User talk:Dc76

This page was archived following the instructions at Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page#Cut and paste procedure.

Am incercat cum mi-ai scris, dar...

...desi sunt normal inregistrat, am primit raspunsul urmator:

"You must be logged in and have a valid authenticated e-mail address in your preferences to send e-mail to other users. Return to Main Page."

Imi poti scrie pe mailul care desi nu este recunoscut ca valid de Wiki englez, merge prefect: mernature@wanadoo.fr

Am multe carti despre si din Rep. Moldova si ma gandesc din ce in ce mai serios sa dau o parte din ele (teza este data de mult, le folosesc din ce in ce mai rar, urmasii mei nu sunt interesati de asa ceva).

Functionarea pe Wiki englez este caricatural de scrupuloasa: referintele uneori inlocuiesc gandirea. Daca unul scrie "water is wet" iar altul "water is dry", pe Wiki englez vei citi: "dupa unii, apa se pare ca ar fi uda; altii insa afirma ca este uscata". Astfel, la paragraful "Languages" din articolul "Byzantine Empire" citim:

"Additionally common Latin continued to be a minority language in the Empire which many scholars believe gave birth to the Vlach languages",

... ca si cum ar fi posibil ca limbile romanice din Balcani sa aiba alta origine decat latina populara ! Ma intreb si ce vrea sa sublinieze acel "Additionnally": ca romanicii din Balcani sunt ceva marginal, ne-important (mai marginal decat Albanezii) ?

--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Dc76/Userbox IndependentChechnya

User:Dc76/Userbox IndependentChechnya, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dc76/Userbox IndependentChechnya and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Dc76/Userbox IndependentChechnya during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 05:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Chechnya userbox

Hi, Dc! Thanks much for an elaborate and detailed comment; I sincerely appreciate you taking time to make it. I do, however, believe that you, as well as many of the folks who voted to support the userbox in question, misunderstood the purpose of my nomination, and I blame only myself, for I was unable to communicate my intent more clearly. At no point of time was I trying to deprive anyone from their right to hold opinions on various matters. I myself am human, I hold opinions on many different things, and some of those opinions are strong to the point where I avoid editing articles on that topic because I know there is no way in hell I'll be able to stay neutral. So, my only concern about this infobox (and by "only" I mean only) was that it goes against WP:USERPAGE, which, as you undoubtedly know, is a guideline dealing with the content the editors can and cannot have on their userpages. My line of thinking is that if the community bothered to develop a guideline such as that, it is the responsibility of the community members to either uphold that guideline or, if it no longer has consensus, to update it so it does not contradict the existing practices. Since I happen to agree with the guideline's intents and purposes, I went ahead with taking a random non-compliant userbox and nominating it for deletion. This one happened to be the userbox supporting the independence of Chechnya. If it were a box supporting the independence of Transnistria, Kosovo, Taiwan, or Tibet, I have no doubts I would now be writing this same response to some other editor who may have submitted a comment not dissimilar from your own comment above.

The bottom line is that we should never forget why we are here and what we are supposed to be doing. This is an encyclopedia, and we are the writers of encyclopedic content. Sure, our personal feelings and opinions affect everything we write, but that should not prevent us from following the core principle of the project—neutral point of view. If one is unable to write in a neutral manner on a given topic, then one should find another topic where neutrality is easier to follow. If one is unwilling to write in a neutral manner, such person would be much better off leaving this project for some other worthy endeavor; one where neutrality is optional. Same principles should guide the communications between the editors—I know full well you have your opinions, and you know full well I have mine, and we know full weel everyone has their own, but in the end it should have no effect whatsoever on our work. The only thing that matters is whether we are able to control our POVs well enough for the content we produce to be written in a neutral manner. There most certainly is no need whatsoever to be flashing your opinions in front of other people or, worse yet, advertise a certain point of view in hopes of swaying other peoples' opinions. For that they invented bumper stickers, and in my experience one is yet to convince another person of anything using only that tool. And if you absolutely need to know what my opinion on such or such topic is, just ask me. In fact, that is your only option, because I am most certainly not going to plaster userboxes all over my userpage advertising my opinions about which no one gives a damn anyway but which could alienate folks holding opposite views, folks who may otherwise have entered a productive collaboration with me.

Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dc, thank you again for your thoughts. To address your remaining concerns, the nomination was not addressed to remove only one userbox (namely yours); it was a nomination of what was supposed to be a series of nominations of similar userboxes (this point was clarified in small font, so it was easy to miss). However, in my unbridled optimism towards what I felt was a sure-hit outcome, I did not think of a backup plan, so continuing to nominate similar userboxes in pretty much pointless now. There should be another way, and your suggestion seems to be a good alternative (more on that below).

I should also note that item 8 of WP:USERPAGE was not the only reason behind the nomination. I feel that such userboxes also fall under the definitions of "personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia" and "non-encyclopedic related material". I see how the "I support independence of Chechnya" statement being "polemical" can be seen as a subject of interpretation and debate, but I don't see how potential independence of Chechnya can ever amount to anything more than a personal opinion unrelated to Wikipedia. Even if you are a scholar working on a publication researching the potential ways for Chechnya to become independent, it is still not "related to Wikipedia" (because, mainly, of the original research and, to a lesser degree, of the conflict of interest concerns), and if you are not such a scholar, then, well, it is just your personal opinion which does not matter as far as the goals of improving the encyclopedia go.

I understand full well what you mean when you say that you had created the userbox "by analogy"—I myself used to have a fairly polemic userbox "by analogy" with other users who had similar userboxes displayed. With so many bad examples to follow, it may be hard to resist to add a userbox yourself, especially when nothing seems to be wrong with such practices on the surface. The key words here, however, are "on the surface"—I removed my userbox soon after I realized that to the editors holding opposing views such userboxes are, at best, a mild irritation, and at worst a bone of contention and a reason to justify conflicts (sometimes on matters completely unrelated to userbox statements). The positive side of such userboxes? Can't think of any.

You also say that you will remove the Chechen independence box from your userpage if I ask you nicely. I most certainly can do that, but I don't think that is going to be fair either to you or to other editors who will not have their userboxes removed. After all, if, as you say, I was able to half-convince you that controversial userboxes are bad for the project (and, judging by how you worded the rough draft of the proposed recommendation, you may have been even more than half-convinced), you should have no qualms about removing the userbox on your own. If you agree with my arguments as they are, why do you need me to personally ask you? Also, if I do ask you, in order to remain fair I will probably have to ask every other editor who has similar materials displayed to do the same, and, as much as I'd love to see Wikipedia rid of the bumper-sticker-mania, there are plenty of other things I'd rather be doing with my time. I hope you understand.

This, however, brings me to your recommendation suggestion. I think it is a great idea, and I sincerely regret it did not occur to me instead of the serial nomination idea that I started with the userbox is your userspace (but, again, see my note on optimism above). While I think the current wording of WP:USERPAGE is superior to such recommendation, I also realize that WP:USERPAGE is a guideline which, possibly, is being the least complied with, and the reality shows the practices which are a complete opposite. Still, there are good places for that recommendation to go to—Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics comes to mind right away, but there is likely to be a cache of similar destinations which could benefit from having this recommendation prominently displayed. I'll probably just be bold and add this recommendation to /Politics, and if there are any problems, I will continue the discussion there.

Once again, thank you for your time and comments. I welcome your further thoughts on this situation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, now you can obviously tell that I didn't get more than three hours of sleep last night, because I was sure you wrote "if you asked nicely" while in fact there was no "if" present in the sentence you wrote! I then proceded with writing a lengthy diatribe-like response. Well, duh :( In any case, thanks for the clarification. Also, of course, thank you for this—I think you've just made Wikipedia a tiny bit friendlier place.

