User talk:Alex Bakharev/Archive28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alex is alive![edit]

I recoded your AlexNewArtBot. I'd love to figure out what your plans are with it, as it was MIA. tedder (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks a lot, Tedder. I cannot emphasize enough how I am grateful for picking up this work! Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Alex Bakharev. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Vald (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vald, thanks a lot for removing me from the list of missing wikipedians. If I had realized that many people would worry about me, I would have done it myself. I should have done it but I did not, so I am sorry. Still many people knew my Email and anybody could send a wikimail, so I guess I did not inconvenienced many people. Thanks again for your edit and sorry for all the troubles.
I have not received any other mail from you. So please resend it unless this is a notice of your Missing Wikipedians edit. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's this?[edit]

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I award this to you for helping to revert and protect against vandalism on Wikipedia. Danhomer (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 July 2013[edit]

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dirk Willem van Krevelen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • managed to help Van Krevelen to obtain a research position in the newly created Central Laboratory ) of the [[Dutch State Mines]] (DSM) starting from 1940. The laboratory was headed by [[Gerrit

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nyugdi, Russia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ''Nyugdi''' ({{lang-ru|Нюгди}} is a village in the [[Derbentsky District]] of [[Dagestan]], [[Russia]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your holiday[edit]

Alex, I was just passing through and noticed the holiday banners at the top of your pages. Should they still be there? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I am not sure if I will be able to maintain a reasonable activity and still be able to satisfy all the real life demands for my time (and my procrastination on top of this).Lets keep it far a couple of days Alex Bakharev (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know[edit]

Your name has been removed from Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sïleïni block[edit]

I do not agree with your block of User:Sïleïni (comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:S%C3%AFle%C3%AFni#July_2013 - in short, two valid questions, one of which is not even disputed, do not make for a vandalism-only account) Wnt (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Cardone[edit]

Hi Alex, please see my recent comment on Talk:Grant Cardone. The sourced material that was removed inappropriately by Bbb (who even threatened me with a block on my own talk) is absolutely in line with WP guidelines -- the Village Voice conforms to WP:RS (it is not a personal blog), and other sources included other mainstream news sites, as well as interviews with Grant Cardone himself. Bbb claims that even mentioning Cardone's wife, his sponsorship of NASCAR through Dianetics, and his favorite novel (Battlefield Earth), among others, are violations of BLP even though they are sourced from interviews with Grant Cardone and from news articles about him. There have been allegations off-wiki that Grant is paying others to keep Scientology references off his wiki article, so I find all of this highly suspect. If this were anyone else, like a politician or major business magnate, the controversy would be huge. By removing legitimate sourced material from his page and abusing wiki guidelines to keep such material off, Bbb & others are causing a great disservice to Wikipedia's neutrality. If Grant Cardone's page is simply going to be an advertorial promo, then it should just be deleted. But again, take a look at the sources -- to even suggest that it's against wiki guidelines to include interviews is ridiculous. I trust you will look into this matter further, or at least inform ArbCom of off-wiki allegations that Cardone is paying money to keep his page free of Scientology & personal references. Laval (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also request that the material Bbb disputes -- again, all from valid sources in line with WP guidelines -- be reincluded while it is protected. Despite his claims, there is no consensus to remove such material, and considering that the sources are valid & acceptable, it does not appear to be appropriate to indulge his request, particularly in light of Scientology's history in whitewashing their Wikipedia articles and those of their notables. Please consider reverting to the version with the sources -- if you won't do that, then I request that you put the page up for deletion since it's existence is nothing more than advertorial promo. An AfD might also allow others to chime in and gain the consensus to keep the sourced material in -- however, I can assure you that Bbb will even then still dispute the inclusion, no matter how much of a consensus there is. So, if you could put it up for deletion for the reasons I have listed (Grant paying others to whitewash his article, using his article as self-promo, etc) that would be great. Laval (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have probably removed more poorly sourced scientology tripe from Cardone's article than any other single editor. I'm guess this means I should go bug him for my paycheck or something... Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there would be no tragedy if the Scientology info would stay out of the article for three days. You guys are very close to have your consensus. As far as I got it the new addition is referenced but there is some disagreement over wordings, like did the source said Cardone is a prominent member or just a member, etc. I think you can have your consensus soon. Do you want me to setup a talkpage sandbox for this paragraph? Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alex, I'm very sorry for all the headache this is causing you, and I appreciate your calls for temperance. I have two additional concerns that I didn't have yesterday. First, I should have delved deeper into the history of the article and the material. I had forgotten the huge contretemps in roughly March 2012 about adding similar material to the article. There was a discussion at BLPN, as well as extensive discussion on the article talk page. I was not as involved as Kevin (also YRC at the time), but I was involved. Some of the issues, particularly with respect to sourcing were different, but some are the same, and some of the editors were the same (Thimbleweed and Henry Sewell). Laval did not contribute to the article during that time frame, but he did do so earlier. In December 2011, for example, he added a Scientology cat to the article. My second concern is the discretionary sanctions currently in effect for all Scientology-related articles. If there is agreement to include material identifying Cardone as a Scientologist, then, in my view, the article becomes subject to those sanctions. Indeed, changing the article to identify Cardone as a Scientologist may itself be subject to sanctions. As I understand it, BLPs of Scientologists are automatically included in the ambit of those sanctions, although, as an admin, I have not been involved in the application of those sanctions. This second concern makes me question whether my agreement to add material to the Cardone article about his being a Scientologist and the NASCAR thing should also be the subject of a broader consensus than just me saying it looks okay. I hate to dump all of this on you, but, as you know, I'm involved and cannot act administratively. Yet, at the same time, my overriding concern is the integrity of the project and, secondarily, the protection of a BLP. I may alert other admins who appear to be more familiar with the discretionary sanctions so we don't overlook something before adding any material to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys, I know there was a very large editorial conflict related to Scientology. I am not familiar with specific decisions, let me study them a little bit more. Related the paragraph in question: do you think some compromise by rewording, additional sources, etc. is possible? Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If significant additional reliable sources are found that talk about the Katselas incident, I would be comfortable including it, as long as we keep it at due weight. But I don't think such additional reliable sources exist, and our policies prevent us from flaming a living person in the encyclopedia's main space (or talk space for that matter...) based off of a series of blog posts in an alternative weekly. Unless additional high quality reliable sources are brought forward re: Katselas, I don't think material related to Katselas can be included in Cardone's article in any way shape or form without it constituting a brightline BLP violation. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP[edit]

Hi Alex, and thanks for helping out at WP:RFPP! It would be even more helpful if you could use the {{RFPP}} template when you answer queries (you can find instructions in the edit notice when you edit the page). This enables the bot to archive requests that have already been fulfilled. If you have any questions, my talk page is always open. :) (Or you can ask here, as I'll watch this page for a bit.) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Doven[edit]

Now User:Kevin Gorman is attempting to cleanse the Michael Doven article of any Scientology references by claiming a video testimonial by Doven discussing his background as a devout Scientologist & his wins in Scientology isn't a reliable source. Also, Doven is no longer a personal assistant to Cruise, which Doven himself has attested to as well as Tom Cruise himself, a fact that Gorman is pushing to censor from that page. Gotta say that it's getting to be ridiculous. Laval (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also one of the sources on the Doven page is a biography of Tom Cruise by Andrew Morton, which cites statements directly from Tom Cruise's reps that Doven is no longer his personal assistant & hasn't been for years -- the Morton book also confirms that Doven is a veteran Scientologist. It's clear that no matter how many sources, regardless of whether they are high quality or not, are not good enough for the likes of Gorman and Bbb who are intent on whitewashing articles of notable Scientologists. This behavior on their parts is a flagrant violation of NPOV. If they continue, I will insist on opening a new ArbCom case because edit warring is totally unacceptable, especially when legitimate and widely accepted sources are being irrationally censored. Laval (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added even more sources fully in line with guidelines to the article on Michael Doven -- Gorman has absolutely no leg to stand on if he reverts me again. On the Cardone article, the sources there are just as good, and plenty more can be provided. Allen Barton, a close confidante of Milton Katselas and currently the director of Beverly Hills Playhouse, confirmed to the Village Voice that Cardone had been harassing Katselas and defaming in emails -- concrete and verifiable evidence of this was provided to the Village Voice, among other media outlets. There are so many sources not only confirming Cardone as a prominent Scientologist and a celebrity in Scientologist circles that is mind boggling that Gorman & Bbb23 would even attempt to censor the article. Laval (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you're not familiar with the situation of people editing Wikipedia on the Scientology payroll, please read this article: A Wikipedia trustee and a Wikipedian In Residence have been editing the online encyclopedia on behalf of PR clients. This is precisely why there should be cause for concern in regards to the behavior of Bbb23 & Gorman. Laval (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Laval, it is wildly inappropriate to repeatedly accuse editors of being on the scientology payroll, even on a user talk page. The next time you do so, I will be asking for you to be sanctioned. I edited Doven's page because if something is discussed only on a scientology-run website with no other sources apparent, it's undue weight and a violation of WP:BLP to include it in an article about a living person. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, could you please inform Sandstein (an admin) to stop taking sides and using other admins to threaten me with blocks when I have done nothing wrong? Instead of warning Bbb23 & Gorman, who remove legitimate sources wholesale without discussion, and false claiming them as violations of BLP, I'm the one being bullied & threatened with a block by both Bbb23 & Sandstein? Laval (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why is Sandstein singling me out & not handing out warnings to Bbb23 & Kevin Gorman? This is incredible. Bbb23 & Gorman can get away with wholesale removal of legitimate, good faith material without even a hint of a warning (even as recently as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Doven&diff=566347066&oldid=566272382) and Sandstein then lists me in the log of warnings on the Scientology arbitration page? Laval (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

I think you had an edit conflict? [1] --NeilN talk to me 05:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. Thanks for noticing this. Feel free to either blank my RPAs or leave it as it is Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Gorman[edit]

Also, Gorman has been stalking me to the Michael Doven article & removing material without discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Doven&diff=566347066&oldid=566272382). How come he is not being warned by Sandstein or getting his name listed in the warning log?

I have worked hard to provide verifiable sources for everything I contribute and it is very sad that people like Bbb23 & Gorman can successfully get the backing of admins to get me to stop editing. Since Sandstein's warning, basically how can I edit anything without getting blocked, while Bbb23 & Gorman can get away with this? Gorman's stalking me to a different article itself is bad faith considering he's already deep in reversions on the Cardone article. Laval (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also please see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=566347367 -- instead of discussing on the article's talk page, he goes directly to the noticeboard and admits that while the sources are reliable, he still wants them removed, without even bothering to inform me. This is totally bad faith. Yet I'm the one being bullied & singled out on the ArbCom warning page. This is reprehensible & unjust. Laval (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now another person has started wholesale removal of legitimate verifiable sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Doven&oldid=566439449 in Michael Doven. This is being done without one iota of discussion on the talk page. I spent at a couple hours gathering all the sources, and for what? Threats of sanctions and banning. Neither Bbb23, Kevin Gorman, and now Collect appear to be at any risk of being warned or threatened with blocks/bans. This is very stupid. Laval (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for finally dealing with that editor on Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story. I'm really ashamed that I had to come down to that level like that. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, thanks Alex. As you may be aware personal attacks were also involved in this dispute, and removing uncivil comments was not possible as they are in the edit summaries. It is my understanding revision deletion can be handled by administrators, as these ([2] [3] [4] [5]) appear to qualify as WP:CRD. Is this doable or should we ignore this? Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 23:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:5 albert square already hid the summaries. Good action! Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was just about to log off for the night when I came across that report at AIV haha! I blocked the second IP for 2 days but then thought there was nothing to stop a third IP being created so decided to lock the article too. Article is locked for 4 days, deliberately made that longer than the IPs block so they can't just log on in a day or two and start off from where they finished again. If you think it can be unlocked earlier just file the report in the usual place. Hopefully that's an end to it though :)--5 albert square (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the problem being, of course[edit]

