User talk:Russavia

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.

Relations

Right down your alley, I presume?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:14, February 2, 2009 (UTC)

P.S. WTF is going on above???

Right up my alley. What can I say, but f***, I better get cracking on the Russian relations articles (some of which I think we will have a little trouble sourcing, such as Russia–Tonga relations ha. Because my opinion on those ones is to delete them, I mean just what notable political, trade, transport, cultural ties does Ukraine and Uruguay have? I'm gonna stay out of that discussion on this occasion man. ;)

WTF is going on above? Oh, I've been reported for 3RR on that article (and couple others), so I've told them to block me, and f*** 'em, I'll work on the article on the talk page in the event I am blocked. But i've moved it to User:Russavia/Litvinenko for time being and will work on it there. I've begun to use some scholarly sources to add NPOV-written analysis to the article. It appears some have taken issue to this and want to turn WP into a debating society, full of "compromise versions" (which is code for "Fuck off Russavia, I own this, don't touch my article). Do you think if I get blocked again, it will affect my chances of becoming an admin? Nevermind, I like it too much down here in the trenches. Nevertheless there is still a lot of misrepresentation on that article, such as compare this to User:Russavia/Litvinenko#Shooting_practice_controversy. It's amazing what different form an article takes if one reads the sources, and doesn't misrepresent them. People are concerned with what I am doing to this guy's biography, and do you know what? They should be, if the above misrepresentation is anything to do by. So that explains that. How's the weather? --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I did post on the WP:RUSSIA talk page, but you may want to look at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_1#Category:Post-Soviet_Russia, it may affect categorisation of articles on the project. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Weather? Well, no heat wave is coming to this neck of the woods any time soon, I can tell you that much. Would be great for a change, though.

Regarding the relations, Ukraine and Uruguay may not have much of a relation to talk about, but why deprive a poor person who happens to be interested in whatever little s/he can find on this topic? Heck, if I needed to find out how about Uruguay's presence in Ukraine, Ukraine–Uruguay relations would be the first place I'd head to. Just because there is little information and it is obscure is not the reason to get rid of it altogether. I wish sometimes the deletionist folks were as vigilant about some crap animé fiction characters as they are about this completely valid topic. Anyhoo, it is, of course, your call whether or not you want to voice your two cents; just thought you'd be interested.

As for your note on WP:RUSSIA, I saw it and have already posted a comment. I don't know what the best way to procede is, but the current name of the category is completely useless as far as the categorization processes go.

I don't know how your block log is going to affect your admin chances (well, I do know, but for the sake of kindness let's pretend I don't; besides, if you ever run, you'll have much bigger problems than your block log). It is all really sad, though. It seems that only overly cautious maintenance-oriented morons (like yours truly) ever have any chances of becoming admins. I can name at least five extremely qualified and worth candidates off the top of my head, all of which have zero chance of becoming admins because they happened to get involved with controversial topics in the past. Well, duh, what a surprise.

That said, good luck with the Litvinenko re-write. I am not getting involved for the reasons I outlined to you a few days ago on my talk page (in the thread which you did not respond to due to browser problems), but I do wish you the best of luck quite sincerely.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:47, February 2, 2009 (UTC)

Cmon Ezhik, surely YOU could tell I was being facetious with that admin comment. In regards to the relations articles, if all that can be said by way of sources is that two countries recognise relations, I personally think an article such as Date of establish of diplomatic relations with Uruguay (or similarly titled list) could be created, where these minor relations can be tabulated, and then re-created when it is known for certain there are other notable relations. In regards to what you wrote the other day, I'll respond here. I understand and respect your reasons, and yourself as an editor, for not wanting to touch that with a ten-foot barge pole. And thanks for the acknowledgement that I do try to keep NPOV, etc. I will take it to WP:AE in the future if the shit keeps happening, because like you, I recognise there is clearly a problem in this area of editing.

