User talk:Hodja Nasreddin: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:13, 18 June 2009

Welcome!

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration 3RR

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

No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online}

Speech freedom in Russia -- Andrey Kuznetsov

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

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

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

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

Надеюсь на конструктивное сотрудничество на страницах Википедии.

Евгений.

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

Rough translation courtesy GOOGLE TRANSLATE.

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

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

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

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

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

Eugene.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what about User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog? He has very similar pattern of edits as indef-blocked User:HanzoHattori (Chechnya, Caucasus, My Lai events, Ninja in popular culture, Iraq) as anyone can see - [1], [2]. Alæxis_¿question? 09:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

My condolences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you feel threatened

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

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

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

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

Info for yourself

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

I can see that you are a productive editor: [3][4]. I suggested you peace. OK? Biophys (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Russavia

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

Yes, I noticed the same. This is WP:ANI link [5] and look at links provided there. But you must study this first, and this is only a part of the story (excluding history of his first block, his pursuit of FaysalF, his recent talk with Jimbo and arbitrators, and his other recent activities).Biophys (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is a bit funny that the interwiki link on the ru:ВП:ЗКА goes elsewhere. As to the main subject, i do not really think anything can be done administratively (unless he is provoked to violate 3RR, which seems to be easy). It is just that the case seems pretty bizarre to me. Look, if there were several persons behind this thing, what practical purpose would be served in using the same account? In fact, it is apparently counter-productive, as the sole account can easily get blocked as it has been. I had been, by and lage, away from the En WP since last spring. I haven't the slightest doubt that the RF agencies (most likely the Foreign Ministry, i should think) had been tasked to "create a positive image of Russia globally" -- it was, in fact, officially announced by Putin some 3 years ago -- including through this resource which has become so influential due to the fact that Google provides links hereto among the top hits on its research findings list. But what struck me now (as opposed to about a year ago) is that back then there were a handful of editors pursuing this task (it is easy to see if you look up the history page of Putin from last winter). Now, we have just one left (there might have been some budget cuts due to the crisis -- no jokes), but he is unnaturally active. It is just curious, after all. Come to think of it, we need to find some RF government decisions on this "positive image" thing and put it in Putinism (ha! i keep speaking in puns to-night).Muscovite99 (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I know the people, and everyone is here. Please note that article Putin is not good or neutral. Look better at the history of Web brigades - I can not edit there; and I can not edit any Russian government-related pages, even those on human rights. Also look at the history of 2008 South Ossetian war - even the title is completely misleading - it is impossible to change the title (this should be Russian-Georgian war), much less improve the content. One can not even touch Holodomor, and so on. No, this is not what you think. Everything is much worse than it was a couple of years ago. Few to none people edit seriously on the modern Russia-related political subjects: I am not doing anything after being outed and stalked by several users; HanzoHattori was community banned after having a psychological breakdown; Colchicum is not really active; several good users from Eastern Europe stopped editing after being harassed by other users or unfairly treated by administrators. Even worse, the entire English WP seems to be in a state of meltdown: old ArbCom was constantly attacked (I have never seen anything like that before), and I have huge concerns about new ArbCom. As about Russavia, he was doing mostly technical edits, prior to paying attention to me after the beginning of Georgian war.Biophys (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are most likely right. I am not as familiar with this place as you are. Then, i have never been as active as you or many others. Enjoy my talk with Rssavia on his talk page. I am now indeed a very short distance from being totally banned from the RuWP, ostensibly for articles such as ru:Крещение Руси, which of course is a mere pretext; but i think i have made it very plain that their actions are shown as totally against the basic WP Policies.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, that discussion and accusations of other people being in the employ of Russian security services and the like was found by the WP:ARBCOM to be unhelpful. And yes, I did tell Muscovite what I did on my talk page, because due to it being yourself Biophys walking a very thin line by making these veiled accusations against myself and other editors. There are no MFA/MVD/FSB/KGB/etc agents on Wikipedia, as per Arbcom's findings, and as Arbcom's findings, it was also said that continuing such accusations are disruptive and do nothing for creating a harmonious environment on WP. The correct course of action would have been to tell Muscovite about the Arbcom's findings of fact, and encourage him to drop such things in the future, instead of directing him to something that was proven to be untrue. Now, I realise that this will be removed without a response, but I will note that you have been reminded about such things if the need should arise. Thank you, --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. You and your team are the "winners". Muscovite99 was blocked. Colchicum and Grey_fox are retired. Me too. Future belongs to you.Biophys (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're leaving? Would you stay if I give you a few dozen wikipedia awards for all your hard work? Ostap 03:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks. Honestly, I do not know. Maybe I will edit some Biology of Physics. Biophys (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested

Hi Biophys. Given your obvious interest in things regarding propaganda "teams", web brigades, conspiracies etc..(see the conversation above), I thought this might interest you. It just goes to show things aren't always so black and white. It gets really interesting in part 2. LokiiT (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am more interested in extermination of Russian scientists by the FSB.Biophys (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interested in? Or worried about? ;) --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a pity that Biophys doesn't take into account legal aspect of the problem. According to the laws of the Russian Federation, a number of activities dealing with "double purpose technologies", missile, nuclear, security stuff is considered illegal. The Russian Law on State Secrecy is more strict than it is in other countries. But after all, would you like a number of nuclear secrets to flee in hands of "rogue states"? I do not think it's in interests of the United States, or its citizens.[6]

ellol (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of them was proven to be guilty [7], said Nobel Prize winner Vitaly Ginzburg. Biophys (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to talk to a person who takes information from only one type of sources. [8], what about that about Sutyagin? ellol (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on

Come on Biophys, don't give up. This is silly. I think both your conduct and edits here are excellent. Ostap 04:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Silly? I gave up long time ago. I guess you know Russian. Then listen this song by Yuri Shevchuk or read this poem by Dmitry Bykov. This is hopeless.Biophys (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make this more clear, my edits are reverted in a few seconds by a group of Russian users.Biophys (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That must be tough, but hopefully WP:NPOV and the other WP:POLICIES will win out in the end (seriously, I hope so). Ostap 06:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so too. See that - a Russian GRU colonel sold hundreds women to slavery [9].Biophys (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One corrupt official/officer does not mean state sponsored slavery, right? It looks like he is under investigation now. (Igny (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Next time I will edit protein structure.Biophys (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the few bad apples storyline. Frankly, it wasn't funny the first time I heard it. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are trying to ~~piss all over~~ criticize Putin's regime. But please understand that I am not trying to embellish this regime when I am removing your unfair/unfounded/speculative criticisms. (Igny (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

"Мне жаль страну, где прощены убийцы и каждый пятый с ними заодно." (Vitaly Garmash, [10]).Biophys (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC) [11][reply]

Care to explain this? (this discussion is closed)

Would you care to explain this edit? You have done this quite a few times before -- redirect an article back to your preferred title, then make an edit to the other page, thereby disabling the ability of people to be able move articles. I have asked for an explanation on the talk page as to why you do this, and I think it requires an answer. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to move this page. But User:ellol still moved it by copy and paste. Acting in this manner is against WP:Consensus. Please do not blame me. This is unhelpful.Biophys (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just explained your move back. But why did you make an edit to the redirect page? (Igny (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I replied at article talk page. Let's debate everything there.Biophys (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All further comments comments here will be deleted per WP:NPA.Biophys (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, I take it this here and at the other page is what you are talking about when you say stalked by a team? Ostap 21:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be very careful here. Yes, I was a victim of personal attacks by several Russian users in the past, as I stated already in several ArbCom cases with supporting diffs. Am I stalked by a team? Yes, I think there is a high degree of coordination. R openly asked O, El and BB4 to jointly follow my edits, and that is precisely what they did, supported by A who pretends to be an uninvolved editor (R himself was invited by M and asked KK to join, but it was too late). As long as they revert my edits and place some Kremlin-style propaganda to the articles, I do not see any reason to continue editing. Please realize, I can not be a part of work that ultimately promotes disinformation. Doing so would be akin a scientific misconduct. Biophys (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but if you know that wikipedia is being used for disinformation, don't you now have an obligation to keep such things out? To leave now would be inexcusable. See, that is why you should not quit. Ostap 01:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a game. Players do not have obligations to the game. Even players with addiction. (Igny (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia is not a game but a large project run by volunteers aimed to create a large encyclopedia presenting the topics in neutral factual form giving room to all mainstream view points. It is not supposed to be used as a game promoting a particular viewpoint. Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%, that is why it is sad to see a user like Biophys who is committed to neutrality talk about leaving the project. Surely you agree? Ostap 04:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure that Biophys is so devoted to neutrality (as oppose to promotion of a particular point of view) but indeed it would be a sad day if he are leaving. I hope it is not true Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, I have significant problems with keeping my job. There is no much time to do anything here. But never tell "never".Biophys (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I thought the reason why you were thinking about leaving was wikipedia harassment. I guess that having no time is a good reason to leave. But we all appreciate the work you do on wikipedia. Good luck with job. Ostap 21:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, what the nonsense are you talking of? Of course, instead of admitting that your views often can't be supported by sources and require being revised then, it's easier to claim you are wikistalked. Aren't you ashamed yourselves?

