User talk:Russavia

File:Preved.svg

ПРЕВЕД!

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave me a message, alternatively you are welcome to email me. If you leave a message here for me and it requires a reply, I will reply here, so you may want to add my talk page to your watchlist. All users have my permission to remove any bot messages from my talk page at any time.

Good removal

Hi,

[1] is a good removal. Timely-thoughts is not merely some "Joe Blow's personal site", it's a site run by the banned Wikipedian User:Roobit. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 05:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad edit

Hi,

[2] is a bad edit. The reference says "А вот для заметной части эстонцев (в том числе и для некоторых эстонских русских - для тех из них, чьи предки жили в Эстонии до 1939, как, например, староверы Причудья) Вторая мировая война имеет один-единственный смысл: это война, в ходе которой их страна потеряла свою независимость, стала жертвой варварского иноземного нашествия.". If you read Russian, you could see that it explicitly refutes ethnic lines in this matter.

On another note, I've noticed you like to make threats about including in articles things you appear to believe your content opponents do not like. Turnabout is fair play, so I have to ask: would you like the mention of barbarians in the quote above to be included in this article, and other articles discussing the related concept? I can think of quite a number of articles to which this is relevant. How about ... let's see ... World War II, for starters? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the reference[3] states:

Maria Mälksoo, a researcher at the International Center for Defense Studies in Tallinn, views the controversy surrounding the Bronze Soldier statue, a Soviet World War II memorial in Tallinn's city center, as a moment when "[Estonia] and Russia seek more recognition from Europe of the Europeanness of their [respective] efforts in WWII, while, at the same time, denying the Europeanness of the other." Estonians see the monument as a symbol of Soviet occupation and repression and its removal as a gesture of liberation and espousal of European values, while ethnic Russians see it as a marker of Soviet victory over Nazi Germany, their claim to reside in Estonia, and their contribution to the outcome of European history.

It is important that we distinguish this, particularly as ethnic Russians make up almost a third of the Estonian population. Many polls have been done, some are even mentioned in these articles, and the support/opposition towards the monument is clearly split down ethnic lines. We also should not forget that the site of the monument in central Tallinn was the site of quite a few incidents between Estonian and Russian nationalists. These are the types of things that need to be given context in these articles, as it will help our readers gain a better understanding of these topics, particularly when there are differences down ethnic lines. We are doing ourselves a disservice if we don't.

In relation to your other note, all I can say is that if articles were written from the start by including both POVs from the beginning, this wouldn't be necessary. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In most cases, the official position of the Russian Federation as well the collective memory of Russian society emerged from the Soviet era is mentioned. However, you must also realize that in issues such as "occupation" of the Baltics, the official Russian position is not supported in basis of fact, so that we have (1) what Russia labels the "nationalist, revisionist" position which is, in fact, fully supportable with basis in fact, and we have (2) the Russian (nee Soviet) version, which manipulates, ignores, or simply declares facts which are not substantiated, for example, the Duma passing a resolution to "remind" Latvia that it joined the USSR legally according to international law. I welcome representing all versions of the past, however, what is factually supported and not also must be represented appropriately. There are the facts of situations and then there is the, at times, conflicting, Russian POV/"version." Some day Russia will, I trust, deal more constructively with its Soviet past, but that time has unfortunately not yet arrived. PetersV       TALK 14:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss your grievances on talk page and don't remove referenced text.--Kober^Talk 17:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And don't make out that it is Russians only. Hell, even the UNHCR recognises the policy. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Will you ever learn to read the text and sources cited in it before making accusations? Have I ever said that it is "Russians only"? As a native English speaker, you should know that "especially Russians" and "only Russians" are two different things. Have a look at the source which is a well-established one. And discuss your changes on the article talk page. Otherwise I will deal with your edits as WP:Vandalism.--Kober^Talk 18:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ghia Nodia? Surely you jest. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And what about Dzugayev? You may want to check the reliability of the publication where Nodia's passage come from? And please continue this discussion on the article talk page. This is not the right place to do that.--Kober^Talk 18:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

From Budapest

2009-03-11 uploaded to Commons: Orosz-Kult-haz.JPG (Russian cultural centre building in Budapest at 1062 Budapest, Andrássy út 120.) - Привет! - Vadaro —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

I took some picture today for you:

• Embassy
• Embassy and consulate
• Cultural Centre
• Trade representative building1
• Trade representative building2

Some note:

• The address of the Embassy is 1062 Budapest, Bajza u. 35.
• 1062 Budapest, Andrássy út 104. is the address of the office of the consul.
• The Embassy is in the older building on left side and the consulate office is in the modern building on right side.

