian. Afro-Russian (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello,

Please join the discussion the soviet famine page. However, please do not simply undo revisions. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:History of Ukraine

Can you keep an eye out on the article and participate in the discussion of purgining cherry-picked events from there. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

russian healthcare

Если ты читал источник не внимательно, вот цитата: "В медицинской сфере дискриминация привела к тому, что неработающие граждане без регистрации по месту жительства не могут оформить медицинский полис. Те же, кто медицинский полис имеет, не могут получить медицинскую помощь на территории, не совпадающей с их регистрацией." И прописка, это лишь одна из причин, по которой всеобщее право на бесплатную медицину остаётся только на бумаге. Другая распространённая, это то, что значительная часть страны рпботает "нелегально" получает зарплату в конвертах и, как следствие, также не имеет полиса. Я не знаю откуда ты сам, но я например, живу в росси. И с тех самых пор, как закончил университет в 2002г. ни разу не имел этого полиса по разным причинам, равно как и большинство моих друзей. Что до выщитывания процентов, то вообще не понятно к чему это. Там ясно написано, что конституция гарантирует всем. На деле, разница между повседневностью и конституцией в россии огромна. И даже если и один этого не имеет, это уже не всем. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.81.237 (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the article is discussing various types of discrimination by "propiska", not just discussing just health care. Health care is just one of the areas briefly touched upon. Secondly, your quote is meaningless without numbers of how many people this affects. The article listed potentially 3 million victims of propiska discrimination ("Количество потенциальных жертв подобной дискриминации составляет минимум 3 миллиона человек.") - that is less than 2% of Russia's population. This by itself shows that access to health care is hardly a big problem. But I'll add some points.

Furthermore, it states half of the 3 million figure are people working in Moscow, ("Около половины от этого числа людей работают в Москве, остальные, как правило, трудятся в других крупных городах страны") so it is hardly a nationwide problem. Furthermore, this 3 million figure counts all the various aspects of discrimination via propiska that the article covered (the article covered the right to work, to health care, to buy state housing, registration of motor vehicles, to obtain a loan and suffrage - "Среди прав, которые незаконно поставлены в зависимость от наличия регистрации, - право на труд, на медицинскую помощь, на покупку квартир по программе "Доступное жилье", на регистрацию автомобилей, на получение кредита и даже активное избирательное право."), not just health care. So the figure for people affected by solely health care, not counting all these other aspects which are included in this 3 million figure, would be even smaller, and the article doesn't provide this information anyway, which is the only information we are interested in.--Miyokan (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The statement is you can't get free health care without proper "propiska". So i don't know the way how this figure could be even smaller than amount of people without proper "propiska". Another statement you can't get free health care if you work illegally. And lot of russians do. And anyway, as i told you above, that article says "Russia's constitution guarantees free, universal health care for all citizens." Even if one doesn't in fact have this right, it's not all 91.122.81.237 (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, there might be some cases of this, but it shouldn't be added to the article per WP:UNDUE as it affects so little people (less than 2% of the population - even less when you discount all the other discriminations that are included in that figure). It also basically just affects Moscow. This information belongs in the propiska article.--Miyokan (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Third time: not less! Because it's not you either can't register motor vehicle or can't get free health care, but all together at same time. + add here the amount of people, working illegally. And anyway, it doesn't matter. 98% 99% or 97% it's not all. So this part of the article gives false impression. And it's not a view of minority, which WP:UNDUE covers. It's view of official states ombudsman, assigned to this role by russian president —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.81.237 (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop violating concensus, you have been reverted by another editor now. You have also broken the three-revert rule. There is nothing false about "Russia's constitution guarantees free, universal health care for all citizens", that is just fact. That possibly 1% of people do not get it because they break the law does not discount this statement.--Miyokan (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus reached. And a fact that i were reverted by another editor, does not mean that my edits are wrong. Stop manipulate numbers and facts (3 of 140 is more than 2% FYI). This peoples can't get this right not because they've broke the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.81.237 (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they have broken the law because propiska is a permit, it is a legal document, if these illegal Moscow workers followed the rules of propiska like 99% of the population does then they wouldn't have any problem.--Miyokan (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That reference, which i've provided, does not say even a word about people broke a law. Peoples, which can't get theirs free health care are not outlaws. And don't forget, that russian constitution guaranties freedom of movement and settlement. So how could there be a permit on settlement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.84.125 (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this conversation to the article talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.84.125 (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this anonymous user thinks repeating the same defeated argument over and over again while reverting will help his case. All we can really do is report him if he continues to revert war, arguing with people like this is pointless. Krawndawg (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Grodno