"Wikipedia is a collective work, to ensure that work of some editors would not destroy work of the others we need to enforce some rules."
The problem being, of course, that you have not vetted the original material, therefore cannot give a principled answer as to whether or not it should be kept. The appeal to made-up wikiprocedures is a massive capitulation to mediocrity, unreliability and failure. I'm not singling you out in particular, just observing that you've absorbed some of the culture of this place. I have the highest respect for Russian academia (sheesh, you have to get two doctorates?) and am sure that neither you nor your colleagues would tolerate this project's failure rate in your own work.24.19.234.62 (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • My opinion differs. Anyway, if you do not like the way Wiki operates you are welcome to fork it and start a new project based on different principles. Some people tried and failed. If your project would be more comfortable than wiki, then I may come to work with you. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have spent most of the past year creating just such an alternative in my own field of understanding, with hundreds of articles and counting. The future here is not a borg, but scholars bringing their own materials online under their own terms and linking to one another. What I would encourage is not to work with me – it's a different field, or I'd recruit you – but to work for yourself and like-minded people in your own field. Sign your articles, so readers know: this is Alex Bakharev, we can count on this. We didn't overthrow the middlemen to get another middleman. Wikipedia thrives in this vacuum which academics should have already occupied. Various free webhosts with decent editing features make this much easier now than it was when Wikipedia began. I will gladly link webring-style to anyone taking part in this transformation.24.19.234.62 (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forking wikipedia content is a bad idea. The only reason anyone does it is to include content that they don't personally understand, which is, from the standpoint of scholarly integrity, a mistake.24.19.234.62 (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Question[edit]

Hello, I'm hoping you can help with this question (seems everyone at DYK is offline). Would the WBSC (AM) article be eligible for DYK in it's current state? I have updated the article with a TON of information, but not sure if it is 5x or not. Thanks in advance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it was 1495 bytes on Jan17 and it is 10871 bytes now (according to the history of the article), so it is certanly more than 5x. To my taste the article is still a little bit to short and the big AfD templates does not look right (AfD is about to be closed as speedy, keep but the notability issues might be present...). Still if the question is interesting it might qualify ... Everything is mown IMHO of course. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I expect the AfD to be closed as a Speedy Keep. I have a good question for the DYK, so I hope the AfD template won't throw people off. Thanks for your help. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 July 2013[edit]

Thanks for the comment.[edit]

Thanks for the comment, my compatriot. --Lawrentia (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, for the article. I have copyedited it a little bit Alex Bakharev (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Lawrentia (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Humpbacked Horse (ballet)[edit]

Thank you. --Lawrentia (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of Chaliapin (Kustodiev painting)[edit]

Hello. Could you check this article My English is not perfect. Thank you. Lawrentia (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Thanks for letting me know about Leonid Brezhnev's page, just added the correct source. OwnDealers (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:66.213.97.2[edit]

I'd appreciate it if you'd explain what exactly happened with the block that resulted in this IP being blocked. I'll refrain from mentioning the account you blocked as a vandalism only account so that the account's IP isn't outed. Form what I can tell, the user asked for help with understanding how to edit Wikipedia not once but twice. After being warned once for "vandalism" that looks more like the test edit of a child to me, the user was blocked indefinitely with account creation blocked. In doing so, you blocked a public IP which I now understand that you weren't aware of.

Best case scenario, you used a block type that didn't need to be used and blocked a public library's IP address because of two counts of vandalism. Worst case scenario, you nuked a kids account and the IP address of a public library because he/she didn't understand what they were doing. Please tell me that there are deleted edits that justified an indefinite block of someone who was warned one single time.

I've chosen not to log into my account because I don't want my account associated with this IP, publicly. 66.213.97.2 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well User:Ponyo provided a good answer for your question and helped with the autoblock. If you are editing a lot from shared IPs (like public libraries) then you may consider creating an account and editing as a registered user, this way you would not experience inconveniences when administrators are blocking disruptive users sharing the same IP. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alex, I'm going to ask as clearly as I can, did you block this person indefinitely after they received one warning? Do you have any evidence that the block of that severity was needed? I ask because you seem to be unaware that the type of blocked you used blocked registered editors from editing from this public IP. Are you not sure what user I'm referencing? I'm trying to come up with some reason why you'd take such drastic action for what appears to be test edits. I'm trying to give you the chance to explain yourself before I take this to ANI. I'm rather worried that you've done this more than once as well. 66.213.97.2 (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will be of help if you provide the account of the user I supposedly permablocked, but, yes. If more than 50% of a register account's edits are of bad faith (as opposed of newbish clumsiness or strong point of view) I usually block that account permanently. Any problems with this? Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am smarter than a 5th grader. Like I've said before, they may have deleted edits that were clearly vandalism but none of their edits that are visible are vandalism per WP:VANDAL. Just test edits. 66.213.97.2 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, This edit and that language are clearly bad vandalism - mocking of the national Ukrainian anthem among other things, That edit is a vandalism. Now other show any willingness to improve encyclopedia. I guess if the user decided to do something useful for a change he or she could register under another nick or politely ask to be unblocked on the talk page Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Новость про Мьянму[edit]

Здравствуйте! Помогите, плз добавить новость. 7 августа (NHK World) А то меня никто не поймёт--Many baks (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • К сожалению, линк не открывается Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Может быть поставить с другого источника Google--Many baks (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • А что за новость? 25 лет исполняется с момента восстания? По-моему, это не новость. Или там какие-то новые выступления? Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • угу.--Many baks (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 August 2013[edit]

Request for advice[edit]

Hi I have a complaint regarding this editor who seems to have been looking through my contributions and reverting my edits. I first encountered him when I edited the planet of the apes articles and Jurassic park articles. He sent me a message claiming I was not justified in making edits without discussion. However, the problem persisted when he reverted an edit I made weeks earlier before encountering him on The X-Files article. I had edited the x-files with discussion and reaching agreement with another editor.

What's more is the x-files article was left alone for weeks, that is until I encountered the editor in question. Clearly people seemed to be fine with my edit (it was left alone since July) until the editor in question discovered it and reverted it. This time his excuse was that I "did not build consensus" when I clearly explained it on the discussion page. He continuously revert wars over it with some new excuse each time.

His latest excuse is that he doesn't agree with it.

I unfortunately cannot currently edit wikipedia too often as I do not have the time just yet, but I am concerned that the user will continue to revert my input and waste my efforts to contributing for the encyclopedia.

What's more is I don't find his tone very friendly and skimming through his talk page it seems I am not the only one [6]

You can view our conversation on my talk page [7] and his too [8].

He is presently edit warring against me on the X-Files article but I am trying to refrain since I share your sentiment of it being disruptive and even warned him over it (see talk:The X-Files).

I mentioned earlier I do not have time for fights since I'm not editing often but any effort to engage with him seems to have no effect on his stubbornness. I also have no idea weather he plans on reverting my future edits or not so I think some advice/assistance in this situation would be my best option. Thanks.-Taeyebaar (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correction:It seems that my edit on the X-Files did not last for weeks, but rather 4 days. However his revert occurred around the same day he messaged me on my edits on Planet of the Apes & Jurassic park, which still leads me to believe that he looked through my contributions (that's how he reverted jurassic park after seeing my contributions) to revert my edits. -Taeyebaar (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we have WP:STALK guidelines but I do not think they are applicable at that point. The edit warring extends only on one new article and User:Gothicfilm had his reasons to believe that he is preventive a disruptive behavior. I am very familiar with specific rules developed for films (although I am sure using satirical sources is a bad idea). I would recommend to seek a third opinion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Film or in similar area, or check WP:DR for other dispute resolution methods Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a post on wp:ani and notified user:gothicfilm. My suspicion that he is looking through my contributions and reverting me seems to be strong as I received new notifications today about my edits on lord of the flies and another article being reverted and it's gothicfilm again. Since I've already posted on wp:ani I'll wait and see (no response as of yet) I'm thinking if that doesn't work then should I then proceed to wp:dr? Thanx-Taeyebaar (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Also I think there's mistake regarding diff 6. That is his dispute with another editor, not me. I am just using that diff to express the judgement that his attitude is bothering other editors, not just me. Taeyebaar (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well posting on WP:AN/I is a good move. It might draw attention of editors how a more familiar with practices of film project than me Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on wp:ani 2 days ago. Nothing doing. No response from any admin. He is definitely reverting me one article after another as my notifications are showing that. His dispute over the film project is with another editor, not me. He is currently provoking me, but I'm refraining from responding. He ignores most of my comments and tries to throw false ellgations regarding my edits.-Taeyebaar (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kevin Gorman continues to harass and threaten me with sanctions[edit]

Alex, please look at this: [9]. I made no attack or negative comment or any sort of "aspersions" against Gorman, and in fact I've been going out of my way to take a less serious tone in order to defuse the tension and make some jokes and encourage discussion towards consensus, and yet he continues to threaten me with sanctions. I responded to him by stating that the fact Sandstein took sides and "warned" me, but not him, was a travesty and that Gorman's behavior has been entirely negative and he has made no effort to work towards consensus, instead saying that any change we make to the article, he will remove using the justification of BLP. Thimbleweed and I have really gone out of way to maintain communication and trying very hard to reach some consensus and I've communicated with Gorman directly to defuse things, and instead he continues to threaten and bully me with ArbCom sanctions. Alex, for the love of humanity and all that is righteous and proper, please inject some sanity into this Twilight Zone episode! :) It is appalling that he can get away with making threats like that, it's one step away from wikilawyering. And as the talk page indicates, we have been more than willing to work towards consensus, while Gorman and Bbb23 have effectively shut the door and told us not to touch the article because it is under "discretionary sanctions" or whatever he called it. Thank you! Laval (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been consistently accusing other editors of being shills for Scientology. You started off doing it openly, now you hide it behind a thin veneer of snark. I'll stop asking you to follow Wikipedia's rules when you start following Wikipedia's rules. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another instance of Gorman assuming bad faith and attacking me: [10]. Alex, how much more of this will I have to tolerate before Gorman is given an official warning? I live in the area and work at CalTech in Pasadena and Gorman may think he is so important that I would stalk him (don't flatter yourself, Gorman), but I do have the right to make a comment at an AfD, do I not? I am removing his comment as a personal attack. Please warn him, Alex and tell him to stop bullying me. I'm not going to deal directly with him or respond to his threats anymore. Laval (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you have the right to make a comment at an AfD. I also have the right to point out that it's pretty funny timing to make such a comment immediately after I asked you to stop accusing people of being scientology shills with no evidence (which are allegations you still haven't retracted.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a comment at AN/I regarding this issue [11] - I left this also for Gorman, Bbb23, and Thimbleweed just so I am not accused of not doing something right. I haven't done any admin type actions like this in a long time, so if this was incorrect to alert them, my mistake. Laval (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please calm down! I do not see any diffs in this section that indicate actionable personal attack. BLP is a sort of a killjoy policy but it is needed. Scientology is considered as a sort of religion not as a sort of a criminal conspiracy. I guess we do not have the right to out person's religion against his or her will than out their sexual orientation, marriage faithfulness, ethnicity, editing wikipedia or even age. Thus, even if an info seems to be reasonably well validated but not of justifiable public interest we have to hide it despite all our research efforts. This is life Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russia–Ukraine relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regnum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Venil1996[edit]

Hi, Alex. I've gone from hating VE to hating it with a passion. It was annoying enough having to clean up nowiki tags but, as was suspected by many, it's acting as an open invitation for anyone who's ever had an opinion about anything to step in and 'contribute' slabs of lunacy to existing entries. I'll be keeping my eye on Venil1996's edits. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! BTW, he (or she) added a huge portion of badly formatted text. To my shame I did not have time to read it all, is there anything in it worth inclusion to the article? Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a problem, Alex. I was just about to post a Welcome to Wikipedia section to his/her page, but I see you've already beaten me to it! I haven't had a chance to go through the text added as yet as I was more concerned with getting the eyesore down. I'm just about to read through to see if there's anything of merit as regards Shevchenko's contribution to Russian literature & culture that I can find citations for. From the entries made by Venil on the Shevchenko & Prilepin‎ pages, I'm fairly confident that this user isn't a vandal but simply lacks the skills to contribute constructively at this point. Mind you, editing notes deriding Ukrainian nationalists doesn't bode well...
    • Incidentally, I've left a comment on the Prilepin talk page regarding the doubling up on the biography. It looks as if you, and others, are currently working on it. As I've noted, I'm not familiar with Prilepin but, if any assistance is needed in proof-reading, feel free to pick my brain. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 August 2013[edit]

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chechnya may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Nikolaevich Yakovlev]] ''Time of darkness'', Moscow, 2003, ISBN 5-85646-097-9, pages 205-206 ({{lang-ru|Яковлев А. Сумерки. Москва: Материк 2003 г.}}</ref>. Even distinguished [[Red Army]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mikhail Sariotti may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 62594 ru: Энциклопедический Интернет ресурс «Личности». САРИОТТИ Михаил Яковлевич]</ref>) Сариотти}}; 1839 (or 1830, or 1831),<ref name=academ>[http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_biography/110301/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible connection between theoldejacobite and gothicfilm[edit]

Hello Mr Bakharav. As it is user:gothicfilm is reverting me article after article. His recent edit war was on lord of the flies. After a while he stopped editing and posted a few concerns. After posting them, he was mostly inactive for most of yesterday, after which

I suspect user:gothicfilm is connected to user:TheOldJacobite. Both editors are editing the same articles and talkpages around the same time proximity.

