User talk:Kostan1

Welcome!

Hello, Kostan1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Han-Kwang (t) 10:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

48 hours for you. Stop trolling and revert-warring. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised I was the only one blocked. Another user who clearly POV pushed on the talk page of the article, you reduced his block to a few hours. And what they agreed on as the final version that fits maximum people, is very close to the version I supported in the first place. Any monkey can simply block a user, you could leave a warning first, or at least be constant and punish the same way people from both parties. Kostan1 (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested articles

Hi, Kostan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for bringing some semblance of order to the WP:RUSSIA's process of requesting articles; it was sorely needed. I do not, however, see anything on what I could easily write an article myself; all of the topics listed so far, unfortunately, lie beyond the scope of my interests and expertise. That does not mean I am not going to watch this page for future developments, though! I've also took the liberty to add a link to this page to the header of Portal:Russia/New article announcements, so it would (hopefully) get more attention, although in my experience the participants of WP:RUSSIA all prefer doing their own things and are very hard to coordinate or be rallied for anything.

Anyway, welcome aboard (again), and don't hesitate to contact me if you feel there is anything I can help with. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I didn't know about this new articles page! Kostan1 (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights

Hi Kostan. You are trying to help, but it does not really work. In order to help you must be either a good expert on the subject, or be a good negotiator who holds a neutral position. But unfortunately, this is not about you. If you really want to help, why would not you select any article/subject in WP and expand it? Just remember that sourcing is everything. Thank you, Biophys (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem. I summarized his clames to make it easier on you. Why haven't you answered it in points? It comes out as if you ignore the discussion. All you have to do is answer the questions. Kostan1 (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do see a serious problem. What contemporary books written by respectable historians did you read on the subject of the article? What did you read at all? You blame me that I did not answer, although I did. If you was a good negotiator, you would certainly agree to deal with issues one by one. You are simply wasting your and my time here. Seriously, if you want to contribute positively to WP, please "adopt" any article and expand it.Biophys (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But right now you gave an exelent answer on the talk page! You gave an answer - That point is droped. You don't have to answer them all at once. Choose any point, answer it, and we move on. Your answer was great there, no one asks more from you. I can't take a side as a negotator, what I try to do is to make all sides finaly say all their demands, and we move on. Your answer was great there that's the answers needed. The problem is right now an aedit war beetwen you and another user. Both of you belive you are right, by making you both state all there clames, look, the talks beetwen you are finaly working. Just give it a chance. Kostan1 (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fistfight

Assessment is not the about length of the article but about it's quality, and currently there is not a single source accessible to the majority of readers of editors on the English wikipedia. I there fore agree with Bradford that it is not yet a c-class article. Please look at the definition of the different classes and examples here --Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought the issue up here I suggest further discussions take place there or on the article talk page. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fistfight

Hello. Thank you for the tags you have puted in the article.

Look what i've done at the references. I brought all quotes and translated them. Kostan1 (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your citations. There are still a few minor problems with syntax and spelling but that should be easily fixed by a cleanup team and some copy-editing. VolatileChemical (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your kind words and barnstar ! Wikiolap (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mercenaries

So, any news about those American mercenaries? If you have any sources to confirm this allegation, then you should re-add it. Cheers! Ostap 23:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility is inappropriate

Since you appear to be new to Wikipedia and your edit summary;

Biophys you work towards pushing your POV thats all. Use the talk page, use the sandbox, or use the door.

can be perceived as uncivil. Just remember that a topic like Human Rights is complex and there are many different perspectives (all valid) on this topic. Uncivil comments like "use the door" could earn you a long block.

"Incivility creates a hot, unfriendly space, and a sense of threat. With civility, respect and a sense of safety and collegiality between all concerned is created, producing ample room for negotiation. Incivility may put editors on the defensive, may create closed-mindedness to multiple, alternative ideas, and can help to prevent a consensus from forming."

Bobanni (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys really pushes POV. If you noticed, I entered all Biophys wanted to enter to the article. I treaded him more then with respect. Now he rudely deletes what other users added because he doesn't like it. Just like him the other user in the article doesn't like many things in the article, and yet he uses the talk page, and compromises when needed. The other user doesn't add anything till the case is talked about on the talk page, Biophys enters things he knows are controversial, and defends himself with lame phrases like "I don't have time to explaine that" (but he has time to enter controversial edits. It would take him the same time to enter all that to the discussion page, like the other user does it). Or saying others "don't know the subject", when he himself brings clames which are funny (I'll give you an example. Persecutions of families of repressed people were persecuted during the whole Stalin period. By grand-grandfather was a peasent executed by the NKVD in 1930 because of a lie of his neighbour about "anti-Soviet agitation", no one touched his family. And he will tell us "we don't know the subject"?) He called another users referenced paragraph POV. That's uncivil!

The human rights subject is a complex one, and in contreversial cases all views should be brought, that's called NPOV. Everyone belive they are right, you belive you are right, then one you argue with belives he is right. Only a concensus can solve the case. When one user rudely deletes what the other user added only because he doesn't like it, that's called POV pushing. Kostan1 (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record. Maybe i spoke rudely to Biophys, but there is a reason for that. It's my fault he became so rude. From the start I gave him the feeling he can do anything he wants. I screamed on the other user on his talk page, I chose to work with Biophys's version as a base for the concensus version, he thought he can do anything he wants and now we see the result. I shouldn't have acted like that in the first place. After many times I politely explained Biophys use the talk page first, that we must take to account every user belives he is write so a concensus is needed, that he can't delete referenced material, he simply ignored it. I even summarized for him all the points the other user brought against him to make it easier, and he just ignored them. I decided to stop being nice and for one to tell him that or he uses discussion, or he can use the door, because editors that don't give respect to other editors, that delete their referenced material after all they wanted to enter was entered, it's just not fine. Kostan1 (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Grigory Leps

A tag has been placed on Grigory Leps requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ironho lds 10:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British English

FYI, it is spoken in UK, Ireland, Malta, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Fiji, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea, South Africa, Belize, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Brunei, the British Commonwealth ect. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not the reason to use it on Wikipedia, the rest of the world speaks American English (or Chinese). Kostan1 (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't, for example I have been watching Russia today, France 24, euronews, Al Jazera a lot lately due to these events, they all use British English on their English versions of the news programs not American English. Turn on Russia Today English now and you will see that they spell Recognise with an S not a Z making it British not American English. Ijanderson (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love ethnocentrism, don;'t you, "the rest of the world speaks either american english or chinese", so, russian, ect no exist?--Jakezing (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian is the most beautiful and flexible language in the world. What I said was said as a joke. I am a Russian myself. Kostan1 (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind not screwing with the :'s?--Jakezing (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't get the s's thing. Kostan1 (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your almost as annoying as that Ip user on the kosovo articles.--Jakezing (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you came into my user page, I don't even know you. Kostan1 (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either reply just on my userpage or just on yours, i dont want to have to keep clearing that new message thing--Jakezing (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, let's be here. Kostan1 (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't put to pov's on a article, that'd be chaos,.--Jakezing (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did I enter a POV in the article? I only spoke there on the talk page, I haven't touched the article. Kostan1 (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change community ban into community restrictions

I proposed on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Productive_socks to change the ban into the community restrictions. Please contribute Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what's funny? This Moreshi dude claims Captain obvious did nutral job on the South Ossetia article, but he ignores the fact I did nutral job on the Human Rights in the Soviet Union article. Kostan1 (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]