Hey can you keep an eye out on Grodno Governorate and Belastok Voblast becoming victim of national-centric attacks. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian health care

I told the anon that it should go on Propiska: "I think this should go on propiska as the matter at hand deals with supposed no freedom of movement and the consequences of its enforcement. Nothing to do with how health care is provided to most Russians."

Some people want to use Wikipedia for political purposes using undue weight and word manipulation. This is unacceptable, but I don't know what I could do.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The RfC is formatted correctly.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The anonymous user opened a request for mediation here.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 15:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian 2008 war

Miyakan, please use the talk page to discuss the question rather than edit warring. Thanks. Esn (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Russia requires your signature

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Russia, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, AGK ^{(talk ◊ contact) 20:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)}

Moscow save Russian citizens image

Replaceable means a free image can be created, not that we already have one. Superm401 - Talk 14:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation.--Miyokan (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It may become irreplaceable if all protests are over (though I imagine there are still protests going on), but even then it will be a tough argument. Superm401 - Talk 14:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I imagine there are still protests urging Russia to remain involved. Superm401 - Talk 05:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Moscow save russian citizens.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Moscow save russian citizens.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Russia. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Hey there. One of the parties to this mediation is presently on holiday. So we'll proceed when he gets back. Thanks. —Sean Whitton / 10:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

HHe's back. Would you kindly e-mail me an e-mail address for you; I much prefer to mediate over e-mail unless you have any objections. My address is sean //AT\\ silentflame //DOT\\ com - thanks. —Sean Whitton / 10:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am in e-mail contact with the IP :) Are you sure you don't want to try mediation? —Sean Whitton / 17:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the anonymous IP, 91.122.90.169. —Sean Whitton / 15:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring of Russian apartment bombings

We are currently discussing this. Perhaps you would like to join us, as you have suggested an interest before. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the slapdash edit

Very sorry for making it look like you had proposed an unban.[11] After you kindly restored it, I fixed the ambiguity in that subsection header. Again, sorry! — Satori Son 15:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian Ground Forces

Russian Ground Forces has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Outing users

Please avoid any statements that can be seen as outing of real identity of wikipedia editors especially those who maintain their anonymity unless there is a really convincing reason to do so. Alleged sockpuppeting on Commons is not such a reason to out people here. Please never do it again as it can have very serious consequences. I would advise you to drop the sockpuppeting allegations altogether as I am sure B would not do it again, but if you want to advance them please do it on commons and in a very cautious way so to protect user's identity (by Email to a commons admin, I guess).

I have deleted all the mentioning of the incident from the history of talk pages. Administrators can still see them if needed. Please do not restore this information. In future please never out people again. Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment needed

Hey Miyokan, being a law student, you may be able to assist with a problem we are having with Russian copyright. The thread in question is on Commons and can be found at this link. Perhaps you can provide some sources for us which will confirm whether we can use Kremlin.ru photos, because as you can probably appreciate having photos from Russia is of absolute importance for many, many articles. If you don'ty already know, you can find info on Unified login at this link which will automatically log you in on any wikimedia project. Look forward to your response, cheers --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 09:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Today we are all Georgians

Hey there, be very careful if you are thinking of 'outing' someone. I know what evidence you are talking about, but just be very careful with it, as I don't think it's looked upon very well by some and could end up in getting blocked or something, and I wouldn't want that to happen. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 04:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I didn't give any personal information out.--Miyokan (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, do you have interest in foreign affairs of Russia? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Check email

Please check your email. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)