For example Talk:Jurassic Park (film) has not been edited in a while, yet gothicfilm and theoldjacobite edit there within hours of each other.[12][13]

Both reverted me on lord of the flies with the exact same reason about the source [14][15] [16][17][18]

Both also edited/discussed E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial [19] [20]

Both also edited/discussed The X-Files [21][22][23]

theoldjacobite's edit summary on the speculative fiction article is very similar to gothicfilm's ranting about my expansion of the article.

To refresh your memory, user:gothicfilm has been stalking me since I started editing Planet of the Apes and then looked through my contributions to revert me on Jurassic Park, The X-Files and more recently Lord of the Flies. Most peculiar I find is that user:gothicfilm was inactive after filing these complaints [24][25] he stopped editing during that day. Around the time of his inactivity, user:theoldjacobite reverted me for the same reason as gothicfilm's complaint. See the edit summary.

After he returned, user:gothicfilm started reverting me again on Lord of the Flies and left me this message.

An additional note is their close time proximity to editing articles and talk pages including those that are seldomly edited/discussed. Check the time on the diffs. As far as I can tell they have had no contact on wikipedia, but that could indicate an off-line connection, only not to leave evidence of co-ordination.

I'll add more details if I can find them. Let me know what is most advisable.-Taeyebaar (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upadate: User:gothicfilm's edits show him editing only once within the hour of 18:00 (6 PM) on August 18th during which this time TheOldJacobite was active, save for his 2 reverts on Lord of the Flies and Speculative Fiction (which were for the exact same reasons as gothicfilm). I'm now suspecting it's the same guy behind both accounts. Taeyebaar (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two usernames may start editing again together in possible response to this claim. Let me know what I should do.-Taeyebaar (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will post relevant information to the investigation in that page once I take care of some issues outside wikipedia. Thank you very much for this. You did the right thing Taeyebaar (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you endorsement.[26]. The case is on a list of investigations [27]. They will reach user:Gothicfilm soon. Thanks again.-Taeyebaar (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons image[edit]

Over at Commons, you recently replaced File:Open cluster HR diagram ages.gif with a corrected version, but the chart needs to be uploaded at full size, without all the white space to the right of and below it. Note how the thumbnail appears as the second image in the article Hertzsprung–Russell diagram, for instance. Deor (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Rodionovich Petrov[edit]

Thank you. Извините, что я со своим не слишком замечательным английским языком пришла в ваш раздел. --Lawrentia (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Все нормально. Подправить язык помошники найдутся, главное есть текст, с которым можно работать. Это - вики, в ней кто что умеет, то и делает. А раздел - такой же мой как и Ваш. Даже скорее Ваш, чем мой (Вы больше знаете) Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Dudko[edit]

Thank you. I'm sorry that you had again to rewrite my article. Lawrentia (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the interesting article. It was pleasure to work with you on it. I am thinking about a graphic material for the article. Do you by any chance have a reproduction of Serebryakova's painting? It would be nice to have it here (the painting would be also covered by {{PD-RusEmpire}} if it was painted before October 1017 Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zakhar Prilepin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Realism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope[edit]

Can you possibly extend protection time? I am not confident that one week is enough. --George Ho (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, lets wait one week and see if the vandals settle. I have put the article on my watchlist anyway. Out of curiosity, do you know why this particular episode is such a vandal magnet? Alex Bakharev (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, it's a famous film ever made. --George Ho (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timofei Stukolkin[edit]

Please, киньте взор сюда: http://cyclowiki.org/wiki/Тимофей_Алексеевич_Стуколкин - какие фотографии можно использовать. Я в этом не разбираюсь. Thank you - за дружеское отношение. --Lawrentia (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Стуколкин умер в 1894, значит любая его фотография сделана в 19 веке. Невозможно представить себе, чтобы автор (даже, если он известен) дожил до 1943 года. {{PD-old}} подходит на 100% Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Я загрузил картинку в коммонс и добавил в статью. Кстати, почему он Timofei, а не Timofey? Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Потому что Timofei его здесь назвали еще до меня. Я стала делать Timofey, а потом увидела, что он уже есть как Timofei. Я не знаю, как Тимофей правильно пишется на нерусском языке. Thank you --Lawrentia (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Оставим имя на совести User:Mrlopez2681 - он написал много балетных статей и, наверное, знает, что делает. Кстати, Вас не раздражает, что я линкую " Imperial troupe of St. Petersburg" к Mariinsky ballet. Это не совсем одно и то же, но лучше линка, по-моему, нет Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Вообще-то это не совсем правильно. Были две основные балетные труппы в Российской империи - Петербургская и Московская. И Петербургская началась задолго до постройки Мариинского театра. Но если грубо говорить - то, наверно, и так можно. Не знаю. Я бы так не стала делать, но вроде как со своим уставом - да в чужой монастырь. С другой стороны, чудовищной ошибки тоже нет. Не знаю. --Lawrentia (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Понимате, как термина нет такого - Мариинский балет, это какой-то сугубо википедийный термин. Можно, конечно, его придумать. И понятно, что это значит: балет Мариинского театра. Но - какого периода, исторические периоды были разные. Поэтому уж как-то расплывчато это. Не научно и не энциклопедично. Надо делать статью по истории русского балета и там все объяснять. Тем более, что сейчас мир танцует по системе русского балета. --Lawrentia (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Продолжаем разговор. Это мой конек. Понимаете, если мы сегодня, современным оком, будем смотреть балеты М.Петипа – не в интерпретации Пьера Лакотта и Сергея Вихарева, а именно так, как создал сам великий Мариус Петипа, - мы все хором поумираем от смеха. Уж слишком изменилась сама техника балета. Начнем с того, что балерины представляли собой весьма упитанных дамочек – со всем формами, которые сотворил Господь – никаких ныне модных спортивных фигурок. Если бы современные балеринки попали в 19 век, их сначала бы отправили на три месяца на усиленное питание. В 19 веке женщина должна была представлять собой именно женщину. И при прыжках всё это должно было, по всей видимости, трястись и подчеркивать женскую натуру. И балетоманы 19 века от всего этого искренне впадали в поэтические восторги. Петипа ставил балеты именно для этих дам, с учетом их специфики, пластики, внешнего вида, особенностей и т.д. Кроме того, балет тогда не был столь «акробатичен» - не было таких пируэтов и всего остального, все эти виртуозные па вводились постепенно. Балет времен Шарля Дидро вообще представлял собой набор поз. Правда, он работал, когда Мариинского театра еще не было. Но раз мы объединили все в один Мариинский балет, - то и его надо считать. Но надо учитывать, что Петебругский императорский балет и Московский императорский балет были тесно связаны – они подчинялись единой дирекции, питались из одного казенного кармана (там были, правда, некоторые отступления, когда московская труппа подчинялась московскому генерал-губернатору), а главное – артистов Петербурга часто переводили в Москву, а из Москвы в Петербург – это очень часто практиковалось. Так что уровень балета был одинаковый – как направление жанра, а в во второй половине 19 века стало ясно, что каждая труппа – Московская и Петербургская – пошли каждая немножко собственным путем: в Петербурге – ближе к императорскому двору – был в моде высокопарный грациозный танец, а в разночинной Москве стал разрабатываться так называемых хара(ударение)ктерный танец, т.е. сюжетный танец, психологический, часто с включением народного пляса. Недаром и направление театрального реализма зародилось в Москве – уже в драматическом искусстве (Островский, потом Станиславский). А потом с революцией вообще все перемешалось. Многие балетные деятели покинули любимую родину и выжнудены были продавать свой талант за чечевичную похлебку и крышу над головой (в прямом смысле) растленному Западу, где балет в своем развитии вообще ушел от классических норм и позиций, а в Российской империи сохранялся ввиду недопушения туда вообще никаких реформ – просто на всякий случай, хотя, как мы знаем – и этот всякий случай не помог. Так что в итоге русский балет благополучно переехал на Запад, где и расцвел пышным цветом и цветет по сей день. А в СССР в 1930-х годах Сталин самолично уничтожил московский балет, переведя половину ленинградской труппы в московский Большой театр. Балетные москвичи вынуждены были податься в другие места. Московский балетмейстер Игорь Моисеев в 1937 году создал свой ансамбль. Вот вкратце история русского балета. Так что имеется в виду под понятием Мариинский балет?? Термин можно придумать – но что он должен обозначать. (По-английски у меня так красиво и умно не получится) Lawrentia (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Мммда. История (особенно советская) приводят к достаточно безумным соединениям. Что, например, общего между Славяно-Греко-Латинской Академией в Москве, где учился Ломоносов, и открытой Сталиным в Звенигороде Духовной Академией (для подготовки чекистов в рясах). А статья общая - Slavic Greek Latin Academy. Давайте так, я создал Saint Petersburg Imperial troupe - пока это редирект к Mariinsky Theater (там ведь были и балетные и оперные артисты). Я пометил его {{R with possibilities}} то, есть на его месте когда-нибудь будет статья. В своих статьях используйте этот редирект, но на массовое изменение надо получить консенсус в WP:DANCE и WP:RUSSIA Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Нет, я вас опять обидела. Я уже набросала общий план статьи. Редирект на Мариинский театр неправильно. --Lawrentia (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Будет статья - поставим статью вместо редиректа. Редирект, как временное решение лучше чем красный линк. Редирект на Mariinsky ballet мне не нравится - там ведь были и оперные певцы (тот же Sariotti). Mariinsky Theatre Orchestra - еще хуже. Каких-то других решений пока не вижу. Если видите - подскажите. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Пока только то, что я там набросала. Там несколько театров было при Петербургской императорской труппе. Не только Мариинка. Пушкин ходил в Большой Каменный. Потом Александринка. Михайловский. И еще театры внутреннего императорского пользования. А труппа одна. Везде поспевали. Marie Petipa (Мария Мариусовна Петипа) за один вечер бегала туда-сюда с исполнением танцев - и в балете, и в опере, и в драме, и опять в балете. Благо все рядом находилось. Вы лучше знаете, мы-то - московские. --Lawrentia (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Sariotti[edit]

А тогда, наверно, и в Сариотти можно запихнуть иллюстрации? Им тоже больше 100 лет: http://cyclowiki.org/wiki/Сариотти_Михаил_Иванович Lawrentia (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • На Commons (викискладе) уже лежит две картинки с Сариотти. Нужно ли еще грузить? Я вставил в статью фотографию из Рогнеды Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Извините, я не знала. Я даже не знала, как заходить в этот Commons и что это такое. Я бы сама тогда использовала для русской статьи в Циклопедии, а не искала бы. У нас же единая система иллюстраций. --Lawrentia (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • По русски оно называется викисклад - хранилище картинок для всех проектов. Довольно полезная штука. Заходите на http://commons.wikimedia.org/ регистрируетесь (или, если у Вас единый account, то пользуетесь википедийным), настраваете язык и прочее и вперед. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. There is some good from me. --Lawrentia (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please, гляньте: List of the main ballet masters of the Saint Petersburg State Ballet – эту статью я сделала давно. Она как раз про то, что здесь обозвали Mariinsky Ballet. Может, их как-то совместно облинковать. Вообще Мариинским балетом можно назвать весь современный мировой балет. Надо подумать, как правильно. Вообще я сделала Историю балета в России, но – по-русски: http://cyclowiki.org/wiki/Балет_в_России - если у вас получится со временем, посмотрите, как-то все-таки надо бы решить этот Мариинский балет. Lawrentia (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Message[edit]

Hello, Alex Bakharev. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_Vandalism_&_Edit_Block_Circumvention_by_User:_66.87.83.24.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Response by User:TheGoofyGolfer

Hello, Alex Bakharev. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_Vandalism_&_Edit_Block_Circumvention_by_User:_66.87.83.24.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alex please take a look at this post that I made and response. Thanks for your attention.

