User talk:Edwardlucas

Hello, Edwardlucas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mieciu K 18:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ICDISS

After reading your excellent reporting and looking at the talk page, I have not only tagged it as a hoax, I have decided we must delete the article.

I hope you don't feel that your work on this article is getting flushed away or something like that; if any other editor here had done the same work you did, the same thing would have resulted. On behalf of the Wikipedia community, and as a former and sometime journalist myself, thank you very much for your work verifying this (and please do stick around if you can!) Daniel Case 02:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Hi Edward, thanks for your investigative journalism. If you have comments on whether the article on the ICDISS should be kept or deleted, you should take part in the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Council_for_Democratic_Institutions_and_State_Sovereignty

Although you are a new user, this does not mean your opinion will be discounted in the discussion. (It would be best to sign in with your user account, rather than an IP address though; and someone might ask you to prove you are who you are. You might also take a look at these pages: WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:ORG, WP:NN to help you frame your arguments.). Hope that helps Bwithh 13:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

phone number

Out of curiosity, I looked at the discussion page for ICDISS... mostly to see if there were any response to the economist article. I have to say, I think it is wonderful that you were contributing, and it truly surprised me (most, in my experience) would use such a thing as evidence of why wikipedia is "bad")...however, I just thought I might point out that the discussion page links to one particular user page many times (a page with your phone number on it). One that I was also prompted to look at, out of curiosity. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that others may be equally curious and then would also come across your number. Perhaps you have already thought of this, and it's not a problem. I just wanted to give you a heads up. just in case. Novium 18:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ICDISS again

I was just reading through my Economist backlog and noticed your article, and as any Economist article which mentions Wikipedia, I thought it would be useful to see how it has changed since a major publication mentioned it.

I thought you'd find the following two discussions interesting:

Further, on user page Liliana Dioguardi page you wrote: "I apologise if my technical incompetence meant that the message never reached you--it seems to have been deleted." I used my wiki-expertise to review the history and thought you may find it interesting to know that your message was deleted by none other but that user (Liliana) herself (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liliana_Dioguardi&diff=prev&oldid=67504498).

Take care,--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from Edward

Thanks very much to all these contributors. I am very much a novice at this, having been born about 20 years too early to have a natural feel for html or wikis. However, I will no doubt improve. I have followed the discussions mentioned with interest. I don't mind people having my mobile phone number--nobody has ever abused it and I think journalists should try to be as accessible as possible.

I am glad to have it confirmed that Lilian Dioguardi deleted my message herself! I thought that was the case but I was worried I was being paranoid.

I am glad that the ICDISS article has not been deleted although I didn't vote in the poll as I felt somehow I ought to stay independent. It seems to me that so long as they have their website up and running, wikipedia performs a public service in telling people the rest of the story (or at least some of it)

My investigations on this are continuing and I hope to have more to add at a later date.

Many thanks indeed for the advice and encouragement Edward

Hellow Eduard (may I call you Eduard?). I`m a Romanian wikipedia user, and I have an interest in the wikipedia article Transdniester, and especially the contributions of user William Mauco (and his sockpuppets: User:Jallor, User:WTP, etc). I would kindly ask if you to can keep a constant flow of info on your wikipedia talk page about your current investigation and of the matter of contacts with William Mauco. Not disclosing inside and hard-worked info or anything like that, but just to make an idea where are you going for with your article, and why your interest in Mauco. For example, is there any connection between ICDISS (and implicitly the websites pridnestrovie.net, tiraspoltimes.com and visitpmr.com) and William Mauco? Regarding your remark that you were worried that you were paranoid: it kinda happens on wikipedia. I apparently suffer from the same problem according to Mauco... Speaking of ICDISS and Mauco, I asked him to tell us for example where does he work (what institution or company). Or what is with his anti-C.I.A. remarks (see this monolog [1] [2] and this comment at the end of the article). Or how does he explain the the three sites he zealosly supports, all have the same IP adress and the same registrant (ICDISS). He skildfully evaded the questions (like he did with the rest) and sayd that I`m paranoid and a conspiracy theorist.... Anyway, I hope you understood my intentions, and I hope hearing from you soon. Have a good day. Greier 19:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Mauco claims to have previously conversed with you (an "intelligent discussion" as he calls it), and that he totally made it clear to you who he is and what are his purposes. He claims to have been something of an "eye opener" for you. Is that true? Greier 19:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.2 Yesterday, just an hour and a half after I left a message on his talk page, Mauco suddendly camed back from his "wikibreak"... :D... While that may be just a coincidence, you should know that his first edit was to delete your attempts to contact him [3] (simmilar conduct to that of Liliana Dioguardi)... I was wondering, did you ywo worked it up? Did you managed to contact him in the end? Or is he ignoring you, or like it happens here a lot, he gives you totally irrelevant, dust in the eyes, evazive answers? Greier 08:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greier is misrepresenting my words, which I will be need to repost in full if there is any Wikipedia point to be made in this polemic. Otherwise, take it off Wikipedia as per WP:NPA policy which all of us, including EdwardLucas and Greier, must abide by for all posts stored on this server. He is also misrepresenting my edit[4] and is overall just trolling. - Mauco 14:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missinterpreting you words? How so, since you didn`t answer anything. All you do, all the time, everywhere, is to give blurry, totally off-topic, divertionist answers... Greier 13:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greier