I will work on wording the recommendation next week, and will definitely let you know when I'm done. It was nice talking to you too, and I'm sure we'll bump into each other again; hopefully in regards to a less contentious issue. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it may have taken me over two hours to write a response to you, but it was definitely not the reason why I got so little sleep last night :) Nor did I have any problems with your English or reasoning flow. In any case, I'll certainly keep you in mind in case I have a question that lies in your area of expertise. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Poland-Lithuanian issues

I've tried a form of RfC years ago (Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution). Perhaps it failed because it was not an official RfC and did not attract neutral editors. I'd love to "bury the hatchet", but I see two problems with launching an RfC now: 1) as my ArbCOm shows, there is a high chance that various anti-Piotrus/Polish tag teams would join, with no knowledge of the Lithuanian side, but simply to paint the Piotrus/Polish side as bad ("enemy of my enemy...") 2) I cannot think of a single Lithuanian editor that edits P-L history topics and is not radicalized. In other words, I doubt there is much good faith on the "other side" - my interactions with them for years (up to and including in this arbcom) make me believe that this mindset is too common. Perhaps after this ArbCom, if some of what I believe are most disruptive editors are curbed, a P-L RfC would be feasible. Currently... the situation is bad, and has been getting worse since I first tried to solve it. Of course, my experience here is biased, and any critique of my argument and other advice would be appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Rules of ArbCom evidence

Unfortunately, comments are not allowed in other editors section. You can answer in your own evidence, or copy your posts to talk. Biophys had to remove your comment, and I am afraid he will have to do it to your new one (otherwise a clerk would do it).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Footnote

I added a Footnote to the Uniforms of the Confederate Military like you asked. If it is incorrect please explain it to me on my talk page.--LORDoliver † (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. it isn't that the source is problematic; I think the article might be. Perhaps you could compare the text on that page with the article. — BillC ^talk 21:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded the cover of my book onto wikipedia type in Image:Historic Times Illustrated.jpg on the Wikipedia Search Bar.--LORDoliver † (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, so you think the article is ready for DYK. --LORDoliver † (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how do you like the new belt buckle picture I have added to the Article.--LORDoliver † (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What else do you think I could do to improve the Article. --LORDoliver † (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the help! --LORDoliver † (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

M-am uitat în catalog dar nu o au. Însă, dacă e vorba de o carte care nu se găseşte pe Internet (eg Google Books), atunci ai voie să scrii {{subst:DYKtickAGF}} - "Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language or offline hook reference accepted in good faith" (presupunând că poţi într-adevăr să ai încredere în cel care a scris articolul). Biruitorul ^Talk 01:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Mai e ceva la mijloc. Da, clar că articolul poate fi îmbunătăţit. Dar pentru DYK standardele sunt mai slabe - nu trebuie să fie perfect. Cât timp ce faptul din "hook" poate fi verificat (şi poate - a dat link la Google Books) şi proza e cât de cât OK, atunci poate fi aprobat. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, check out the new info I put on the article. --LORDoliver † (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: What I understood...

I was not really following the discussion between Biophys and Alex in all detail. But your point is quite interesting, if next to impossible to prove. Ockham razor would argue that we should discard it, but yes, it may be a valuable new POV for ArbCom. Feel free to post it (perhaps as an outside comment on the main Piotrus 2 arbcom discussion page?).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You may want to refactor the second sentence ("It is well-known that...) - I find it somewhat unclear (I am not even sure if its a praise, criticism of a neutral description of my person, and what is the relation between me and those two camps?) :) PS. Outside statements belong at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2 (yes, arbcom can be bureaucratically frustrating with technicalities of what belongs where, my apologies for that). PSS. Talking about puzzling real-world/conspiracy theories: [1], [2]... bizarre, isn't it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you know