Hello, Alex Bakharev. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_Vandalism_&_Edit_Block_Circumvention_by_User:_66.87.83.24.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: User:Johnmoor reported by Ronz (talk) (Result:Warning )[edit]

Hello, Alex Bakharev. You have new messages at Johnmoor's talk page.
Message added 11:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Signpost: 21 August 2013[edit]

Malevich references[edit]

Hello Alex. I appreciate your offer to verify the disputed sources here; have you had an opportunity to look at them? Ewulp (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have not received any information to validate. I had to comment the sentence about Belarusian self-identification out Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Ukraine article[edit]

Hi Alex! Just thought I'd pop a message in to you to let you know that I've requested a RevisionDelete on the Name of Ukraine article due to Shervinsky's blanking of sections of the article and numerous edits which have rendered it impossible to undo in a constructive way. You obviously didn't notice that I'd added an edit asking that people refrain from editing until this had taken place so your addition will disappear as soon as the request is actioned. Sorry!

Incidentally, I still have the Prilepin page on my 'to do' list. It hasn't been forgotten... just put on the back-burner while I address annoying administrative issues (like damaged pages!) which keep distracting me from actually doing some work on expanding & getting articles on track. Grr, Wikipedia can be so infuriatingly time consuming. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Iryna. I saw your message on User talk:FT2 but I am not sure I understood it. WP:REVDEL is used to hide from public view very disruptive edits that I really eye sores for the editors and cannot possibly be useful for the article. Those are obscenities, personal attacks, revealing private information, etc. I cannot see how those edits by User:Shervinsky fell into those category. They might be biased (I don't have the expertise needed to fully evaluate them) but they look like made in good faith and something from his contribution can be useful. E.g. Vladimir II Monomakh died in 1125 and certainly cannot be the prince his death was noted in 1187 (sixty years later), on the other hand ru:Владимир Глебович (князь переяславский) indeed died in 1187 and he is almost certainly the Vladimir in question. So the change by Shervinsky was a correction of an obvious mistake, I have put a link to Wikidata to help evaluation of this edit.
I guess you want just to revert to a previous revision. You do not need administrative tools to do it. Just open the revision you want to restore to and press the "Edit" button. Then provide a proper summary and hit "Save". This would return the article to the previous revision but Shervinsky's edits would be available in history.
Please check his edits and either use the good info (e.g Vladimir II Monomakh -> Vladimir Glebovich) change or explain on talk page why the edit is bad (e.g. unreferenced controversial text should not be added to the article). I know this is a pain but this is the way Wiki is working, not by edit warring, nor by dictate of administrators but by discussions and following some rules.
BTW if you need some time to edit the article without other user's intervention - just paste {{In use}}, but do not lock the article for more than a few hours Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not warry that much about Prilepin. IMHO he is not that important writer. What I wanted is that A) the article is minimally readable - no duplicated texts, broken templates, unreadable walls of unwikified text, etc. B) The article should not look like a shill for this author. I think now both A and B are minimally addressed although more is better Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up reverting it in the manner you suggested. I'd remembered having come across RevisionDelete recently and thought I recalled it being noted as now being the preferred protocol for retaining a record of the additional edits but, as you correctly say, it isn't. The problem is that Shervinsky had already stepped into another page a couple of days ago and had blanked sections leaving an unacceptable anti-Ukrainian tirade as his/her edit comment. After being reprimanded by someone for this behaviour, the blanking and additions on the Name of Ukraine page were made without a single edit comment. Well, any useful information is now there to be picked over and added in a balanced manner and squabbles that arise can be disputed on the article's talk page... and we both know there'll be squabbles. Whether it appeals to any of us or not, consensus is the only tool we have at our disposal in our attempts to create reliable, neutral and informative encyclopaedic entries.
I'm going to leave a message on Shervinsky's talk page asking that he/she please refer to the policies and guidelines provided earlier this year or run the risk of being blocked. Hackles have already been raised and, if they want to contribute constructive information it is essential to follow Wikipedia etiquette or run the risk of being blocked.
Glad to know you're not too concerned about Prilepin. I'll get to him when I get to him. In the meantime, there is plenty to be done. I'm looking over the badly translated 'entry' for Shevchenko from a few weeks ago and can see that there's some potentially interesting information on his Russian works and their influence. To be honest, I'm fed up with the extremist nationalists from all sides who refuse to acknowledge the cross-pollination between Slavic cultures/ethnicities and the common intellectual ground & friendships between them in their stand against an elitist order which didn't serve anyone except the aristocracy. Good heavens, we know that the majority or the elite weren't even interested in their own cultures, much less could they even speak their so-called 'native tongue'! A serf in Russian was treated no better than a serf in Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Lithuania!
Thanks for listening to my rant. You may not agree with me but I just had to get it off my chest. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My edit contained a lot's of important information that enriched the article as well as many reliable sources. I didn't do any offensive comments when editing this. Iryna Harpy didn't present any factual counter-arguments on the issue. I suppose that the real motive behind her behaviour is that she doesn't like the facts that were described, for political or ideological reasons. Please help me and explain her that removing source-backed content is not allowed. --Shervinsky (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, lets not assume bad faith in each other. The article used to be a battleground between Russian and Ukrainian nationalists. Naturally, because of this every change is considered with suspicions. Lets follow WP:BRD cycle and discuss every significant change on the talk page of the article. I know it is painful and slow but still better than the edit war. If needed I could protect the article making changes via consensus protected edits. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw you are already discussing on the talk page of the article. That is very good Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 August 2013[edit]

New friend[edit]

Hello there Alex Bakharev, I dont think we have know each other but I saw your post at User talk:Jimbo Wales about this page being a blog thus not reliable. I have a related question as the site (as in NYtime blogs) are used all over the this site for sourcing. This usually gets allowed with the argument "Blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority are not allowed" pointing to our policy WP:NEWSBLOG and using attributes. I see your an admin and probably have come across this situation many times, thus may have more knowledge of the topic. Do we (us here at Wikipedia) have a set rule for NYtime blogs or another blogs by news organizations? Things like Foxnews blogs also get used all over and I have always had a concern with them as with other news blogs. Many times these blogs get sent to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and in most cases they stand because of WP:NEWSBLOG despite there obvious tone. So basically was wondering if there is some information out there that can help clarify Wikipedia's position on theses news blogs? -- Moxy (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Moxy. My opinion is that a blog is a blog. It does not go through any peer review or fact checking, it reflects only its author's opinions that can be intentionally simplified to entertain the readers. The only advantage of the blogs hosted with a respectful media organization like New York Times is that we should not worry that the blog is hosted by an imposter. Thus, blogs can be used to source a personal attributed opinion of a notable blogger (that in case of such bloggers like Paul Krugman might be a very notable thing) but that should be never used to provide sources for an objective truth. In a very new non-controversial article not dealing with living people except the blogger, a reference to a respectful blog might live for awhile (a bad source still better than no sources!) but it should be changed to a reliable source as soon as possible. Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with your assessment and will use the same type of argument in trying to prevent there use. Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alexandre Jacovleff may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ]<ref>[http://www.artsait.ru/art/sh/shuhaev/main.htm Шухаев Василий Иванович (1887-1973)]</ref>). They were almost inseparable, and received the nickname of ''The Twins''.
  • to study abroad for his paintings ''Bathing'' (Купание) and ''In [[Banya (sauna)|Banya]]''> He also composed his famous "In The Day Shining" painting the same year. He later went to [[Italy]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polonsky[edit]

Hi, thanks for your edits on Ivan Rakhmaninov! I was wondering, could you please translate to English what is written at the top of the Russian language page for the Russian name Polonsky? I would like to know where the name comes from.Hoops gza (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have put a sentence from the lead of the ru article. The rest of the ru article contains an original research connecting Polonsky name with Russian word polon (полон) - a prison. I don't think we can add this text unless find some references Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much!Hoops gza (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 September 2013[edit]

JBolshevism[edit]

Would you check if Producer and Direktor is the same person? They sound awfully similar.--Galassi (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not have the checkuser bit, so my guess is as good as yours. There are obvious connections of those users, starting from the usernames, then both have interests in military history of Yugoslavia, edit the same articles etc. The very first edit of one of those accounts is the insertion himself into the the MilHistory project. On the other hand, both accounts are more than four year old, have thousands of edits, etc. I could not believe that in such conflict-ridden area as the modern history of Yugoslavia accounts with such obvious connections could survive without rigorous scrutiny. Thus, I assume they are indeed two different people who might know each other in real life (e.g. indeed be the producer and the director of some student show) Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet trolling[edit]

Hi Alex, I think you did an excellent job assuming good faith here and performing a careful and reasonable evaluation of my edits in your response. That said, I have a strong suspicion that the complaining user is involved in sockpuppetry and has been for many months. On the surface, their complaint about me at the Jimbo Wales talk page comes after only one recent interaction between us, as far as I can tell, and that was to revert an inappropriate, and unexplained copy/paste job at Talk:Sidekick (TV series). Their fresh complaint implies that they might have a beef with me from a while back. So yeah, my comment here was a joke--but in a way that only constructive editors such as yourself should find amusing, not the vandals. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I got a smell of sockpuppetry myself. Please keep your investigation. Meanwhile, until the sockpuppet suspicions are substantiated please be polite with the user. If he is an innocent newbie we do not want to alienate him/her. Usually sockpuppets involve into some sort of disruptive activity and get banned for their own deeds even if the sockpuppet allegations are not proven. It just takes longer time and they can produce more harm if they are not identified earlier. 06:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry I've promised I won't stalk you ever again 174.89.25.75 (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexander Galushka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Klin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 September 2013[edit]

Fedor Solntsev[edit]

If you could add refs to the paras missing it we could WP:DYK it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Piotrus, I have referenced all the info in the article (that I originally got from ruwiki) and expanded the article a little bit. To my taste it is still a little bit to short for DYK, but I promise to expand it more in the remaining two days Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link[edit]

Hi Alex,

  • What do you think was problem here? Do you think this should be a link to every individual CD, or there is something else? Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess if you could check that the list of the albums is complete and add information about missing alboums (at least the English translation of the title) it will be useful. Regarding the site you have linked I have two objections: I don't like the commercial nature of it, and I am not sure whether the digital copies of the recordings it provides have valid copyright. Usually we do not support pirate sites. I have provided an external link to the complete list of Nikitin's published songs on their official site. I think this link solves both problems. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Link you provided is obviously good, however an attempt to look at the whole list freezes the screen. Speaking about my link, this is an official distributor, rather than a pirate website. They normally do not violate copyright because they would be immediately accountable and because that would undermine their own business. As about commercial nature of the site, nothing really prevents from linking to commercial sites (e.g. some biological databases are commercial) if this is something convenient for a reader. Of course if this were a pure advertisement, such linking would be inappropriate... Thank you for help. My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russian apartment bombings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FSB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 September 2013[edit]

______________________________


Yatrides strong references[edit]

Attention: Alex Bakharev

Hello,

I hope that this message is completely read and that is confirmed to me.