Thanks for this. I don't want to be paranoid but I would like to be sure that Mauco is indeed the neutral outside expert that he would like to appear. I referred to him favourably in an entry on my blog, http://edwardlucas.blogspot.com/2006/08/gotcha-2.html but when I asked a colleague to review all the work I had done, he noted that I had taken Mauco on trust.

There have also been some queries on Wikipedia from you and others.

The problem is that Mauco says he will let his identity be verified if and only if his critics also produce (to me and to him) their "real world" identities. The problem is that I have no particular reason for worrying about his critics, whereas I have to some extent given him a bit of credibility, which he has used by citing me.

I have no reason to believe that there is anything sinister about Mauco and the tone of our e-mail exchanges was friendly and professional. However I am increasingly worried about what appear to me to be his evasive behaviour over the issue of verification. (I have sent him a scanned copy of my own passport so I am not trying to apply double standards).

My current suggestion to him is that we find a mutually acceptable real-world intermediary who will verify Mauco's identity and let me know that it all stands up (ie that he is not Megan Stephenson, Des Grant, or some other non-neutral figure). I will let you know what happens. But as things stand I am not happy.

Regards EdwardEdwardlucas 09:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward, I have a problem that you use a public venue to characterize my participation in our exchanges as "evasive". This is absolutely not the case, as our email exchanges clearly show. This is the sort of comment which is not true and can only serve to sever our good relations and whatever collaboration we have had in the past. I am seriously re-evaluating my previous assessment of you now, based on your mischaracterization and your reply to a known Wikipedia troll and previously blocked/banned vandal (Romanian ultranationalist Greier). - Mauco 14:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I also call everyone's attention to WP:UP - Mauco 02:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Mr. Mauco deleted a link to his article on tiraspoltimes.com when he added his last comment. Is he affraid of something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk • contribs)

No, absolutely not. The link to the guest column is here:[5] However, anonymous and unsigned commentary which doesn't deal with Wikipedia editing can (and should) be routinely removed by editors, as per the WP:UP rules. In this particular case, the poster is a known employee of the U.S. Embassy in Chisinau, Moldova, who in the first case was using his private Internet connection[6]. He then added the latest comment while at work, using his U.S Embassy work Internet connection[7]. I am not sure what his innuendo is meant to achieve, but I am certain that it is not related to any collaborative Wikipedia efforts. As such, it is in breach of what we are trying to achieve in this encyclopedia. - Mauco 14:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, please convince me that you are not connected with the guys from ICDISS. I guess you know about me without my formal introductions and you know it from ICDISS guys. You wrote "a known employee of the U.S. Embassy". Well, thank you. I am flattered that you consider me so important. A known U.S. Embassy Employee using his private connection