On the category, how would you foresee it being used, outside of what is currently done. The problem is, is that Russia is most likely meant in a modern sense to refer to the "Russian Federation", so am still a bit unsure as to how it would benefit us? --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the relations, yes, it can be done the way you are describing, if what's already in the article is indeed all there is on the subject. My only concern is that when an article clearly falls in the scope of some established WikiProject (two, in this case), folks should really bother to try contacting those WikiProjects before nominating the article for deletion. If we had a few deletion votes from Argentinian editors and a couple from those in Singapore, that'd really be a sign that the article does not belong. Nomination, or support of the nomination of articles because you feel it's inadequate, and especially nominating them is bulk, is a sign of dire incompetence in my book. I sometimes am genuinly curious as to what exactly is going in the heads of such nominators. It's not like the articles are completely useless one-liners either! Problem is, I very much doubt any one of those who voted "delete" would actually bother creating something like the list of dates you described. They just feel, at this particular moment, that because the article is very short and is of little interest to them personally, that means the article should go. Anyway, that's just my view.

As for the category, I don't know. Like I said, I have no idea how well splitting Cat:Russia into period-specific subcats would work in practice. It may work OK, or there may be some non-obvious problems with this approach. One thing for sure: naming a category "Post-Soviet Russia" makes no sense whatsoever. What's so special about "post-Soviet" Russia? What's next, "pre-Soviet Russia"? "Pre-Imperial Russia"? "Post-Moscow Tsardom"? "Post-Putin Russia"? At any rate, mine was more of a theoretically workable compromise solution than anything.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, February 2, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, look at the AfD. I've added my opinion there. It's not the response you expected, but hey.

On the cat, there's no problem in compromising, but I just can't see how it would be workable. Damned Constitution saying that the country can also be called Russia! --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't actually expect anything, I just wanted to point you to an AfD that seems to be in your area of interest and couldn't resist posting a comment myself in the process :)

Good point on the Constitution; I keep forgetting about this inconvenient little piece of truth (incidentally, could you write another letter to the Kremlin and ask them look into changing this, as it botches our categorization scheme? One more constitutional amendment shouldn't be of much trouble, since they are on a roll anyway). Category:Russia after 1991, perhaps? Clumsy name, but at least it's still period-specific and in line with Cat:Russian Empire and Cat:RSFSR.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:39, February 2, 2009 (UTC)

Write another letter? My dear Ëzhik, I will ask them for you at our next staff meeting. Category:Russia after 1991 is also problematic, because what do we do about the dates 25 December-31 December 1991? Those dates, the first few days of the Category:Russian Federation would be in permanent purgatory. It should be noted also that Russia is only considered as THE successor of the USSR in terms of international relations, i.e. it took over all seats in organisations of which the USSR was a member, kindly took over all Soviet debt (leaving the other 14 republics debt free at their independence), and took over all Soviet property in other countries, etc. I can't fathom the category as it stands now though, but I do understand the "Study of" article, but even then, what goes in it? :) --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Staff meeting? Oh boy, am I now in deep trouble or what.

After giving all this a night of thought, I think you are mostly right, so I tweaked my vote somewhat this morning. "Russia after 1991" is really not a good idea, that much is clear. "Studies of post-Soviet Russia", on the other hand, has some merit. Lots of stuff currently in Category:Post-Soviet Russia will go away after the rename, but a few things will remain (namely those which, as Vecrumba pointed out, deal with the actual studies of post-Soviet Russia: Category:Books about post-Soviet Russia and David Satter, for example).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:10, February 3, 2009 (UTC)

Well, the results of the meeting is that we have to work this one out on our own. I did raise a motion which involved mercury, but I was resoundly defeated, with myself being the only one in favour. The rest said that we haven't done such things in the past, so there is no reason to start now. In the end, I believe they had a good point, so don't worry, you have nothing to worry about.

