User talk:Hodja Nasreddin

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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)

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 ITalk 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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).

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• No, I am more interested in extermination of Russian scientists by the FSB.Biophys (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Interested in? Or worried about? ;) --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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))

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

One has to look at their priorities; is the project worth losing your job over? If you don't work, you don't earn money. If you don't earn money, you can't buy food. If you can't buy food, you don't eat. If you don't eat, you don't shit. If you don't shit, you die. I have observed on numerous occasions in the past you stating that you were going on an extended wikibreak, due to the same problems with work, only to return to editing within minutes. It could likely be that you lack the self-control to stay away, even when your work is suffering. This isn't having a go but a genuine observation. If your employment situation is bad, and you can pin part of that problem on your wiki editing, perhaps you may want to self-enforce a wikibreak with Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer. Only you know the situation with your employment and how bad it is, so only you can determine what length wikibreak will enable you to turn the employment situation around. Again, the project is not worth your livelihood, so do consider this friendly advice. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)