Don't know where this polemic is going, but it has nothing to do with specific Wikipedia editing. I quote from the guidelines: Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use them as a discussion forum. I add that this includes user pages, see WP:UP. So I will not add more fuel to the fire by responding to the anon poster above. I will merely add that his edit record is public, can be accessed through the logs, and then via an IP trace. I was not the user who pointed out that he is using the connection of the US Embassy. I am merely quoting the findings of another registered Wikipedia editor (which he posted in public on this site) and noting that his edits violate Wikipedia rules. A look on the Talk page for that IP will also show that I am not the only one who is worried about this sort of vandalizing. It is then easy to check the hours, correlate them with working hours in Chisinau, and determine when the United States government employee is at home and when he is at work in the Embassy. It is also telling that tries to sow doubts about me, based on "more of the same", while at the same time not denying that he is an employee of the US Embassy in Chisinau, Moldova. - Mauco 13:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are such a hypocrite Mauco. Stop interpreting wikipedia rules as it suits you. No way does WP:UP requires users to delete edits from other users, may them be anonymous, embassy employee, or anything, especially since this is not your talk page. You constantly do this (one e.g.; see also how a new sock of Mauco removed my attempt to cantact you Edward [8]). How do you have the audacity to demand others to respect WP:RPA, to act based on your subjective interpretation of that rule, while at the same time calling me a banned ultranationalsit troll here and all other articles? The "no personal attacks" rule is valid only incomod question are addreses to you, right? Can`t you put two plus two? How come I can edit if I am banned? How come I my only edits are on talk pages if I am an ultranationalist? How come I don`t spend 24/7 editing my POV like you do? Probably because I am not an ultranationalist, and beacuse I don`t do that for a living as you do... Greier 13:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be time to look up the word "troll"? While you are at it, please look up WP:UP, WP:TALK and WP:NPA. Then continue being uncivil if you want more of your entries deleted, or if you want to incur further blocks. As this Romanian user's block log shows, Greier have been banned in the past by Wikipedia for similar behavior. Your continued claims of sockpuppetry, linking me to a slew of Wikipedia editors who simply don't agree with you, are wrong. Instead of accusing me in public of using sockpuppets in violation of Wikipedia policy, please file a formal RCU. That will determine the issue. - Mauco 13:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"As this Romanian user's block log shows, Greier have been banned in the past by Wikipedia for similar behavior." A new spalsh from Mauco... And what am I supposed to do now? Demand you to demonstarate that is was exactly the same (??? whatever that means???) behaviour that got me banned? Well explain! Where did that happened??? How is that???? Define "simmilar"! And have you noticed that your anwser didn`t even addresed the subject I was trying to develop?!?!?!? Speaking of behaviour and blocking, remember that two months ago I was temporarily blocked for 3RR, when I tried to edit your P.O.V.-ish edits regarding the history of Transdniester: you know, your slavs vs. non-slavs vision (that of Moldovans vs. Slavs, not that of Moldovans, Ukrainians and Russians), and the historical ethnic composition (that which claimed .that the "Slavs" where the majoritary element.). And it looks like afterall, it was my version which was the correct one... Accusing you of sockpuppetry? Well how else do you explain all of those anons and fresh users which pop all the time, either to vote, or either to start a conversation with you, a conversation from which others were supposed to lear the truth. How come edits like this one suddendly appears, as you give you the opportunity to give answers like this one. And how come your answer was surprisingly identical to a comment found on here, where the author also emphasizes the supposed NPOV of the Pridnestrovie.net, visitPMR.com and TiraspolTimes.com. And how come those sites are exactly the ones you support, and how come they are all ICDISS made-driven-owned-oriented? How come? Request RCU for you? Well, remember that I told you that you could solve all problems by wilingly allowing a IP check? Wikipedia allows users to do that, as to avoid things like the one that`s happening here right know. Why did you ignored me? What have I been asking you for like ten times already: please tell me for whome do you work for, and what exactly is your deal with Transdniester afterall? Why do you attempt to present me as some kind of troll? All I did was to ask Eduard some information which you deliberately didn`t answer to, even though I asked you those questions several times. My demand to Edward had as consequence: 1. yet another fresh users deleted my edit [9] 2. I was accused of being a banned, ultranationalist editor. Now judge, who is the real troll? Greier 14:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bait a troll, so I will merely point out that you are of course aware that all of this violates WP:UP, WP:TALK and WP:NPA. It is not my custom to enforce these policies on the user pages of others, but do you be afraid if someone else blanks you, like they have done in the past. Both here and elsewhere. - Mauco 15:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more from Edward

Hmm I am not sure to be flattered or horrified that this page has become the site of such a violent exchange. Mauco, I am sorry if I have offended you. Let's continue this off-page if you will answer my email (the one about finding a trusted intermediary for the purpose of verification). I have no idea who Grier is so I plead ignorance to the charge of trollery. It does seem to me a weakness of the whole wiki approach that whereas some people can pretend to be anyone they like, others are real people from the real world. I am firmly in the latter camp, and I suggest it would improve the quality of debate if others did the same.

In the meantime, may I also appeal that everyone uses civil language?