Your comprehensive statement made on September 13, I was able now to stay the action that I had undertaken to defend my work as well as scientific pictorial. I appreciate your answer, in a situation where they were obscured and /or distorted information about my work. I ask politely, based on the quality of the references I provide, ceases unjustified manipulation.

With my 82 years of experience, I request that my biography of June 06, 2013, 2:30 p.m. before occultation can be brought back online by my assistants next week, biography completed of scanned formal irrefutable references (see below). This biography will appear on en.Wikipedia.org and fr.Wikipedia.org, with your assistance particularly to France where my Wikipedia biography was deleted by the moderator Wikipedia Carol Henson who was confronted with facts scattered by others moderators predecessors. She is the only one who has made the effort to respond clearly, however with insufficient elements of the subject.

My conciliatory spirit manifested itself in two years in the face of negative Wikipedia moderators who were not deepening. For the avoidance of procrastination, often strong sources of third punctuate my long career secondary references are now scanned text and visual images in "Authentic Yatrides." This site belongs to Gilbert Arnaud who has his own business and manages large IT companies Grenoble Rhône-Alpes largest university and industrial Centre of France, Centre of Atomic Research CEA-CENG (AEC: French Atomic Energy Commission)where I realized my own personal researches about new properties of light dissociated of non common time, all Claims Patents agreed. Gilbert Arnaud research on the size of my work serves as a reference to its customers.

What should I wear more prejudice: I am 82 years old, my time is valuable. In addition, I can not leave this life leaving behind over three hundred small Collectors whose heritage is made up of elements of my paintings, collectors disconcerted by the behavior moderators Wikipedia incredulous to the size of my career. Similarly, the preeminent private collections that have my works deserve consideration. Some of them appear in the register of the Chamber of Commerce Franco-British among them, the Honourable Lady Marriott (Maryot) Hay, Joachim Murat, Lord Glentanar, John Foster Dulles, The Honorable Mrs. Lotti Adams, Basil (Bazle) Butler British Petroleum, Tristan Jones Garrel Member British Parliament. Etc.

I refused any compromise, proposals oriented banking groups media campaigns, including films of the best filmmakers of my friends whose producers investors were not suitable for my work. All the facts stated are scanned in "Authentic Yatrides" [28] and concerning "Press articles, documents etc." their references below are detailed chronologically in [29].:

  • 1954

- First exhibition Vichy France [30]

  • 1956

- 2nd Paris exhibition [31]

  • 1956

- Early career with Johnson Director of International Galleries and an exclusive contract. Johnson buys him more than 300 paintings from 1956 to 1972 he sells all. [32]

  • 1957-1963

- Rectangles monoliths appear in Yatrides work; His research for a standard rectangle that can be reproduced by one of its elements. Geometric development and mathematical modelling in 2012, theorem resulting in protected INPI (French National Institute for intellectual property) which establishes the primacy of the specific rectangle that fits as being standard of standards[33].

  • 1959

- "French Contemporary Masters" Chicago Ill. USA[34]

- Solo exhibition Chicago, International Galleries Chicago[35]

- Exhibition "Drawings and Watercolors 1900-1959" World School event[36]

  • 1960

- "Watercolors 1910-1960" World School event[37]

  • 1961

- Contrat exclusivité 1961-1972 G. Yatridès – S.-E. Johnson[38]

  • 1963

- Gallery Juarez - Palm Beach solo exhibition[39]

  • 1965

- Solo exhibition Columbus, City of historic monuments including the Capitol 1861, important city of Ohio with Cleveland and Cincinnati[40]

  • 1968

- The standard rectangular monolith appears in "2001 Space Odyssey" by Stanley Kubrick[41]

  • 1971

- His personal research at CEA (AEC: French Atomic Energy Commission) have accomplished in 1973 on new properties of "light dissociated time". Numerous patents claims granted all emphasize the dimension. Some elements are extrapolated into his paintings where he can draw what he did not yet able to express scientifically or can not be in fact[42].

  • 1974

- Correlative Patents Washington DC Patent Office corresponding CEA culminated researches[43]

  • 1975

- Magazine "Parler" summer 1975."Yatridès predecessor": Christian Gali editor-in-Chief[44]

  • 1976

- His biography appears from his 45th year in the "Benezit" dictionary (1976) Gründ edition; While milestones/events below were yet to come[45].

  • 1978

- "Journal de Lyon", Claude Bandieri-Yatrides[46]

  • 1979

- "First Retrospective 1945-1978" La Condamine Meylan, France[47]

- "World Sephardi World Federation" proposal[48]

- "Management and Investments S.A". Switzerland Geneva SA, financial group, proposal[49]

  • 1980

- Solo exhibition - "Galerie Jean Minet" Place Beauvau, Paris[50]

- Directory of "Art Internationnal" 1980-1981[51]

  • 1981

- "XIth Salon Montmorency" Guest of Honor[52]

- Solo exhibition Switzerland - the Cnesseth proposal.[53]

- Preeminent private Collections[54]

- Three Crypts of the Sacred Heart (Sacré Cœur Montmartre Paris)[55] are available to work on its presentation...

  • 1981

- Biography checked by inspection of the French Tax Administration, this because of the significant sums that his paintings Collectors dealt between themselves (for a drawing € 22,800 and € 2 million for oil) and the fact interbank possible opportunities thanks to his French-American dual citizenship. Agents of the Administration found that he had sold at modest prices and seen nothing. This analysis lasted eight years (1977-1985): His work is grown out with a biography recognized by a severe Administration whose duties do not include any media indulgence[56].

  • 1982

- Salon Comparaisons 1982" Paris, France Two paintings GY selected[57]

- Alexandre Bourmeyster Professor University Semiologist: "Discursive study of Yatrides work"[58]

  • 1983

- Arthur Conte Historian, President of the Union of Western Europe, Minister, President director general French TV Channels : "Yatrides stunning graphics the art of the great masters" in his book "1er Janvier 1983"[59]

- Christie's London 22.03.83 - Sale record £ 45.864[60]

- Lion's Club organization exceptional sale of painting for dystrophic children of Poland.[61]

- Jacques Charpentier "Prélude pour l’Ailleurs" based Yatrides "The new Scrolls" painting"[62]

- Press Items: sale record 800,000 Francs (120.000 €)[63]

- "XIIIth Salon Montmorency" Guest of Honor[64]

- "Annual Art Sales index"[65]

  • 1984

- Testimony of gratitude Polish Consul for his help to children of Poland, with 40 trailers of using drugs and 5 fruit and toys, thanks to the sale of the Meridian Hotel Paris ( 800.000frs)[66] .

- Leading article of "France Presse" information worldwide consequential to the result of the sale for the Poland[67]

- "Arts Magazine" No. 702 1984 : "Salon Comparaisons"[68]

- "Demeures et Chateaux" Magazine ISSN oct 27, 1984[69]

- Second Poland travel[70]

- Metallograms, 2nd exhibition at Condamine Meylan, France[71]

- "Mayer Directory International" - sale record $ 63,400[72]

- "Jeune Chambre économique de Grenoble" - Tribute to Yatridès for his decisive help[73]

- "Aubusson tapestries" proposal[74].

  • 1985

- "Tzag" Exhibition in Zurich and Wil, Switzerland[75]

- Master Francis Faure & Bernard Rey Contracting Sale painting Yatrides[76]

- Auction - Drawing: World sales record: 150,000 Francs[77]

- "Germann" Yatrides paintings important auctions - Zurich (Switzerland)[78]

- "La Gazette de l ' Hôtel Drouot" occulted voluntarily them significant sales of the works of GeorgeYatridès results[79]

  • 1986

- "Chamber Commerce Franco British" 1985-86 World sales records[80]

- "Whos Who Internationnal Art" Patrick Barrer Director –letter published in tribute of GY[81]

- "Metropolitan Washington Airports" Dulles International Airport proposal[82]

  • 1987

- Jean Delannoy great French film maker[83]

- Marcel Carné prominent French film maker[84]

- "Synchrotron"-site of the AEC Atomic Energy Commission project[85]

  • 1988

- Who's Who in International Art 1987-1988 exceptionally devoted 16 pages to the work of Yatrides.[86]

- "XXXIIIth Salon of the Gâtinais", Montargis – France, Grand Prix[87]

  • 1989

- "Commander of the "Order of the star of Europe", "Great price of Prestige European" and "Knight of the Order of Malta"[88]

- Arcole auctions Georges Yatridès - "Humanitarian Action"[89]

- "XVIIIth Salon Montmorency" Guest of honor[90]

- "Chamber Commerce Franco British" 1985-86 Yatrides world sales records[91]

- "Who's Who in International Art dictionary" standpoint of the market regarding GY work[92]

- Article in the "Dauphiné Libéré" on sales records and its major position[93]

  • 1991

- "Biennial France-Canada 1987-1989-1991" - "Yatrides grand master Guest of honor"[94]

- "The Bureau of the Chamber of Discipline in Lyon- President Jean-Claude Loiseau[95]

  • 1992

- Arthur Conte Minister of Information , CEO of Channels TV original French , President of the Assembly of the Western European Union (1961-1963) wrote my biography " Yatrides Master of Time" (268 pages) ISBN n° 2-9507049-0-5[96]

  • 1993:

- "Grand Master Guest of Honor" and "Main Master Guest" International Biennials France-Canada and Canada-France 1987-1993[97]

  • 1994

- Alexander Bourmeyster University Professor, Semiologist reputed Russian origin makes a discursive study of his work in his book "Yatrides and his century anti Picasso" 1994 (272 pages) ISBN n° 2-9507049-1-3[98]

- "Professional biography" by the French State[99]

  • 1996

- Creation of an organization "Yatrides and his century" which the Bureau is composed of senior officials, who had controlled his civil and professional life, become friends.[100]

  • 1997

- James Crowley physicist and Yatrides work[101]

  • 1999

- "Who'sWho in International Art dictionary"[102]

  • 2001

- "Cahiers du Cinéma" "2001 a space odyssey" Stanley Kubrick[103]

- "Yatrides, the Slab, the Bible and the Sphere": Alexandre Bourmeyster[104]

  • 2008

- The Dictionary of Painters Edition Alzieu with 5 pages telegraphic style extremely brief history, the most significant events that have marked punctuated my life. 5 pages is 8 times more than Johan Barthold Jongking, Lattrop Duth Province 1819 died Grenoble France in 1891, a precursor of Impressionism - Pierre Bonnard 1867-1947 Frederic Eugene, André Lhote 1885-1962.[105]

  • 2011

- Letter to Mr Serge Tubiana Director of the "Cinémathèque Française"[106]

  • 2012

- Geometric Development and mathematical modelling, leading to the INPI protected by establishing the rule of specific rectangle he created theorem : it turns out that it is the initial geometric standard, which sets the standard of the standards.[107]

  • 2013

- Creation of the trophy for the winners of the Network of Entrepreneurs Rhône-Alpes France[108]


  • 2013 Compendium references to the "Authentic Yatrides" Arnaud Gilbert site videos are integral broadcasts of TV News France-Poland-Russia, official and Academic Reports which are not You Tube nor Facebook or Tweeter, nor any other kind of publicity.

______

These references determine an unavoidable biography that I require, consisting of the deleted page 6 June 2013 - 14: 30, completed by the scanned information to be posted on en.wikipedia.org and fr.wikipedia.org, with your assistance particularly to Wikipedia France biography completely erased June 3, 2013 and restored only in part by the Wikipedia moderator Carol Henson directed in spite of herself by moderators predecessors.


