User talk:Russavia: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:51, 18 March 2009

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.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Damn, it sometimes looks like a big fight - one bear against a pack of wolves. FeelSunny (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

I took some picture today for you:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

FYI

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

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)[reply]

Hi, I see that someone has takenn it back to AfD, so I have placed my opinion there, and I will think about creating Domestic policy of Vladimir Putin and/or associated articles, where information can be split out from the main article and expanded upon. This subject is also unusual in that we also have Putinism, which is just another WP:POVFORK criticism article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koov?

See Greenpo. Looks like Koov, but I just wanted to be sure. The same interest in removing Kosovo from diplomatic templates. Let me know if you have an opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell with this one, as there are actually many constructive edits in amongst them. But like Koov, the edits are limited mainly to the templates and diplomatic missions, and the username is similar to User:Kinpo, which is one of his socks. I'd hazard a guess with almost certainty that it is Koov. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your response. I guess this is "no". Biophys (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisting of Abkhazia and South Ossetia

I thought you might be interested to see this. User:Pietru is removing Abkhazia and South Ossetia from a list of nations and regions on the Europe article. Kosovo is listed with disclaimer, but Abkhazia and South Ossetia are unable to be listed with same conditions. Also, even places like Svalbard and Isle of Man are listed, yet there is no room for Abkhazia and South Ossetia according to User:Pietru because "only Russia recognizes these 'countries'". Something needs to be done about this. --Tocino 06:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want too look at my recent contribs, serial stalker Digwuren and Martintg are removing A & SO from lists, whilst leaving Taiwan and Kosovo. It is POV-pushing on their part. Either they all stay, or they all go. There is no room for leeway here. It has to be all or nothing. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're being uncivil. Please withdraw your meritless accusations. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will also post a message at the Abkhazia and Ossetia wikiprojects as well. It's absolutely unacceptable for serial stalkers such as Digwuren and Martintg to remove this information, but leave Kosovo and Taiwan. Also, you will find that on one of them, Martintg has removed Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but has put Aland back in. It seems that people need to learn some things such as the Montevideo Convention. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may make an observation, in the diplomatic missions by country articles we include countries which are recognised by at least one other country that has widespread recognition. Therefore we do include articles for Taiwan, Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. On the basis of this A and SO should appear on the list (as should the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus). You may wish to highlight this to Digwuren and Martintg. Kransky (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you may make an observation. The key to whenever Abkhazia, Kosovo, South Ossetia, Taiwan are listed as independent states, is that a notation should be included which states their independent status is disputed. This is not the EU/NATOpedia, it is the Wikipedia, and all POVs have to be present; the EU/NATO speak for themselves, they do not dicate policy nor POV on Wikipedia. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and a word of warning Digwuren. If you don't stop stalking my edits, then I will filing an arbitration case against you and others. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're quite mistaken on who's in the wrong here. Let me be clear:

If you do not stop your personal attacks direct at me, I will be filing for arbitrative remedy. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do it. And then you can explain why you turn up on every article I edit on Wikipedia. And you can also explain the unexplained, tendetious revisions of my edits, such as here. And I promise I won't mention IP addresses from the University of Tartu also reverting my edits in remote areas of Wikipedia; funny that, isn't it? But I will mention your vehement POV-pushing, with your insistence of removing Abkhazia and South Ossetia whilst leaving Kosovo, and I will also mention Martintg's stalking and reverting of edits by myself; in one instance, one revert removed Abkhazia and South Ossetia but re-inserted Aland; since when is Aland recognised as a country. You would be better served coming to a logical inclusion, rather than stalking my edits and tendetiously reverting edits without discussion. And of course, it will be clearly noted on any remedy that it is yourself who was banned for a year for such shit. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it will also be mentioned that you violated WP:LINKVIO on We Don't Wanna Put In in the most tendentious manner possible, and failed to WP:AGF with it, and even refused to heed the warning on the talk page. I see now why there was an arbcom which dealt with you Digwuren; you treat WP as a battleground, and are a POV-pusher of the worst kind. Now, either discuss the issues, rather than stalking, blindly reverting, not assuming good faith, and generally just being a WP:DICK. I'm here to have a little fun, not to get involved in the bullshit that your ilk is intent on pursuing. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the volume and breath of articles you edit, and that a very small subset of these articles intersect with the range of articles we edit, your accusations of stalking have absolutely no foundation in reality. These personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith must stop. Martintg (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling utter bullshit on your claim Martintg. With you, there's the attempted speedy deletion of articles in progress in my userspace. And I don't see you or Digwuren having previously edited on ANY of the articles which you have stalked me on in the last 24 hours - those being the "list" articles, including List of official languages by state, List of countries and capitals in native languages, List of official languages. Only an absolute idiot would believe your claim. If you don't stop stalking edits and harrassment I will take it to Arbcom. This is your final warning - civility be damned, when I can't edit without editors stalking my edits, and undermining the editting process - every f'ing article I edit I have to contend with this bullshit. Enough is f'ing enough!!!!!!!!!!! --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
 ::::And it will also be mentioned that you violated [[WP:LINKVIO]] on [[We Don't Wanna Put In]] in the most tendentious manner possible, and failed to [[WP:AGF]] with it, and even refused to heed the warning on the talk page. I see now why there was an arbcom which dealt with you Digwuren; you treat WP as a battleground, and are a POV-pusher of the worst kind. Now, either discuss the issues, rather than stalking, blindly reverting, not assuming good faith, and generally just being a [[WP:DICK]]. I'm here to have a little fun, not to get involved in the bullshit that your ilk is intent on pursuing. --[[User:Russavia|Russavia]] <sup>[[User talk:Russavia|Dialogue]]</sup> 11:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 :::::Given the volume and breath of articles you edit, and that a very small subset of these articles intersect with the range of articles we edit, your accusations of stalking have absolutely no foundation in reality. These personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith must stop. [[User:Martintg|Martintg]] ([[User talk:Martintg|talk]]) 12:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
+::::::I'm calling ''utter bullshit'' on your claim Martintg. With you, there's the attempted speedy deletion of articles in progress in my userspace. And I don't see you or Digwuren having previously edited on ANY of the articles which you have stalked me on in the last 24 hours - those being the "list" articles, including [[List of official languages by state]], [[List of countries and capitals in native languages]], [[List of official languages]]. Only an '''absolute idiot''' would believe your claim. If you don't stop stalking edits and harrassment I will take it to Arbcom. This is your final warning - civility be damned, when I can't edit without editors stalking my edits, and undermining the editting process - every f'ing article I edit I have to contend with this bullshit. Enough is f'ing enough!!!!!!!!!!! --[[User:Russavia|Russavia]] <sup>[[User talk:Russavia|Dialogue]]</sup> 12:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)