Regards Edward

Apology accepted. Your page, in its current version, is in violation of several already-listed Wikipedia policies. I normally don't blank anyone (it gives the wrong impression), but anyone who wants to can do it now and be in the right. Greier has been banned more times than I can count for his provocations, as his block log shows.

I have some concerns, which I have expressed on this page, and they have caused me to re-evaluate my previous assessment of you. I don't think that I will be interested in providing you with any more background information or research in the future, and I will probably need to publish our email exchanges in full if I feel that you continue to mischaracterize what is contained in them. The information which I have scanned for you will of course be provided to you as promised, as soon as I get what I've requested from the other party. - Mauco 22:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia dispute resolution processes

Hi Edward, I haven't been following the exchanges on this page, but just to let you know that Wikipedia has some dispute resolution processes in place, should you want to refer to them. Please see WP:DR. all the best, Bwithh 23:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Estonia/Amnesty article

When first reading the Estonia article on the Economist web page, I did not know about their policy of publishing all material anonymously. ~~Most~~ All papers I read print the name of the author, be it regular staff or an outside contributor. In case of opinions, a picture of the writer is usually included with the text. Also, on the web version it is difficult to know, in what role the material appeared in the printed edition, was it news, an editorial, op-ed material, a column, or a letter to the editor.

On first reading I assumed that the piece was a letter to the editor, most likely by Mart Laar. I was baffled by the fact that I did not find the name of the author anywhere. Some more searching pointied to your blog.

Two questions on the article:

What made me assume it was a letter to the editor was partly in the wording. You write "In 1990, before the final Soviet collapse, your correspondent tried to buy postage stamps in Tallinn using halting Estonian". Does your correspondent refer to The Economist? If so, why not say "our correspondent"?
The text sound very much like Mart Laar (my first guess for authorship). On your blog I see that you in fact interviewed Mart Laar the same week you wrote the Amnesty piece. I know you subscribe to the views presented and, as you said, are "proud" of the text. I must still ask, is the wording and the opinions and views all your own and original, or did you get inspiration from Mart Laar?

-- Petri Krohn 14:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rather completely by surprise found this here (didn't know Edward Lucas was on Wikipedia), having had the Estonia/Amnesty article forwarded to me from a completely different source. It's completely on target. When the Russian world journalist community descended on Latvia in August 2000 for its annual conference, expecting to expose to the world Latvia's heinous oppression of Russians, even members of the Duma who had tagged along for the opportunity had to admit things were not as they had been told. We don't hear anything about that, do we? Only the Russian government's oil-funded propaganda machine, which is working overtime and apparently paying dividends, that the Baltic States routinely violate their Russian population.
I find this article quite in keeping with Mr. Lucas' other works.
I must add that where geopolitics is concerned, I have noticed on Wikipedia that anywhere more than one person disputes the Russian view of the world, someone shortly accuses them of various degrees of conspiracy, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, original research, etc. (NOT that this is what the question above insinuates, I take that to be a simple and honest question.) — Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right to privacy

I believe journalist have a right to privacy, even if they have a Wikipedia article. I do however feel that I must defend my edits. (If only on the principle, that I believe subjects should not be allowed to influence or dictate the content or "tone" of their articles.)

What you are asking for is that the article be expanded. For me to do this, would require that I study your journalistic and personal history. If I knew that you were notable, I would have no problem with this. If I have to do this, not because of your notability, but because of my desire to defend my edits, the situation is different. In fact I am uncomftable with this, as it feels like stalking the subject and a fellow Wikipedian.

The simplest solution is of course that you refrain from editing Edward Lucas (journalist). Please post your objections on talk pages. I might even consider deleting the article because of lack of notability. (I do however believe that the three The Economist articles mentioned make you notable.) Also your family tree is interesting, although I do not know if you approve of it being included in the article. -- Petri Krohn 16:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Are you also known as User:80.235.66.37? He started editing from Estonia the same day you arrived in Tallinn. Please log in the next time. -- Petri Krohn 16:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to criticism

Dear Petri

I don't know if this talk page is the right place to sort these things out. You are welcome to email me at edwardlucas {at sign) economist.com if you want to discuss this off-line

For a start, I should say that I am a bit uncomfortable with this whole discussion. Economist journalists tend not to like the iea of being media celebrities. That is why we work for the world's only un-bylined paper. I do have a blog, however, so I guess I have to take the flak that this kind of profile brings. On the whole I would be happier with a short wikipedia entry rather than a long one.