Regards,

Georges Yatrides

20 September 2013

--Yatrides (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 September 2013[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for October 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sergei Krylov (violinist), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conductor, Violinist and Bozar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request[edit]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 October 2013[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for October 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Caladenia sp. Kilsyth South (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Victoria
Victor Erofeyev (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Chevalier

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

with gratitude[edit]

with gratitude
thank you very much :)

thank you for helping me correct the article about Nikolay Yaroshenko Swarovskiy (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Fedor Solntsev[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 09:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013[edit]

Photo[edit]

Hello. Идите сюда: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Paquita_-Ekaterina_Vazem_-1881.JPG Это фотографии балерины Ekaterina Vazem – написано, что она Пахита из балета «Пахита»: в галерейке: Paquita, фото использовано и в других языковых разделах. А у меня другие данные: http://dancelib.ru/baletenc/item/f00/s00/e0000465/index.shtml - т.е. что это она Зорайя из балета «Зорайя, мавританка в Испании». Lawrentia (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a not on User_talk:Mrlopez2681#Paquita_or_Zoraiya.3F, Mrlopez2681 who uploaded the picture is quite a knowledgeable guy who contributed to a lot of ballet-related pages. I think he can solve the mystery. I also left a message on commons:File talk:Paquita -Ekaterina Vazem -1881.JPG so everyone could be forewarned Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Minorsky[edit]

Hi Alex. Vladimir and Nicolas Minorsky were indeed brothers, I confirmed this with one of Nicolas' descendants. The trouble is neither of us have been able to find a citeable source that states this. Any suggestions?

Are you willing to somehow find a copy of, or at least the title and abstract for Nicolas' dissertation at the Saint Petersburg State Institute of Technology?

Thanks!

Henry Hreschk (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Berezovo.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Berezovo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Lubarov FishDay.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lubarov FishDay.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Estranged users are irritating me[edit]

Hello, Alex. Why did you block me? What did I done for you? What did I mistake with you and your family? Why you blocked me at your pleasure? Please tell me my crime/offense that what did I fault? Please be a kind, compassionate, merciful, beneficent and good human. So don't be a rude. Please understand these goofy users. Then I am glad for you. Hope you understand. Thank you. Musarabbyahmad (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Musarabbyahmad has again launched a personal attack against me in a very offensive language (see [109], [110], [111]). After watching his overall behavior, all I can say is that he is probably having psychological problem. It is pathetic to say this. But the enormity of misconduct and a total failure to understand others repeated suggestions, warnings, and wiki policies make me say so. I'm wondering what Peridon will say if he sees fresh attack. -AsceticRosé 11:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Alex, please don't listen her. This user is annoying me very much. It also caused many hamper of your Wikipedia. Please understand her for don't annoying me. Please tell her that if they didn't annoying/irritating me. I mean you know that this user becomes crazy and really annoying me many days. Understand her and I glad for you. Musarabbyahmad (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AsceticRose, behave yourself. Don't be a crazy and insane person. Think yourself as a pitiful human. Musarabbyahmad (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Maloyaroslavets Nikolaev Chyornoostrov Convent.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Maloyaroslavets Nikolaev Chyornoostrov Convent.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 October 2013[edit]

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin[edit]

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a huge point but all the !voters before Somky Joe and you in this discussion who used the opening "support" followed with support for the appeal, For the benefit of casual readers, would you consider changing from "Support the ban" to "Oppose unbanning"? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2013[edit]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Zisman MorningTea.jpeg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Zisman MorningTea.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Yakobson[edit]

Hi! Вы не посмотрите, можно ли поставить что-то из фотографий, а то он стоит какой-то без фотографий, вот отюда: http://cyclowiki.org/wiki/Леонид_Вениаминович_Якобсон Thanks, --Lawrentia (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) And ещё Lydia Sokolova - from: http://cyclowiki.org/wiki/Лидия_Соколова --Lawrentia (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013[edit]

Nomination of William Hastie (disambiguation) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Hastie (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hastie (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Solomon7968 19:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 November 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 13 November 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 20 November 2013[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for November 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

1943 Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Vyatka, Gorky, Galich, Kalinin, Kuibyshev and Sverdlovsk

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your quick responce on EuroMaidan. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • My pleasure. Drop me a notice if further help is needed - I am busy IRL and on top of this my wikipedia connections are extremely slow today Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pollution of Lake Karachay[edit]

Hey Alex, never saw you response at the talks of Pollution of the Lake Karachay. You know I am trying to make the pages of the pollution of major rivers of the world, next one would be Pollution of the Cuyahoga river, and so on. The article regarding Lake karachay was just 1,600 Bytes, that time, now it's about 5,000 +, so what you think? I don't think it should be merged. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 December 2013[edit]

Hi, thanks for a long-ago comment[edit]

Hello, Alex, what a fine long vacation you must have had :) I want to thank you for a comment you made long, long ago for which I can't find a diff. You wrote something to the effect, pardon my paraphrasing, that national pride has its upside and downside here - it drives wikieditors to create and improve articles about their countries...but it also drives them into wikibattles about their history and heritage. Don't know why it came to mind, but thanks - that was one of the most insightful comments I've ever seen on this site. Happy holidays, Novickas (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Borisov Page[edit]

Thank you for editing the Victor Borisov's page. However, I deleted two entries of the uncommented "External links" as these were actually copied from the Vladimir Smirnov's page that I used as a template and thus have little in common with V. Borisov. "MathGenealogy Vladimir Smirnov" template is pertinent... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outkine (talk • contribs) 11:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! I have not noticed that the ELs were for a wrong mathematician! Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited RIA Novosti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lenta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 December 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 December 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 December 2013[edit]

Congratulations! Happy New Year![edit]

Дорогой Алекс! От всей души поздравляю с наступающим Новом годом и желаю всего самого-самого доброго и радостного. Большое спасибо за помощь и подддержку в минувшем году. Счастья вам и удач. Спасибо. --Lawrentia (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lawrentia! My best wishes for the New Year to you and to everybody who reads this note! Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Matvey Dmitriev-Mamonov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Gendarme and Desna
Igor Kvetnoy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Samara

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 January 2014[edit]

Help with Russian?[edit]

Dear Alex,

I am struggling with an OTRS message - the Russian is getting in the way, and you are one of the very few admins who has native Russian on your user page

It's about http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LGuars_hussar_1812.jpg

The poster believes the artist Олег Пархаев (Oleg Parkhayev) is alive and illustrates modern books with pictures of 1800s Russian uniforms. I can't easily find him on Google (the Cyrillic does get in the way!). In addition, I found https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:%D0%A0%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BB-%D0%B3_%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B0.gif - same author and claims he is dead. Sadly http://www.sudarrb.com/page20.armia.htm is a dead link.

The OTRS poster says "Oleg Parkhayev is one of the authors of ISBN 5691002112, published in 2000, and those same illustrations are used in the book, with revisions, so you can be sure he is alive and kicking, at least in 2000"

I did find (wikitext kills this link - hence use of code box) 

http://explore.rkd.nl/nl/explore/images#query=&filters[RKD_algemene_trefwoorden]=rijpaard&filters[soort_signatuur][]=monogrammed+and+dated

which suggests to me that the two images there were made in 1986

With your knowledge of Russian - is there anything you can find - is there a Russian Google? - to show if the author is alive or deceased?

Thanks for your attention, Ron.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was born in 1954 (meaning work is not PD) and seems to be alive. [112] I will try more hits.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[113], also has a social media account [114], in December was alive.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ymblanter. It looks like we cannot keep the picture on commons (unless somebody would contact Parkhayev and ask for permissions) Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - looks like time for deletion request on commons, I can always undelete if they get permisson - could someone try a deletion request on the Russian page?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 15 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014[edit]

Setting up the new article bot[edit]

Hi, I am attempting to set up the User:AlexNewArtBot to search for new articles for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists page. I've created the common.js page, adding the script... and I added the Women artists to the list of "Arts" searches here... and now I'm lost.

I'm not sure how to set up the rules. I've tried looking at some examples and am not quite sure what to do.

  • If the rules can check the talk page, we'd want to pick up the {{WPWA}} tagged articles
  • Other than that, I'm guessing: articles that include artist, painter, sculptor, engraver, illustrator...
  • Somehow pick up that their women

Do you mind helping me sort through the next steps. I've tried looking at examples of "rules" pages and I'm not able to figure out how the rules are generated.

Thanks~--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answered over here User talk:CaroleHenson#New article bot. --Bamyers99 (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for February 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pussy Riot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Actionism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 February 2014[edit]


Edits to Generation War Article[edit]

Hi Alex, You have left a rather rudely abrupt message on my talk page, issuing me with a final warning that I will be blocked if I make further insertions into a Wikipedia article. Might it not have been a good idea to issue me with an initial warning, or better still to have engaged me in discussion before employing what ought to be a sanction of last resort? Hopefully, when you read this you will attempt to engage me in discussion and so I will await further contact. Regards, Maxim Musson (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit on Russians[edit]

The gender gap in collage was going to be quite a problem. It's even more problematic with the few famous [ethnic] Russian women in such a male dominated society! Khazar (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment at ac case request[edit]

Arbcom is considering the following case request Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Toddst1. I've posted a statement, and since you left a comment in the related AN/I thread, I thought you might want to be made aware of the request, and possible make a statement.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was not sufficiently involved to any conflict related to this case (I was marginally involved with your block and the block of User:Holdek . I got an impression that Toddst1 was too heavy-handed in both cases but I need to get better picture of his actions before my comment would be helpful. If I would have time to read through the diffs I would write a comment. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 February 2014[edit]

Alexandrinsky Theatre[edit]

Hi. А что делать, если в статье полная чушь – похоже, что с РуВи перевели. А они не знают разницы между театром – искусством и театром – зданием. Можно эту статью вообще снести? Или хотя бы написать там сверху, что статья нуждается в тщательной переработке? Я уже не успею переписать статью. Lawrentia (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 February 2014[edit]

Oy, you're completely right![edit]

Re [115]. My bad. In my defense I did click on the map but... the wrong one right above the crazy one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problems. I guess it is not only me who feels overwhelmed by the recent events in Ukraine Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Wikipedia is concerned, in my experience when it comes to these "hot current topic" articles it is best to just leave it mostly - aside from undoing some of the most blatant shenanigans - alone until the dust settles. It's an encyclopedia and those aren't really meant to cover current events.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mixrunya[edit]

Good time of day! I have a request for assistance, log on to your Russian page. Mixrunya (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

stopfake.org[edit]

I'm not so sure this can be considered a reliable source to present factual information according to WP:RS. This website is a self-published primary source, and openly expresses a very strong bias (referring to Yanukovich as a "corrupt dictator" for example[116]) with a clear political motivation. It doesn't seem to meet the criteria for being a reliable authority. LokiiT (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It provides a good background on the ridiculous meme on the appeal to Umarov via vkontakte group. If it is not reliable enough there are two other references to major Russian newspaper. BTW The New Republic is hardly a reliable source either Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014[edit]

Taisia Krugovych[edit]

I've come across this name before on sites like Ekho Moskvy, she's a left wing activist usually referred to in reports as a "friend" of Pussy Riot. Your edit states that she is a member of Pussy Riot, implying that she has participated in their videos or performances. Are there any sources for this? Regards. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have followed BBC source http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/multimedia/2014/03/140306_pussy_riot_zelenka.shtml (Russian service) (the bolded sentence just below the multimedia): На участниц панк-группы Pussy Riot Надежду Толоконникову, Марию Алехину и Таисию Круговых в Нижнем Новгороде было совершено нападение. (Members of Pussy Riot Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alyokina and Taisia Krugovykh were assaulted). Quite possible that BBC was sloppy and simplified the event. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems likely that her role in Pussy Riot is behind the camera, rather than as a performer; see this RFE/RL article. http://www.svoboda.org/content/article/25267802.html She directed a Russian language Pussy Riot documentary as "Gogol's wives". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2751334/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_1 MaxBrowne (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Victor Kissine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ''Victor Kissine''' ({{lang-ru|Виктор Романович Кисин; born 15 March 1953}}; is a Russian-born classical composer. He

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 March 2014[edit]



We could use your assistance here[edit]

Alex Bakharev,

We could use your assistance one this set of comments on Jimbo's page . It appears to be written by a native Russian speaker in Russian and it's not easily translatable in Bing or Google. Further they claim they don't speak English either. Perhaps a quick look at it would be helpful ?  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   11:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Bol'shoye spasibo!! I see you took a look  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

User:Lvivske breached sanctions[edit]

I apologize if this is the incorrect place to report this. If not, could please forward this to the appropriate place. I will also add this to User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise and User talk:Lvivske.