I tried to take some pictures of the Russian School, but it has 3-metres high wall around and the representative of the school refuse to allow taking pictures from its garden. He told me, I can ask a permission from the consulate for that. Samat (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

1993 Russian constitutional crisis

Hi, I've added a new report and I think that - regardless of that outcome - protecting the page is not necessary. Even if he re-adds some of his own interpretations, I'd prefer the article to be unprotected, as I keep adding minor references whenever I find a thing at google books or just on Internet. (Personally, I'd prefer if the single purpose account gets sent to permanent wikibreak) --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it is really cute that Miacek brings a friend to continue his personal attacks and POV push of the article. I am really sorry if I am wrong but I have not seen you contributing to the article before. If you did, you would have seen that I tried to reword the second paragraph 3 times only to be reverted back by Miacek. I agree to get the article protected. DR2006kl (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Miacek has come to me I think only as I am an editor who edits on Russian topics. Nothing more, nothing less. In future I wouldn't mind helping out on the article, but at the moment I have other articles which I am working on, and hence that article is not a priority for myself. However, DR2006kl, what you are doing on the article is an example of WP:TEDIOUS editing (look at Wikipedia:TEDIOUS#Characteristics_of_problem_editors; point number 2). If you have information which you think should be in the article, it needs to be supported by a reliable source, otherwise it can be removed without question, but reverting continually isn't going to look any good in terms of edit warring. I might suggest that you both ask at WT:RUSSIA for assistance in determining what is what, and go from there. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I first reverted only after 3R my Miacek. Your comment about sources is off mark as the conflict is about introduction. Introduction usually does not need references but a clear and short description of the event. I have already taken most of the inflammatory language out of the introduction (such as brown-reds, etc.) but Miacek insists on laying a blame on the parliament in the second paragraph of the introduction. It is pity that you are coming in and taking sides without looking at what is going on.DR2006kl (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

More to the point of tedious editing, I disagree with the ban but I did not know how to dispute it. I have had 2R and 2 honest edits trying to reword the paragraph when I was reported by Miacek. DR2006kl (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ambassadors

Please be careful, I don't think that "Ambassadors of the Soviet Union to..." is better than "Soviet ambassadors to..." as a category name, because then we will have to create the ridiculous category "Ambassadors of the Soviet Russia to..." for 1918-1922. Colchicum (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories Ambassadors of Soviet Russia to xxx aren't actually ridiculous, as there were diplomats of Soviet Russia to several countries, including Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bukharan People's Soviet Republic; and then there were Plenipotentiaries from Soviet Russia to several other countries. "Soviet Ambassadors" is actually quite ambiguous, believe it or not. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, then it is up to you to integrate the existing "Soviet ambassadors" categories with the categories you create, and probably there should be some unifying category, otherwise the "Ambassadors of Soviet Russia" category wouldn't make much sense. Colchicum (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Adolph Joffe certainly falls under "Ambassadors of Soviet Russia to Germany", not "Ambassadors of the Soviet Union to Germany". Colchicum (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He is indeed of "Soviet Russia" serving in 1918/1919. After I finish with my current project, I may do Germany next; this will help sort out USSR from RSFSR. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Please check out Portal Diskussion:Berlin/Bilderwünsche --Flominator (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have noticed your edit history as regards to articles related to Russian government policy, and ask you to think twice before littering my talkpage with rude accusations and warnings. Anyway, you are saying that Google owned YouTube has committed a violation the Georgian pop group's right to its own work; but how can you be so sure? The YouTube uploader seems to specialise on this type of video, and Youtube has been used by many copyright owners to promote their material. So, what specific indications support your allegation of copyright infringment is this case? --Hapsala (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The issues were raised on the article talk page, and you refused to take notice of what was written. As to rude accusations, your total lack of assumption of good faith is astounding. Don't do such things in future, and especially not with reasons with are utter bullshit. Thanks! --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Putin

I remember you from the Criticism of Putin AfD, where you made one of the best points about criticism articles I can remember. This is why I'm talkpaging you: do you want to go about splitting the content into other articles? Sceptre ^(talk) 00:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)