On the question of notability: I suppose that I am one of a very small number of journalists who have been covering eastern Europe pretty much continuously since the mid-1980s. The Economist is a pretty notable publication. So I suppose that if you combine those two factors, you might reach a level of notability worthy of wikipedia. But if there is a vote for deletion, I would certainly not let it ruin my life!

I am certainly not the Tallinn-based user that you refer to. As far as I know, I have always logged in when I make edits.

This particular article was published as a web-only column. These are a new feature of The Economist's website (we have one every weekday, on business, art, the environment, asia, europe and technology). Because of our anonymity rule we can't use the personal pronoun "I" so instead we use "your correspondent". This is a standard, if rather old-fashioned, convention in Anglophone journalism. Sorry if it is misleading. However, this rule is being increasingly stretched by the web (for example in the correspondents' diaries that we are also publishing on the web). But so long as it is the paper's policy, I will uphold it.

I have been writing about Estonia since 1989 and my views are certainly not identical to those of Mart Laar, and you are not correct in inferring that I spoke to him the same week that I wrote the article. If you read the Baltic Independent from the years when I was editing it(1992-4) , you will see that we had some pretty critical things to say about his first government.

I don't know how to prove my pre-web activities. I feel that this is rather a weakness of the Wikipedia approach, that anything that you can link to counts as "true" and anything from the pre-internet age is "unproven". If you have access to a newspaper cuttings library (if such things still exist) you will be able to find my articles from 1988-92 which I would (humbly) submit are a great deal more interesting than anything I have written recently. However I do realise that access to such a library is expensive and not easy for the general reader.

I hope this helps explain my thinking: in short, I would be glad if the article was very brief and linked to my website. Anyone who is really interested will be able to find everything they want there.

Regards Edward Edwardlucas 20:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On another subject, I should say that I have not the least objection to my family tree being included in the entry. If it is of the slightest interest, my great-uncle has an entry too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Portal%2C_1st_Viscount_Portal_of_Hungerford Edwardlucas 21:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I just wanted to note, that your recent Estonia-related article has raised much interest in certain spheres of Wikipedians... but here they are already!

Best regards, Constanz - Talk 14:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Published (reliable) sources not online

They can certainly be used. Simply reference them in the standard way. If someone wants to challenge them, then it's up to that person to check them out in a library or wherever. Tyrenius 01:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socor

In the article about Vladimir Socor is written: The Economist describes him as "hawkish pro-Moldovan". I've put a fact tag on the sentence, if you have info about this caracterization of Socor in "The Economist" please tell.--MariusM 12:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the link on the talk page of the socor article, cheers Edwardlucas 12:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edward, look please again on Transnistria. Mauco was banned because he had socks

these people are behind the propaganda site http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/ Karen Ryan Jason Cooper Michael Averko Mark Street William Maurice (William Mauco) Andy Suzdaltsev Alex Holt Jochen Kissly Michael Garner Mike Averko Eduard Limonov Vasily Yakovlev Mark Almond Alex Makarkin Alan Kasayev

ce mincinos e http://groups.drupal.org/taxonomy/term/1119 Hi from Tiraspol

public group: Newspapers on DrupalJason Cooper - Sat, 2006-12-09 05:04

This is Jason Cooper, I am a journalist at The Tiraspol Times & Weekly Review in Tiraspol, which is the capital of a new and emerging country (Pridnestrovie or Transnistria, depending of your language) which used to be part of the Soviet Union in the past. I am one of the two people who are responsible for running the website of the newspaper, www.tiraspoltimes.com, which is updated throughout the day. Runs Drupal 4.7. In addition to the website, we also print a tabloid version of the newspaper (not daily, however) and we have a weekly news magazine called WEEKLY REVIEW.

I don't want this page to become a discussion board about other Wikipedia users so I have deleted this comment

My name is Jochen Kissly and I wonder why you delete comments? Freedom of speech is a democratic right - and it seems you learned journalism at the time when Hitler oand Stalin was on power. You delete threads cause you dont like it - a hoorray to censorship. Or do I have to say "Jawohl mein Fuehrer"? With this comment you proof what kind of person you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.193.58 (talk) 09:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of speech is indeed important. If you look at my blog you will see plenty of sharply critical comments which are not deleted. however this talk page is not the place for potentially defamatory comments about other wikipedia users. You will be familiar with the problem on the internet of "flames" and "trolls". 13:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Heart of Midlothian