Regarding these sanctions:

"Lvivske (talk · contribs)) . . . placed under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Lvivske breached the bolded part with this revert on Svoboda without any discussion. The edit summary made reference to a recent effort to reduce the criticism section (see talk page) which had already been closed and integrated into the article and where, at any rate, I specifically asked that "No significant content should be removed from the article entirely without due discussion." I will note that during the effort to close the criticism section User:Lvivske made disruptive edits without any discussion here and here that greatly increased the criticism section despite my requests for "collaboration and discussion" on the article talk page and at User talk:Lvivske#Restructuring Svoboda article. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would first to point out that the diff in question concerns me removing something from the article without discussing it first - there is an active talk section on this specific content, and another user suggested to remove it already and none opposed, I was just being proactive.--Львівське (говорити) 22:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was about the specific factual claim of a 'calling for a purge'. Lvivske decided on his own initiative, and without warning, to remove the entire passage of which no one had suggested. The statement referring to a purge had already been reverted by me and changed to a claim attributed to the source. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, how's it going? It seems Steve Sharpe here is headhunting me. I don't know why (he's making spurious claims about 'significant content' and 'great increases' over a single sentence I added to the article). His user page is now a bizarre attack page about me now, apparently he's taking Wikipedia too personal. Can you point me in the right direction to appeal this annoying restriction from 2011? Appreciate any help in dealing with this. --Львівське (говорити) 22:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If my user page bothers you I'll change it. It was an appeal for help. The two additions to the criticism section combined for a total of 16 sentences and the removal of several others (of which there was no discussion either) - you overlooked the second link. The main concern is how you breached the requirement to discuss your proposed reverts and wait a minimum of six hours before making them despite my requests for discussion. This is also not the first time you have done so as detailed in Revision history of "Svoboda" (political party) where most of your reverts were not preceded by discussion. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Lvivske was warned on March 5 that the restrictions still apply here. Also I'm not "headhunting" - we've edited 3 or 4 of the same articles, all related to recent events in Ukraine, because we have similar interests. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you're coming up with this 16 sentence figure. 1 sentence, not 16.--Львівське (говорити) 22:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here. This link was included in my first post. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at User_talk:Lvivske#User:Lvivske_breached_sanctions Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also these two reverts here and here despite there being an ongoing conversation on the talk page. Also violates 1RR restriction. There's plenty more evidence from Lvivske's contribtution page that you can go through at your leisure. Clearly, Lvivske feels like he can ignore his sanctions without consequence. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on reddit that Itar-TASS correspondents play fluffy birds during their work is indeed a very unreliable source. I think removing it while the talk page discussion was ongoing was a good idea. Honestly, Lvivske is already on quite strict sanctions that significantly limit his ability to contribute to the project. I do not think we should make his limitations even harder by misinterpreting the sanctions. Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we keeping the conversation here? Ok. Perhaps my understanding of Wikipedia sanctions is overly literal but the only exemption in the sanctions is clear vandalism and it wasn't vandalism. Further a number of editors were currently discussing the issue on the talk page and Lvivske didn't engage with us until after his to two reverts were changed back and the gave a response that didn't actually address the arguments already made. Eventually we came to solution without any discussion from Lvivske. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some hours before Lvivske made this edit/revert on the same page where he removed sourced info (sourced in the lead) and inserted his own highly dubious source. If he had visited the talk page as his sanctions required he would have found us already discussing the matter and how the claims were misleading. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And then there's these 5 edits/reverts, functionally the same and some identical, all within just over a 48 hour period here, here, here, here, and here where he removed clearly sourced text "status within Ukraine" and inserted "declare independence" despite there being an ongoing conversation where the emerging consensus was opposed to Lvivske. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Actually there's more than 5 but I'm getting tired at this point. Please do something. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also this where he removes an 'unbalanced' tag on what is essentially a POV fork and marks the edit as minor despite there being clear concern about balance on the talk page which was made within 48 hours of this revert (this one was preceded by discussion). Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its been over 48 hours since I've posted my concerns. If you are too busy to deal with this matter then could you please forward this on to another admin. Thanks. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its been a week since I posted my concerns of 3RR and edit warring violations listed above. As there was no response I reported my concerns on the noticeboard here. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]

"Bad" list[edit]

Is the list created by User:AlexNewArtBot/Bad still being used for good purpose? It appears to me that it generates a lot of false positives.

I happened upon User:AlexNewArtBot/Bad because a new article of mine (South Guthrie, Tennessee) appeared on the list. I believe that there is a very legitimate reason for that article to have used the word that got it added to the bad list. Crime in Tuvalu and The Sugarplastic make the list because the string "idiot" appears on those pages for innocent reasons.

I also see that Iai Joshi Women's Academy is on the bad list because it refers to a missionary with the middle name of "Colbert" -- why in the world is Wikipedia treating all uses of that name as bad articles requiring some sort of review?

Meanwhile, this filter is not detecting a host of problems that truly make an article bad... Just wondering what the status of this filter is. --Orlady (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

Sadovoye, Republic of Kalmykia[edit]

Подставьте координаты, пожалуйста. Я их не могу поставить--Many baks (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]

Hi[edit]

I was wondering if you could semi protect or put in place pending changes for 2014 Crimean crisis, the editor Widewindow has already been mentioned under the edit warring noticeboard and the article really needs the protection based on it's recent history. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for copy editing Oleh Dubyna. I added one more sentence and a ref, as well as sections. Sure, the article is far away from being a C, but its better then it was before. Can you check it again? Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your edits, the article became better. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its me again, another great expansion. Can you check if the quotes are reasonable and so that it doesn't create undue weight in this article: Svyatoslav Piskun. Also, I added a section, but it might need renaming, what do you think?--Mishae (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 April 2014[edit]

I am not participating in an edit war[edit]

You should better take a look at the talking page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yatsenyuk_Government

I've done everything according to Wiki guidelines but the other users don't like the article.

--Wrant (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2014[edit]

unblocking[edit]

is it ok if you unblock me(jungleewan)? i was blocked unfairly and by the time i complain from the person,i wasblocked already.

respectfully, jungleewan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piachpia (talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 14 May 2014[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for May 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oscar Rabin (artist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belyayevo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agnia Losina-Losinskaja[edit]

I see that you've filled out her initials "A.S" to "Agnia Sergeyevna" based on the Spanish article. I didn't do it because that article doesn't give a source and I couldn't find one that actually says that either Agnia Sergeyevna Losina-Losinskaja or Агния Сергеевна Лозина-Лозинская is the botanist in botanical databases or in scientific publications as "A.S." or "А.С." although I did get a Russian-speaking librarian at my institution to check. Do you have a source? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right – I think that the location Ботанический институт Академии наук СССР at http://db.ranar.spb.ru/ru/work/id/13282/ is enough. Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Frantseva[edit]

Hi, I tried to write an article on a Russian paralympian, but it reads kind off funny (probably needs a merge somewhere). Can you please fix the English wording? Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 May 2014[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for May 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aleksandra Frantseva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slalom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Alexeyevich Avdeyev[edit]

Can you see if the info that I added is correct, especially the sentence which carries Russian refs? I'm thanking you in advance.--Mishae (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karabulak (South Kazakhstan)[edit]

Please help stop the vandal. Member Amir.Timur systematically in this paper indicates the official name of the settlement Kazakhstan in the Uzbek language. Uzbek language is not an official language in Kazakhstan. The official name of the village in Kazakhstan is indicated only in the Kazakh language. Sincerely 95.161.227.254 (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

официальное наименование населенных пунктов в Казахстане указывается только на государственном языке то есть на казахском языке и на языке межнационального общения то есть на русском языке. Все иные языки в казахстане в том числе и узбекский не могут применяться в качестве официального наименования населенного пункта вне зависимости от национальностей людей в ней живущих. Если населенный пункт находится не в Израиле но в населенном пункте живут этнические евреи это еще не значит что официальное название этого населенного пункта обязательно должно быть прописано на иврите. В некоторых государствах на законодательном уровне это признается и допускается, но в частности в Казахстане это на законодательном уровне не допускается. Более в Казахстане на законодательном пресекается даже искажение и ошибочное прописание названия населенного пункта. За такие просчеты там имеется наказание. В таких случаях в википедии должны быть исключены все не допускаемые официально названия населенного пункта.95.161.227.254 (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly fine to give a name of a Kazakh settlement in Uzbek as well if there are special reasons why it should be given in Uzbek (for example, a large Uzbek population). The fact that Uzbek has no official status in Kazakhstan is irrelevant.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to the article this village has 99% Uzbek population, it seems to be notable primarily by the highest concentration of ethnic Uzbeks in Kazakhstan. It seems to me that entering Uzbek spelling is appropriate in the circumstances. Kazakh legislation does not have impact on Wikipedia (it rules by its own policies and conforms to the laws of USA and Florida) but out of curiosity, does Kazakh law forbid mentioning of spelling of Kazakh settlements in languages other than Kazakh? Even on private internet sights like en-Wikipedia? Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give me an essay or a rule that states that the official name of the village names depends on the nationalities of people living there.

Secondly , it is necessary to begin to understand the essence of contemporary ethnographic division of the Uzbek people , people living in Karabulak belong to a specific ethnographic group speaking a special dialect and only vaguely similar to the modern Uzbek language . For information in the pre-revolutionary years to national-territorial delimitation of the USSR according to the census of the Russian Empire (1897) residents Karabulak and Turkic none Kazakhs oasis Shymkent Kazakhstan residents as members of the other nationalities and it was attributed to a different language other than already existed in those years the Uzbek language . Policy of assimilation and Uzbekization done its job and partly existing residents considering themselves Uzbeks nevertheless continue to speak a language different from the modern Uzbek language . Because of the long residence isolated among a large number of Kazakhs their language over the centuries has become detached and more reminiscent of the Kazakh language . Uzbek from Tashkent (Tashkent, Samarkand, Kokand e.t.c.) will not understand fully until the end of it Karabulak resident. In Uzbek linguistics brought special dialect referred to as ikan - karabulak dialect.