You've won your war in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union and official publication of the Gulag Archipelago and a number of other previously banned books. Now it's the different country and different people. Pretending that you have a full grasp of it is as insane as claiming you have the knowledge of lifestyle of Indigenous Australians without ever visiting that country. ellol (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I am less active mostly because of harassment by you , Russavia and others. Yes, you all "work" together: [12]. I asked you many times not to come uninvited to my talk page. Next time I will report you to an administrator.Biophys (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, I mean it. Issuing personal threats with slang, calling me my real first name in a very suspicious context, and now hinting that you are also familiar with my biography ("without ever visiting that country" and "you won your war in 1991")...Biophys (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I kept this discussion going. I should have known that the team would show up. Ostap 20:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

sockpuppet

Is this user [13] a sockpuppet? Ostap 01:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure he is a sockpuppet of User:Jacob Peters. See Here. Could you ask an uninvolved admin. of better file a checkuser report?Biophys (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is also him.Biophys (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both are blocked Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is him again Biophys (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LINKFARM

Please note Wikipedia is not a WP:LINKFARM. The links you removed on the computer science article were discussed on the project talk page by Offliner. The Nashi links are news sources - we aren't a repository/archive of links relating to subjects of articles. If links contain information which is important for the reader, information should be included within the article and the link can be used as a reference, this is all contained in WP:EL. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with WP:LINKFARM. These are not "mere collections of external links". I checked the links, found them very convenient for a reader, and therefore restored them. Please do not remove useful links from wikipedia.Biophys (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about possible conflict of interest

The recent edits in Alexander Goldfarb (microbiologist), Yuri Felshtinsky, Boris Berezovsky, Akhmed Zakayev and other articles seem to indicate, that there might be a danger of WP:COI issues here. Therefore, I must ask you: do you have a real-life connection to one of these people? Do you work for Berezovsky, Goldfarb, or for companies, foundations, political parties, web sites or other internet teams financed or otherwise backed by these people, either as a paid employee or as a voluntary member? Sorry for having to ask this question, but asking you directly is better than just guessing. Offliner (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After skimming through WP:COI I see that there is nothing wrong in working directly with these people and writing about them in Wikipedia, as long as common sense shows that the writing is neither promotional nor propagandist. Stick to the good faith, please.--ilgiz (talk)

I do find it curious that Offliner would allege COI over a number of articles where Offliner has a content conflict with Biophys. Perhaps I'll launch a "is it COI" or not campaign over the set of articles getting tagged and edited based on defending the official Russian Federation position? (Any position that has no facts to support it?) The feigned (IMO) apology (given the vitriol and WP:ALPHABETSOUP elsewhere) would indicate this is simply a clumsy attempt at harrassment. PetersV TALK 15:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being affiliated with these people doesn't forbid one from editing their articles. But if a COI exists, then it is a good idea to let other editors know. Offliner (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Have you ever been affiliated with the Russian government or any Russian official or politician? Colchicum (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow his steps in all articles where he has his fingers in it - and you will find an adequate answer. ;) - Elysander (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I have not. Offliner (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is harassment, plain and simple.

In modern Russian politics, Boris Berezovsky is the Universal Bogeyman. The Emmanuel Goldstein, if you will. Asking somebody if he works for Berezovsky is like asking somebody in USA casually if he works for Osama Bin Laden in late september of 2001. It's nothing but a thinly veiled insult, on par with the Nashists "giving" Shaakashvili a dried up rose and a well-gnawed necktie.