Where is Busza/Jaruga? See Peace of Busza.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating material. Some lighter stuff from me: Nice song (I mean the melody!); very interesting (and arresting) map - much of that is in this book, if you have 600,000 lei to spare. Although I photographed a lot of pages from it, so if you'd like to write about Sighet, Aiud or some other prisons, let me know (I'm still working on Gherla myself). Biruitorul ^Talk 05:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a copy of the text that article was worked from initialy ishere. Jaruga in Polish, Yaruga in Russian, Iaruga in Romanian is the other locality mentioned. It is either a small city or a large village. Apparently, located on a creck with the same name. Possibly in 1616 or 1617 (this also has to be cleard out) Iaruga was a bigger place, while Buşa was where they actually signed the treaty, perhaps a smaller one. Also, thank you very much for the links.Dc76\^talk 06:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"No comment" is right. And by the way, do check your e-mail! Biruitorul ^Talk 16:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A comment

Sorry, I did not mean you should remove your evidence. To the contrary, some of your points are valid. I have never talked about that before, but perhaps this is time to explain. Let me place myself in the shoes of a person in Moscow who is responsible for creating good image of Russia or Putin. What would I do? Of course I would never ignore wikipedia as the best available information source at the internet. Russian state security services were very instrumental in using internet, from hacker attacks to participating in political blogs. For example, people are placing information from newspapers about Putin stealing $40 billions. No, such things can not be tolerated! So, the following would be expected.

• Plan A. Use this place to promote professional disinformation and suppress undesirable information. This is easy. One can use disinformation published by the KGB earlier (such as the numbers of prisoners in Gulag). One can find as much disinformation as he wants in Russian newspapers, thanks to de facto censorship and "historians" who are paid to cook and publish propaganda. Just dispatch a few people with good knowledge of English and some knowledge of history/politics, and they will do the job. If someone places undesirable information in WP, it can be easily removed by asking a couple more people to join the game on your side. These people should simply follow a few textbook strategies that were always used by Russian services.
  • Rule 1. Make social connections with people and create a good reputation about yourself ("good spy is everyone's best friend", said Stanislav Lunev); achieve a position of power. This means in WP setting: create some good content, make friends and became an administrator.
  • Rule 2. Do not do all job yourself, enroll some "useful idiots" instead. In WP context: find good allies to promote disinformation and suppress undesirable information, people with certain biases, appropriate for each specific case. The allies can be "left wing", anti user A, anti nation X, or pro nation Y, - this does not matter. They joint the battle and finally get blocked, damage their reputation, etc.
  • Rule 3. Stay focussed. Protect from undesirable information the most important articles first - those directly related to your employer and the wars and abuses committed by your employer.
  • Rule 4. Disable your foes. In WP setting: block your opponents or meticulously collect all evidence on your opponents and start RfCs and arbitration cases against them. Blame them precisely of the same misdeeds you are doing yourself. Use Big lie technique. It works.
  • Rule 5. The discipline. Everyone is authorized only to do certain things.
• Plan B. This place should be destroyed if plan A does not work. Attack best contributors, fuel conflicts between users, discredit the authority of Arbcom to achieve anarchy, try to promote troublemakers like user G. to ArbCom, etc. This is all standard.

Note that I do not make any personal accusations here. I am only telling that such strategies are standard and therefore would be likely implemented. I know all of that in part from the literature, and in part because I was used myself as a "useful idiot" in one of elections campaigns in Russia.Biophys (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

One personal reflection. The main manipulators wouldn't be administrators as that position is too visible. Remember that in communist puppet states, the main ministers weren't the decisive ones but their Soviet 'advisors'. So I would guess in such situation that manipulators who are made into admins would stay in background, only to come in decisive situations, when the main manipulators need help or desire destruction of potential obstacle.PS:Btw this isn't conspiracy theory-we already have examples of political groups like CAMERA or business lobby manipulating Wiki.

--Molobo (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Today, Russian intelligence can no longer recruit people on the basis of Communist ideals, which was the "first pillar" of KGB recruitment, said analyst Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy. "The second pillar of recruitment is a love for Russia. In the West, only Russian immigrants have feelings of filial obedience toward Russia. That’s precisely why [the SVR] works with them so often. A special division was created just for this purpose. It regularly holds Russian immigrant conferences, which Putin is fond of attending." (Interview with Konstantin Preobrazhensky ). Biophys (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)