User talk:BesterRus

Welcome!

Hello, BesterRus, 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 username 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 topics, you may want to check out the WikiProject Russia and its task forces, the Russia Portal and the project discussion page. You might even want to add these pages to your watchlist.

Again, welcome! GreyHood ^Talk 13:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet subjects

Hello! Just few advices for you, in case you continue to work on the Soviet-related topics.

Do not delete the large referenced parts of any article completely without replacing them with a better text. If you find some such parts to be a conspiracy theories rather than a neutral representation of history, just reduce them in size per WP:WEIGHT so that they do not overshadow the true and impartially represented historic facts.
It doesn't look nice when you delete sourced material, even if it is conspiracy-like and often erroneous. Better not just remove it, but replace with some other text, preferably a properly sourced text.
It makes sense to develop the parts of the article less-prone to controversy, such as expanding the parts of Kirov biography related to his administration of the economy. This also could help to maintain WP:WEIGHT for other more problematic parts of the story.
You should make referenced additions to the articles. That's why you might be interested in creating articles about those historians and books, which you use as references. For example, you could translate an article about ru:Жуков, Юрий Николаевич and create some articles about his books. GreyHood ^Talk 13:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear BesterRus: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Steven Zhang, at their talk page.

MedcabBot (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more advice

Be civil please, and avoid WP:Personal attacks against the other participants of discussions you take part in. It doesn't matter what opinions other people support, even if they are entirely wrong by your standards, you still should be civil and avoid accusing other people personally or in group with labels like "dishonest". This is counterproductive and doesn't help. GreyHood ^Talk 18:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry for to strong a statement, I've kind of misread your statement on Holodomor (it is a bit emotional in parts). Nevertheless, as a general rule, this advice holds true (again sorry for reading morals). GreyHood ^Talk 19:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a typo, it might have facilitated the misreading ;) BesterRus (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going on vacation for the next week and will have a limited or no access to wiki. So you need to continue the discussions on Kirov and Holodomor on your own (Paul Siebert also misses for the last past days but I hope he will return to editing soon). You see, some things on Wikipedia might get rather prolonged, just get on with it. If you can't achieve significant results, just wait for the other editors to join the discussion. Adding more text and more sources is always a good idea. Cheers! GreyHood ^Talk 23:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we quickly reached an impasse on Kirov in your absence. I'm unsure as to the way to proceed at this point. I asked for another editor's assistance (Steven Zhang), but it seems he's got too much stuff to handle. I guess I'll just wait for when you're back and then hopefully we can make this thing move forward one way or another. Honestly, I never expected that much resistance for an article as simple as Kirov. My plan was to eventually edit Stalin's article, but first I wanted to approach it through smaller articles like Kirov. Now Kirov's talk page looks like WW1 trench warfare, so apparently my plan wasn't as perfect as I'd imagined.BesterRus (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya

Hey, just wanted to give a heads up, I responded on my talk page. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STALK

This is just to let you know about such policy. Please keep in mind. Of course if someone edited an article/subject before, it would not be strange that he returns to editing the same. Biophys (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of that policy and it already crossed my mind that you were following my edits for some reason. I even considered making another account to get rid of it, which I fully intend to do for some articles. Anyhow, this obsession of yours will bring you no sense of accomplishment, nor is it healthy in any way, and it will probably escalate with time from what I remember from my psychology courses. I'm sorry my edits make you feel that way, but I can't help you.BesterRus (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not imply anything wrong by anyone at this point. However, based on your response, you should also check WP:SOCK, just to be informed. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the only reason I'm making a new account is for you and your friend to stop following me :) BesterRus (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the thing. Some people are watching articles in the area of their interest (usually something they edited before). This is not just me: there is a notice from user DBaba on your talk page. As about opening new account, yes, you are welcome to make "clean start" as explained here. Biophys (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of sources and representation thereof