(Mandatory BLP disclaimer: it's not that Berezovsky ever did anything as heinous as Osama; it's only that the rulers of Russia have been cultivating a similar kind of reputation for him.) Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offliner, then please answer my question: under what nick did you edit previously? You are obviously not a newcomer based on your first edits in WP. But I need an honest answer please. I personally do not mind publicly debating the question if everyone here (me, Offliner, Russavia and others) has a conflict of interest. But unfortunately, some people in the past blamed me for even slightest hints that a conflict of interest might be involved.Biophys (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also admire your logic. Indeed, Berezovsky would be really stupid if he did not hire a couple of people to undermine Putin in wikipedia. If he funds grani.ru, why would not he hire someone here. And if he hired someone, that would be certainly me, based on my edits like this one. But Berzovsky forgot about one little problem, and that is you who stands on his way. Come on. That was not Berezovsky who ordered the bombings in Moscow. That were Putin and Patrushev. Of course they had good advisers (Yuri Dubov hinted that advise came from Philipp Bobkov).Biophys (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first and only account I have ever used in English Wikipedia. I have another account in German WP, but it was created later than this.

Why are you so sure that Putin ordered the bombings? The most (actually: all) peer-reviewed academic sources I've seen say that the jury is still out on who is responsible. There simply isn't enough evidence. As a scientist, how can you be so sure about the theories without direct, peer-reviewed evidence? Perhaps the fact that you are already so convicted is an indication of prejudice or biasedness in your editing, which you are not aware of yourself? Obviously, you have read all the books by Satter, Litvinenko, Felshtinsky & Co. very thoroughly. But have you also given enough attention and consideration to sources which do not support the Berezovsky-initianed conspiracy theories? Offliner (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember, that Basayev and Khattab's terrorist invasion of Russian territory had already given enough reason to start a war. What do you think would happen if terrorists would try to conquer American territory? A major war would definitely follow as a retaliation. It is a top-priority task for every nation to defend its territory from outside attack. Why would Putin need any more justification for launching a war? Offliner (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is not US. People in Moscow could not care less about Dagestan. To get popular support for Putin one needed terrorism acts in Moscow. That is what all books tell.Biophys (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the Berezovsky-sponsored books that you read, sure. But how about answering my original question? Offliner (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we'll need Conspiracy theories involving Boris Berezovsky. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good cop/bad cop

Hello. I removed the list because it didn't seem to add anything to the reader's understanding of the interrogation technique - it was just a list of film and TV quotes where someone made a joke about the good cop/bad cop routine. It wasn't a single good-faith edit, it was the standard slow pop-culture accretion of "oh yeah, there was a scene in my favourite film where they made a joke about this, too".

If there was a film, play, book or TV series based entirely around the concept of good cop/bad cop, exploring and commenting on the technique in some detail, then that would be worth mentioning, but I don't think that "In the Simpsons, Selma once made a joke about 'good cop, bad cop' when flirting with a cop" adds anything the article. --McGeddon (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Kolchak