Witaj. Jako że znasz trochę język polski, to mógłbyś w wolnej chwili przetłumaczyć historię klubu Heart of Midlothian F.C. i wtedy byś napisał do mnie na mojej stronie wikipedysty w English Wikipiedia? 83.242.76.83 10:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Przykro mi, ale nie mam czasu. Edwardlucas 13:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist on Wikipedia

Is this one of yours, Edward? :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in the Economist are anonymous. However I have an arrangement that I am allowed to put copies of my own articles on edwardlucas.blogspot.com Edwardlucas (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Cold War criticism section

Hello Edward,

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I left a reply to your comments on your article's talkpage a few weeks ago saying that I generally agreed with the point you were making. My personal opinion (having read your new book) is that Laughland, Almond and Ames's (and others) criticisms are justified. However, I also accept that if we mention these genuine criticisms of your book then there should be a mention of the praise it has received from other quarters. I invited you to do this yourself. However, if you wish I will go in and add it now.

It was not my intention to become involved in an edit war. However, I deleted the previous user's amendments because he didn't cite a source for his statement that John Laughland was a Kremlin employee. If you are not happy with the change I am going to make now then feel free to amend it yourself.

Shotlandiya (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a further note, do you not think that Mart Laar, Vladimir Bukovsky and Oleg Goridevsky are hardly the most unbiased of people to receive praise from? And it is not a case of anyone "detesting" what you write. As I said in your discussion page, the Exile may be purile but Mark Ames has an excellent insight into the goings on in Russian politics as even the mainstream media acknowledge. I for one disagree with your conclusions and the way you create your argument but at the same time am happy to acknowlege your knowledge of the region and you readable and fluid writing style. Surely you must be confident enough in your work to accept that not everyone who disagrees with what you wrote in the New Cold War "detests" you or is some sort of swivel-eyed Kremlin apologist or conspiracy theorist.

Mark Ames' agenda is to prove that whatever Russia is accused of, the Americans are doing the Russians one worse. He's a Novosti lackey. Laughland's and Almond's (British "Helsinki" group) agenda is anti-every-western-imperialist government even if it means supporting the leaders of genocidal regimes (another Americans are doing the Russians and everyone else one worse). Anything produced by any of that troika is guaranteed to be the opposite of any objective verifiable truth. —PētersV (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, that means Ames = "swivel-eyed Kremlin apologist," British Helsinki Group = "conspiracy theorists" (regarding cabal of scheming coniving evil western imperialist powers). Swivel-eyed... rather catchy!—PētersV (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Pēters that's your view but it's not shared by everyone and it's not exactly a NPOV interpretation fit for Wikipedia. By all means these criticisms are in there are noted, but the other point of view should be noted and one side should not be taken as simple fact.

Shotlandiya (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that, but it should be Oleg Gordievsky (not as given, which is mis-spelled) and it should link to his wiki entry

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Gordievsky

It is not for me to weigh the praise and criticism that the book has received, or edit the page in any way, as I am biassed and it is bad wiki-quette. I just think that both sides should be noted; thanks for doing that. Clearly not everyone who disagrees with me is a swivel-eyed kremlin apologist, or even insane. However some people might be counted in that category.

This page gives a selection of the reviews the book has received

http://www.edwardlucas.com/default.asp?sec=3 so it would be possible to add a footnote giving the source for the reviews

finally, in the interests of completeness (and given that wikipedia has a lot of UK readers as well as Americans) I wonder if the entry should include the details of the UK edition

http://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Cold-War-Kremlin-Menaces/dp/0747595674/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/202-7643962-6357453?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193480040&sr=8-2

thanks

Edward (sorry for wonky layout) Edwardlucas (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Thanks

I would like to personally thank you for your contributions to The Economist. It’s an amazing news source. I’ve just started my subscription this year, and am amazed at the high standards of journalistic integrity and credibility. I have a keen interest in Russia and Russian related articles, and am planning to learn Russian starting this week and someday travel there. It’s likely I’ve read your anonymous contributions, and will be reading your blog frequently now that I know about it. Thanks for all the high quality journalism! Sincerely, and with much respect - Tyler Young QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Nutjunkey

A tag has been placed on Nutjunkey requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. - Unforgiven24 ^Talk|_Contribs 20:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Blackett Janeiro

Hello, Edwardlucas,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Blackett Janeiro should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackett Janeiro .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Wgolf (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - promo for upcoming book?

Speedy deletion nomination of Blackett Janeiro

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Blackett Janeiro, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jersey92 (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]