I've added my tentative support to the studies category, with development of a "guideline" (of sorts) to be discussed as to what to include in it. As KNewman said, when does Russia stop being post-Soviet Russia? The answer to that question in itself is a highly opinionated one. But yeah, with some firm consensus based upon other policy and guideline (not our own POVs/desires) on what to include, it could be a useful category. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Eastern European neologisms

Hi, I recently started a page in my user space, you are welcome to share your thoughts here. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I will, and I will support merging ALL of them, not one here and one there though. It has to all or non, in my humble opinion, because only then can we get rid of the bullshit. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Embassy names

Why did you move the Angolan embassy to the other name? The Angolans refer to their embassies of XX in Country instead of XX in City [1]. the guideline at the International relations WikiProject isn't set in stone. Any thoughts? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to Category:Diplomatic missions in Moscow in which all articles are "in Moscow". As these articles are more on the building than the diplomatic mission (but which details can also be included). The most correct term is "Embassy of Angola to Russia", but most common usage is "in", and usually in the city. I don't see a need to overly complicate things, although redirects could be created to current articles. Thoughts? --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

frivolous tagging

Stop putting tags in Putinism without presenting any valid reasons - thus far you haven't. All the statements in the article are referenced and presented fairly as opinions as per WP:NPOV. If you THINK something important is missing, you welcome to add thereto.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Look Muscovite, I see you have been banned from ru:wiki, yet again, for a week. This does not mean that you need to come back to en:wiki, and continue with the same sort of bullshit you pull over at ru:wiki. Things have been raised on the talk page that question the neutrality and original research on the article, and they should remain. Having said that, once your week long block on ru:wiki is over, we'll see the end of you for another period of time, before you are blocked again, and then you will come back here to engage in your sometimes disruptive editing. Valid questions have been raised as to what exactly this article is supposed to be documenting, it is a mish-mash of original research stringed together to present the "most grotesque" (YOUR OWN WORDS!) article possible; just how exactly does Putin saying "Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself." related to Putinism? And just does the section that is in relate to "Putinism"? It doesn't, its inclusion is based upon your own POV and OR. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an outlet for advocacy and creation of "grotesque" articles. Oh yeah, and a word of warning for you, accuse me of being employed in the state security or government structures again, and I will not hesitate to seek sanctions against you. The other editor who continued/s to help you inisinuate such shit should know better, and should have told you straight out that such things are disruptive. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your question

I am not sure about the copyright and Wikisource. You can find some relevant refs in our articles about these books. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Excessive confrontationalism

Russavia, I have several pages you've contributed to watchlisted, but the contributions on Moreschi's talk page over the last day or so were sort of over the top. Reading those, and your comments to Digiwuren which started the whole thing, and your comments here on your talk page, I think that you are not abiding by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA either in letter or in spirit.

You say that Wikipedia is not a lot of things, in those commentaries. One of the things it is not is a place in which to abuse other editors. You have been doing that a lot recently.

You mentioned on Moreschi's talk page that you'd asked another uninvolved admin to let you know if you were being a WP:DICK. As an uninvolved admin you didn't ask but who found this sequence of stuff by chance, I have to conclude that yes you are.

The Wikipedia project can't work when its members treat each other in an excessively abusive manner, as you have done with numerous other editors recently. Please stop this immediately. Further abuse will warrant a final warning, and if it continues past that a block to prevent it.

Please cooperate and de-escalate the issues. You can argue your point in discussions more effectively by being less confrontational and abusive. I have no opinion either way on the underlying content issues, but if you actually care about those, you need to approach dealing with them in a manner which doesn't get you banned from Wikipedia. Further abuse will lead there. Please stop.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And I don't think that people are abiding by WP:STALK and WP:HOUND, which is done to such an extent that it has caused me to breach WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but there's no warning for those people, is there? Of course not. I am trying to ease the bullshit in this area, and am concentrating on other things for the time being. Thanks for your comments anyway. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)