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Aleksandr Kolchak. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What VANDALISM are you talking about?. I left this text about 25,000, but simply provided better attribution: "In Ekaterinburg region alone more than 25,000 Bolshevik rebels were shot according to Great Soviet Encyclopedia".Biophys (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have now twice deleted the Mayer reference with no reason given for either time. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Aleksandr Kolchak, you will be blocked from editing. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please follow WP:CIV? Thanks.Biophys (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, you have done this on enough previous occasions to know better. For example, in your edits to at least several other articles, including yesterday's edits to the Valeriya Novodvorskaya one (where you misrepresented the references in the article), you did pretty much the same thing (see Wikipedia's guidelines on what sneaky vandalism is), which I good-naturedly pointed out to you without issuing any warnings, simply reverting back with a justification (though this did not stop you from attempting various other reverts). The purpose of the warnings is to let you know that you are clearly in violation of procedure. I see that you are already doing similar things on the Novodvorskaya article right now (I will explain shortly on Talk:Valeriya Novodvorskaya. Please try to have respect for Wikipedia's policies on NPOV, deletionism, and tendentious editing; thanks. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that I intentionally "misrepresented the references in the article"? Why?Biophys (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This also is laid out at talk:Valeriya Novodvorskaya. Best, PasswordUsername (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PasswordUsername is correct. The actions taken on the Kolchak page constitute serious violations of Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not vandalize articles with the purpose of imposing censorship.Kupredu (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no vandalism going on. There is a dispute over the reliablity of the source Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and phrasing of a particular sentence. Accusing other editors of "vandalism" in cases of straight forward content disputes is considered a breach of good faith.radek (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry to be a little suspicious here - in fact, I apologize in advance if I'm incorrect - but user Kupredu is a fairly new account with a ... "particular" pattern of edits here.radek (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Biophys, I'm sorry about the vandal warnings–I'm still unfamiliar with the Wikipedia procedure as far as a lot of things–in retrospect I do think that I misinterpreted your stance on the Kolchak article as vandalism, and I will be more circumspect about such things in the future. Although obviously both of us have sharply differing views, working in the direction of consensus would be the optimal path. I still strongly disagree with the radical edits you made to Valeriya Novodvorskaya, the rationale for which I simply do not see. I hope we can resolve this on talk, the input of others considered as well. Apologies for the hastiness and sharpness of the altercation today. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the apology. If you are sincere, please do not revert my edits in WP articles and do not follow my edits. OK?Biophys (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a free user-edited encyclopedia, where anyone can edit the entries that they gravitate towards. I don't stalk your edits, though there seems to be some overlapping interest.

I did just post my line-by-line translation of Novodvorskaya's apartheid remarks on the Talk:Valeriya Novodvorskaya page–in case you're interested in taking a look over it. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said that "you did not stalk your edits, though there seems to be some overlapping interest." Sorry, but you never edited Aleksandr Kolchak, and you came there only revert me and call me "vandal" without any discussion. Or perhaps you actually edited this article through a different account?Biophys (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, I'm not the one who found you and started making false sock puppet claims in order to investigate you–it was very much vice versa, and didn't start off on such a good note. How about a little WP:AGF? PasswordUsername (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 users

It's a bit strange that both these users all of sudden showed up on the same pages, with roughly the same pov at about the same time. I think Kapredu is a pretty clear cut case. I don't know about the other, but both probably should be checked.radek (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish, you could submit an SPI report, or I may do this tomorrow (I have to go right now).Biophys (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making sockpuppet accusations against users you don't agree with every few days is definitely not WP:AGF, though. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, we're such an efficient sockpuppet force that we/I edit from two different IPs at the same minute: 1 2. Maybe you should try linking me to somebody else–at least your friends might have some ideas: User talk:Digwuren#sock. Please don't lecture anybody about harrassment after this. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PasswordUsername, if you're not a JP sockpuppet then I deeply apologize. But the circumstances were a bit suspicious - two different, new, users, editing in much the same way, on the same articles, within a short span of time with at least one of them (not you) having a very similar pattern to a banned user. I think your using anon IPs also gave some people pause. And yes, you're right, it's basically impossible to suggest someone is a sockpuppet without violating AGF.radek (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget familiarity with the alphabet soup. New users typically only know one or two of the most heavily published Wikipedia terms such as WP:NPOV. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must be guilty–I read the rules. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And old Wikipedia battles. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already admitted I'd been editing as an IP for years, and you are well aware of it. Anything more? PasswordUsername (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Perhaps we even talked before. Thank you for taking care of me. Biophys (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, did you also edit as User:66.12.15.226 aka User:71.111.214.43? This user did nothing wrong. I am just curious.Biophys (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to make up your mind as to whether I'm a Russian agent or an IP in North Carolina? You know very well I edit from the Northeast, not the upper South. Are you ever going to stop? PasswordUsername (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure what you are talking about. I only asked if you edited under those IPs. You said that you edited as IP for years, and the person who edited under those IPs reminds me you: excellent, but very long explanations; similar editing interests, and apparently also dynamic IP numbers, which could come from anywhere. You have no obligation to answer. Are you talking about KGB-related WP articles that I edited?Biophys (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

After the Russian apartment bombings page was unprotected, you began edit warring yet again. You have been blocked for 31 hours. Nakon 05:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should've sticked to one revert. I strongly suggest, considering the amount of people gunning for you, you stick for a long while to self-enforced 1RR. It will work out for the best, trust me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I trust your judgment.Biophys (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roobit back?