Be perfectly valid and truthful in Wikipedia then need to specify in the text (not in the title ) that the inhabitants of this settlement speak a special dialect referred to as "Ikan Karabulak - dialect"

95.161.227.254 (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the legislation of Kazakhstan on the names I mentioned this fact to the threat to your address or to the address of Wikipedia . I mention this in order that you would acquaint with the position of the authorities of Kazakhstan. If the village has an official name approved by the authorities it should be stated precisely in the official form that is the official language , and not in any other language of choice participants Wikipedia . We're in the other languages ​​do not translate into the languages ​​of the title of city residents . for example in New York live many Russian it does not give us the right to call New York in Russian official "Noviy York", or reverse example to call the city Los Angeles in the English manner officially City of Angels. Los Angeles is officially referred to as precisely as Los Angeles , regardless of language spoken by the inhabitants of this settlement and of their national origin .95.161.227.254 (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer, if I can put down the name of settlements in another language just because in this village has a large number related to other non-titular nation? for example, if a lot of Tajikistan is Tajik I ascribe the name of the Tajik language? if in settlements outside of Kazakhstan has a large number of Kazakhs, then the specified locality name I can ascribe the Kazakh language? Answer can I do this without fear that you will block me?95.161.227.254 (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On this particular question (and I hope Alex doesn't mind my meddling), for Russia (where I've just reverted a number of your additions of Kazakh names to oblasts), names in languages other than English, Russian, and local official (if any) are given only for ethnicities of special significance (such as, for example, a titular ethnicity whose language is not official, as in the Republic of Karelia) or for ethnicities with a large proportion of the population (such as it would be the case, for example, for some districts in Tatarstan with a sizable Bashkir population). Just because an ethnicity is the second-largest (and especially when the gap between the largest and the second-largest is significant) does not mean the name in its language should be added. There are some cases falling into the grey area, of course, but not with these oblasts, where Kazakhs constitute less than 7% and are often not even in the second place, population-wise. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 29, 2014; 12:04 (UTC)
To keep it short, the names which apear in the lede of the article are NOT (or not necessarily) official in any sense. Even the name of the article is not necessarily the official name.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am a person of the categories do not believe a word. Maybe instead of their personal reasoning and conclusions you present me specific rules and essays. Speculate as you argue I can also but it looks like "trolling". I hope you understand me correctly.95.161.227.254 (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, WP:PLACE is at your service. There are no special policies for Kazakhstan At the moment, so that it applies directly.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ymblanter you said It is perfectly fine to give a name of a Kazakh settlement in Uzbek as well if there are special reasons why it should be given in Uzbek (for example, a large Uzbek population). The fact that Uzbek has no official status in Kazakhstan is irrelevant. Please explain to me why I can not to give a name of a Uzbek and Russian settlement in Kazakh language if there lives a large Kazakh population?95.161.227.254 (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have any problems adding a Kazakh name to the lede of the article about a Russian or Uzbek settlement with more than 50% Kazakh population (the exact numerical border is negotiable)--Ymblanter (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not 40%, or 20% or 10%. Please show me where it says about the 50% of the population. For example in Birobidzhan Jews only 1.2% but the city name on Wikipedia written in Hebrew; 20% population of Sochi Armenians, but the city is written entirely in Russian. In Astrakhan region 16% of Kazakhs but Alex Baharev party removes a note in the Kazakh language. Why can not I specify the name Kharabalinsky District in the Kazakh language (according to the English Wikipedia Kazakhs 44%) or Kamyzyaksky District (kazakhs 33,5%) Krasnoyarsky District and other districts 95.161.227.254 (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alex Bakharev сan I to give a name of a Uzbekistan and Russian settlement in Kazakh language if there lives a large Kazakh population? As you have done it in the article Karabulak?95.161.227.254 (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • In Karabulak, the Uzbek language is used in day-to-day communication among the population, signs and ads are written in two languages, Kazakh and Uzbek. In the Constitution of Kazakhstan, it is specified that blanks, signs, announcements, advertising, price-lists and tags, and other visual information should be written in Kazakh and Russian, and if necessary, other languages.--Amir.Temur (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Amir Temur follows thought, there's no one argues that the Uzbek language prohibited. Here affirms that the Uzbek language is not the official language. Speak, write and read in the Uzbek language in Kazakhstan is not prohibited as in worldwide. 95.161.227.254 (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vljublen Po Sobstvennomu Zhelaniju.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vljublen Po Sobstvennomu Zhelaniju.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ernesto Treccani, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hermitage and Pavese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2014[edit]

Is Federal State of New Russia notable?[edit]

The references that are secondary have add nothing to the article (e.g. Brzezinski's book) and the primary sources seem very unreliable. The way it is written, I think the article was made by fan-boys of the movement. Thought I'd make an administrator aware of that. -Llehsadam (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I actually do not have strong opinions either way. From one side we represent a fantasy construct as almost a real state, on the other hand this construct seems to be important for the war (aka unrest). Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to make the English article more reliable like the German version? The administrators there are doing a good job keeping it unbiased and free from political clutter. -Llehsadam (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 11 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

Vitaly Churkin[edit]

If it won't be hard, can you see if the information that I added to the above article is worth of mentioning. I know that sources are reliable...--Mishae (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not 100% sure that those citations are notable but the article is short and at the more information there the better stage Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I personally wasn't sure either, but it seems that Ukrainian Wikipedia have some kind of criticism of him regarding Stepan Bandera, But then again, what ever is important to Ukrainian speaking population, might not be important to English one. I might be wrong though, correct me if so. On the other hand, if I would have been an experienced editor (regarding due/undue weight), I would probably have kept, Iran and Crimea just because he is a Russian ambassador and Russia have strong diplomatic ties with them. Another thing, I looked into Sergey Lavrov article for comparison, it mentions Syria and Ukraine. So my guess is, whatever I wrote should be notable, at least Iranian and Crimean part. I will update the article tomorrow.--Mishae (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BMD-4[edit]

This is a recent article that was created. I thought that maybe you wanted to rate its class. Khazar (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am avoiding solo rating articles because English is my second language and one of the main requirements to articles is a good prose (easily understandable by American high school children). Otherwise I think the article satisfy the WP:GOOD requirements. I think that as an article recently moved into the article space it satisfies WP:DYK requirements. What hook would suit this article? Maybe some controversy related to production, e.g. related to change from BMD-4 to BMD-4M? Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. As for WP:DYK, I'm not sure what would be an interesting fact about the vehicle. This vehicle has no combat experience and no operators other than Russia. The "controversy" behind this vehicle isn't really interesting either because there isn't a huge scandal about it. In my opinion, the big head turner about the BMD-4 is its 100 mm rifled cannon that can fire high-explosive fragmentation shells while also hitting targets accurately at a range of 7 km–a claim from the manufacturers' official website. I will consult User:Smell U Later because he knows this stuff much more than I do. I don't speak a single word of Russian. Best Regards. Khazar (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a 100mm rifle gun with a muzzle velocity of a mortar looks quite unusual on an armoured vehicle. But for DYK we probably need a referenced opinion on that matter, otherwise most of the crowd would not recognize the novelty of it Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Official manufacturer claims. Look for "ammo load of increased power and fire range" which is under "Combat module composition". How is the article's proposition? Khazar (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[edit]

365 Days TV[edit]

Со значимостью проблема. Сейчас удалять статью--Many baks (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Не удалят - дал ссылки на троекратной лауреатство.
  • Maykop. И проверьте дополнение. Правильно перевел? [117]--Many baks (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • В Большой Советской Энциклопедии (откуда пошла ссылка в русской статье) сказано "долина яблонь" - поэтому я исправил apples->apple trees. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[edit]

Babak Khorramdin[edit]

The sockpuppet won't come back. If he does, his edit must be combatted. Lower to PC-protection? --George Ho (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin[edit]

I do not know what needs to be sourced so much. The article states:

  • It is also widely believed that the Red Terror was begun by Stalin and that the majority of his victims were Communist Party members

in the section: "Hypotheses, rumors and misconceptions about Stalin"

If you read it carefully you can see that it is referring to Stalin's victims, not Red Terror victims. Whether they technically were or not the majority, this sentence implies that Communist Party members were not a major group out of the ones repressed by Stalin. However, it is a well-known fact that a big group out of those targeted by Stalin, were members of the Communist Party opposed to his views. That is well-documented and universally agreed within historians, sources, you name it.

It is well explained in articles such as:

In these articles, you will find not one but rather dozens of reliable sources which confirm what I am saying.

Now, can we please remove this sentence? Zozs (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Gorelov train.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gorelov train.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 July 2014[edit]

boost mobile ip[edit]

I wasn't the troublemaker, but this ip is made possiblethanks to my boost mobile smartphone, fwiw. 66.87.100.244 (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it happens. I would suggest to get an account so not to be blamed for somebody else's edits from the same ip.Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mikhail Seslavinsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dzerzhinsk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 August 2014[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for August 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexander Kerensky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian German. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 August 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 20 August 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 27 August 2014[edit]

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ilya Ponomarev may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • His first job position was in Institute for Nuclear Safety (IBRAE), [Russian Academy of Sciences]]. In 1995-1996 Ponomarev was representing in Russia networking software company [[Banyan Systems]],
  • Pres. [[Dmitry Medvedev]], which is marketed as "the spinal cord of Russian innovation ecosystem"[[fact}}. He was responsible for creating [[SkolTech]] - joint university between Russia and [[MIT]]{{fact}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alex Bakharev. You have new messages at Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#Euromaidan Movement.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for September 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ilya Ponomarev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lenta. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 September 2014[edit]

Lviv page and WP:MODERNPLACENAME policy discussion[edit]

I had noticed that you had posted a warning comment about WP:MODERNPLACENAME on the talk page for Lviv which had been ignored by a group of editors. The refusal to comply with WP:MODERNPLACENAME for the relevant pre-Soviet epoch of Polish Lwów and Polish cultural dominance there is now being discussed here: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Lviv

Please feel free to rejoin the discussion either on the talk page, or regarding the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:8F00:7B3:98D1:D4F8:AB85:7327 (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 September 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 17 September 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 24 September 2014[edit]

"Russians" Article[edit]

Hi, Probably you remember Edit War on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians. The user Al Khazar blocks every change in infobox. He demands a consensus on Talk Page. The problem is, before and now, that he actually don't want a consensus. To reach a consensus with him is just impossible. Now e.g. he don't answer on my suggestion but nevertheless demands a consensus... Anyway, please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.222.217.126 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I noticed this. I hoped to have a robust discussion on the talk page but nobody seems to be interested but you and Al Khazar. Should we have a WP:RFC on the matter? Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.222.217.126 (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do this? I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.222.217.126 (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Serebryakova Lit By The Sun.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Serebryakova Lit By The Sun.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 08 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 15 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 22 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 05 November 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 12 November 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 26 November 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 03 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 10 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 17 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 24 December 2014[edit]

Happy New Year Alex Bakharev![edit]

Happy New Year!

Alex Bakharev,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

The Signpost: 31 December 2014[edit]

Elena Gorokhova[edit]

  • Спасибо за редактирование! Стыдно, но не знал, что вот уже как почти год как Елены Константиновны не стало:(. С уважением, Leningradartist (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Спасибо на добром слове, хотя повод печальный. Пытался разгрести русскую часть Category:Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colin François Lloyd Austin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 14 January 2015[edit]

MfD nomination of Talk:Chechen people/Temp[edit]

Talk:Chechen people/Temp, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Chechen people/Temp and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Chechen people/Temp during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]

Patronymic template[edit]

Hi Alex. Quick question: Is it O.K. to use this template: {{Eastern Slavic name}}? Because I see that a lot of articles on Russian people don't use it, yet its present in many Ukrainian biographies, such as Petro Poroshenko and the rest. So, I added it to some individuals, but my question is should I persist or it will be viewed as annoyance? Also, if its bothering some editors I can remove it from the articles that I put it in. Many thanks in advance.--Mishae (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you have answered your own question: there is no convention one way or another neither in Russian nor in Ukrainian projects, so I guess it is OK to use it and OK to not use it. The template looks to patronizing to my taste: in 99% it is obvious to anybody who cares that the funny second name is a patronymic, so I would not mass insert it, but it is marginally useful, so I would not remove it either. Maybe we should have an RFC or a project discussion on this matter Alex Bakharev (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfC will be good (since Aleksandr Grigoryev is in support of its usage, while you oppose it somewhat). Which RfC will that be? Also, I tend not to watch talkpages because I write articles mostly, can you please ping me next time? Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 January 2015[edit]

Help[edit]

Good evening, if you do not hard as you can be reached is a wiki? I have some questions as a novice in angloviki Заранее благодарю. Mistery Spectre (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you call simple talk persistent vandalism? or calling bloodthirsty murderer chimpanzee? do you really think you can block changeable ip efficiently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.190.220 (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 11 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 18 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for March 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murder of Boris Nemtsov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tula. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2015[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for March 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nikitin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alex_Bakharev/Archive28&oldid=1168298829"