I am glad for editors who contribute Russia-related content, being a closet Russophile myself. Regarding "impasses", you will find your time on Wikipedia will be most constructive sticking to mainstream scholarship. I've been a bit disappointed in your recent edits based on interpretations of Soviet jurisprudence as holding sway over undisputed events. How you spend your time on Wikipedia is up to you, but it's always more constructive to avoid conflict, so at least make sure to discuss changes first. No response necessary, feel free to delete (not that you haven't already). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you consider mainstream historians? Quantity isn't quality in these matters. For instance, there were very mainstream Nazi historians at the time, and they were very accepted by the large audience. I hope you don't take offense in this example, by no means am I trying to compare your historians to Nazis, but I hope you get my point. Conquest's (I suppose that is your author of choice) sources are weak and he's been caught on lies numerous times. However mainstream or popular he may be, I'm not about to use his books as sources any time soon. I'd rather stick to archival evidence and to authors who base their findings on archives and not on unscientific extrapolations. BesterRus (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The work of some historians "based on archives," e.g., Dyukov disputing the deportation of Estonians in cattle cars as a lie based on archival evidence, is laughable at best; thus, stating something is work based on archives does not inherently give it any more reliability. So, as to mainstream or reputable/reliable, certainly not Dmitry Lyskov. Lastly, your starting your response here with your twisting of "mainstream" is really quite unwelcome as you expected, which twisting I can only take as a sign you're not particularly interested in constructive discourse. I do get your "point," but perhaps it is not one you intended to communicate. Best, PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just followed me into another article and reverted my edit without addressing the discussion I started, and without providing a single source, just your opinion. Way to be constructive! You just made me laugh a fair amount, thanks :) BesterRus (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you really want to know what's mainstream and what's not, there's been a social survey in Russia a few months ago, it was conducted in 77 regions, more than 36,000 people participated in the survey. The survey was about de-sovetization and de-stalinization. If you really want to know what's mainstream, I suggest you take a look at it - http://axio.eot.su/ As you will see, 70% of respondents do NOT welcome de-stalinization and 90% do NOT welcome de-sovetization. There are more details in the pdf. You obviously weren't aware of what's mainstream, so I hope that link will be helpful. BesterRus (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad we have come to be mutual sources of amusement in such a short time span. It would help if your changes cited secondary sources and not primary (law ABC says X, N convicted in accordance with...). But I digress. Regarding popular opinion of de-Sovietization and de-Stalinization within Russia, I have no doubt as to the desires of the Russian (citizens of...) populace after nearly a century of propaganda as to what gives them comfort and predictability in the face of an uncertain future.

Certainty of or (selective) amnesia within communal memory is independent of the reliability or unreliability of such memory—which memory is inadmissible for encyclopedic purposes except where cited in secondary sources focused on communal memory. That is, while communal memory is a fascinating topic, communal memory itself is not a reliable source. (And thank you for the source.)

As for the law of..., that had been a feature of Soviet life since the Volga basin in 1921-22 and on into the Holodomor. So, completely related to my area of interest. If you change article content without prior discussion and I feel there is no editorial basis for your content change, I might revert you again. You, of course, are free to revert any such undiscussed content changes on my part as well. On the other hand, prior discussion will avoid future misunderstandings. Don't take it personally. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for having missed your article talk page entry. Regardless, next time discuss first, then change after gaining consensus, not change content and then notify. If you think something requires additional citations, request citations, don't delete content. Regardless of your contentions, barging in and deleting prior stable content will tend to be undone. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot to mention you appear to have "followed" Biophys. Let's just stick to content. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is hilarious, first you want mainstream, now you don't, whenever it suits you. And poor Russians who've been affected by communist propaganda, but somehow while they lived in heavy anti-communist propaganda for last 20 years, they weren't affected by that one at all, amazing!! Must be the broken collective memory!! Something must be broken, because communism is evil and bloodthirsty! It's such a good thing there are these Baltic states who play puppet to Americans in the region, because they remember whatever America tells them happened. While organizing SS parades, calling Nazi the liberators and trying to push Russians out of its territory, depriving them of natural human rights. Cause SS parades are mainstream! And yes, your logic is flawless, of course. Please continue to instruct me on the way to think, we Soviets have hard time to understand how capitalism is superior when our levels of production dropped to the levels of 1950-1960 after 8 years of American-suggested reforms. We need more brainwashing to really appreciate the "invisible hand". BesterRus (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Communal memory survey

I took a quick look at the main page. Having some experience in surveys, the questions are not worded in a non-neutral manner; they are worded in a manner guaranteed (whether intended or not) to garner the most votes against objective reconcilement with the past. If you like, we can discuss the survey when I've had a chance to review. I often find it's more constructive to discuss and debate a topic when it's not directly related to article content. Do let me know if you have any interest. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Download Суд Времени, you'll see how many vote for what ideas. Same results. Useless attempts to distort reality from your part. BesterRus (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]