Hi,

do you think Special:Contributions/90.191.10.50 is User:Roobit? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very probable, I would say. If you find a similar peculiar theory in one of his off-Wikipedia blogs, that will be almost certain. Colchicum (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is he still alive? Or he couldn't stand the humiliation of being banned here. Because I failed to find a single active blog of him. Colchicum (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously enough, that persecuted, humiliated and crucified figure seems to live in the land of his archenemies, those bloody Estonians. --Miacek (t) 20:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy! Colchicum (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to settle it: Roobit is still active and still battling "etnofascists". Who will file the WP:SPI? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, have you noticed this, it can sleep! Colchicum (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Quite interesting. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 05:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP is hardblocked for one month for hate speech (aka disruptive editing) and for being a likely sock of an indefblocked user Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the address appears to belong to Estpak's dynamic allocation pool, a month may be overkill. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response in re. Sockpuppetry

Well, that was interesting reading indeed. Note that User:Giovanni33 meets dissenting views with the same "POV pushing" model as user:Viriditas. There are striking similarities in their writing styles, debate techniques, and refusal to acknowledge consensus and to roundly ignore countering viewpoints. The same snarky comments and objectification of the "vast right wing conspiracy" are used to marginalize and objectify dissenting editors. Also, note that the article has a number of "curious" IP edits that have only made one or two edits, but which center on this article almost exclusively, then are never used again. Having looked now at the history of the banned user in question, I must admit that the evidence is rather strong, though I am certainly not an impartial observer.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, where is O. crassicaudatus gone? Colchicum (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. She archived our discussion after never reaching a "consensus" she liked, then went away (I'm not complaining) Check out the edit history I have compiled: [[14]] They are active, yet magically never post at the same time. Viriditas appears to be the master account, and user:Giovanni33 her puppet. That's what I am sensing anyway.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I think one needs more evidence to have the case be accepted by Checkuser. I will look at this later, do not have time right now.Biophys (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please see two edits at the same time: [15] and [16]. In fact I did not mean him.Biophys (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good catch. That eliminates one.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC you might be interested in

here (note: I didn't give it that inelegant title).Mosedschurte (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re the 3RR: Can you believe the claims that he/she was "in the process" of moving those comments?!?! Simply unreal. Look at her edit reasons each time. She had decided not to allow "non-outsider" comments in the Rfc and simply deleted every Talk Page comment that fell outside her definition of such. She states as much in her edit reasons for each delete.

If you think not replying is the best thing, then I won't bother. But it's pretty outrageous that he/she would spin such falsehoods on the ANI board when they can just look at her yelling all caps comments in some of the deletes to see for themselves (hope they do).Mosedschurte (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I saw this many times. There is a problem: one can waste too much time and nerves in such conflicts, instead of creating good content (which you are so capable of). Try not to be involved in conflicts if you can.Biophys (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hodja Nasreddin is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

Thanks for your Guidance

As a new contributor I felt it was a darke place until you turned up. I really appreciate your support and guidance for the new topics: Mevalonate inhibition and Cholesterol Depletion. I have a review paper on these topics (PUBMED indexed) being published shortly (another first experience) and as you recognised there is some ground breaking research to be highlighted here. Thanks again Glynwiki (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to ask about anything. I am doing a project related to biological membranes in "real life".Biophys (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: vandalism

If you prefer slandering world leaders it is your choice, you have apparently feel you have a right to do it, but still slander is slander, and it will be removed, because it has no room in encyclopedia. Heads of State, and politicians, that are slandered by your actions, can not respond to it, but I can, so either you will appoligize for empty accusations of vandalism, or I will have to ask to stop leaving your messages to me, because until you have not appoligized, I feel I have nothing to talk about with you. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoSoSocialist (talk • contribs) 07:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never slandered world leaders. I restored perfectly sourced and relevant materials deleted by you and others, and I will continue this in the future. Please read WP:RS and WP:NPOV. If you do not want to talk - do not talk. This is your right. Biophys (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]