User talk:Nanobear~enwiki/Archive1

Web brigades

Hello, Offliner. I've read your statement on the talk page of Web brigades article, as well as some of your recent contributions, and I think you are a right person to rework the article in view of neutrality. I know of Wikipedian rule "be bold", but neutrality is not my strong side. In case you decide to work on the article, you have my assistance wherever you need it. Good luck! ellol (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks to the many edits by you and other people, the article does seem more balanced already. I don't know what else I could do, especially since Biophys is often reverting changes to the article. Offliner (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Award!

		The WikiChevrons
		Good work on the RT-2UTTH Topol M, SS-N-23, Buk missile system articles. In recognition of your efforts towards maintaining military history and weaponry articles, please accept these Weaponry Task Force WikiChevron! --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 17:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict

You caught me in the middle of what was a bigger edit, so I reimposted my final version. The reasons for deleting that part are, first, that the new version makes it clear that both civilian and military targets were hit and, second and more important, there is collateral damage in ALL wars. If we include an excusing statement next to each civilian dead, we'll end up with an article twice the size. --Xeeron (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I included that statement because I wanted to express Russia's military motivation of launching attacks on Gori and beyond. I think this is important to include at that point in the article so that the reader knows not only what happened, but has some idea of why it happened. Perhaps I'll be looking for a better statement for that purpose. Although, as you said, it could already be clear from the context. But it could be made more explicit. Offliner (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia again

Recently found this: [1].

I think it should be incorporated in the article, probably along with the following:

[2]

As for Erosi Kitsmarishvili we already have an article on him.

I have veraious COI problems over this and I like the way you and the other fellow are reworking the article. You probably have a good idea where this info should go. Best of luck. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out those links. I added Kitsmarishvili's statement to "Discussion about responsibility for the war" -> "Other statements". Offliner (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

NYTimes article about Gaza Policemen

Thanks for pointing out the changed NYTimes link.

The link has been fixed here [3].

I also think this is relevant [4].

--John Bahrain (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I saw the discussion, but a subsequent discussion including a complete proposal by me, has been discussed commented and thoroughly modified. The issue of the truce didn't come up at all. While I disagree with your views on the importance of the truce (very little sources say this, including either side - the contentious issue is the Hamas rockets, not the truce), I agree we should discuss it. I am sorry you were under the impression you act with a discussion in mind, perhaps it was lost in the huge clutter and tendency to star new threads instead of continuing the existing ones. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Web brigades....again

I think you may want to look at web brigades. The article owner has again reinserted all that information which is not relevant to this Russian conspiracy theory, and now User:Martintg is playing the team game by claiming consensus and reinserting said info again. What do you think? Is it about time this piece of rubbish article is taken to AfD, and have this thrashed out for once and for all, because the entire thing is based upon the views of a single nutcase reporter. Anyway, your views on this are welcome on the article talk page, as it seems this is going to happen every other month when the owner of the article decides to re-include everything again. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Biophys seems to revert back to his favourite version at every possible excuse, undoing improvements written by many different people. Mukadderat put it well on the talk page: Talk:Web brigades#Reversal to old versions of text. Offliner (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In regards to your RS noticeboard post, this is egregious harrassment of editors mentioned in that arbcom, and a gaming of the system by those editors who are obviously acting as a team. Due to the long period of harrassment on myself by some of these editors, I will be taking it to arbcom enforcement. --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

SO war lead

Since you seem to be a reasonable editor, I'll try talking to you instead of FeelSunny. My problems with his lead addition are:

1. The peacekeepers in Tskhinvali were not mandated by UN, nor by CIS, but by JCC. All sources about the UN are talking about the very different UNOMIG troops.
2. The fact that the peacekeepers were killed in the initial shelling is not supported by any source, they might have just as well died in streetfighting or from any other cause.
3. The conclusion that this was the casus belli for Russia to enter the war is not confirmed by any source (on the contrary, I am sure that with a bit of googling I would find statements by Putin/Medvediev saying that the killing of South Ossetian civilians was). This is only FeelSunnys own conclusion and thus OR.
4. Mentioning the killed russian peacekillers, without mentioning the georgian policemen killed a few days earlier upsets the POV balance of the lead. Both numbers were not in there for a reason.

I would love to solve this through discussion, but the talk page of 2008 South Ossetia war bears witness to the fact that FeelSunny can not be reached by rational arguements. I will not stop removing factually wrong statements he inserts and I will insist that the lead stays balanced. Please respond to my concerns so that we hopefully can stop the developing revert war. --Xeeron (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right about those points. It's probably best not to mention any casualties, "blame game", casus belli, etc. in the lead at all. Although it's a good idea to try to make some changes from time to time to see if something works better, it's probably best to keep the current version for now. Offliner (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Glukhov

Hi Offliner, have you been following this story at all. It surely needs to be mentioned somewhere, perhaps its own article, perhaps not. What do you think? --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like another provocation by the Georgian secret service. I'm not sure in which article that should go. Probably 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict would be the best, but only if it's renamed from "2008" to "2008-2009." I guess I'll do just that. Offliner (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is now in 2008-2009 Georgia–Russia crisis#Case of Alexandr Glukhov. Offliner (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, it's an interesting case to be sure. Where is the truth in it all. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

1991 SO war

I don't know if you are doing anything on the 1991-1992 South Ossetian War, but sometime ago, I created an article Georgia_for_Georgians#Effect_on_Ossetians, and this should be mentioned within the overall context of SO-Georgia conflicts, but where I have no idea. Definitely not within the 2008 war article, but likely in the 1991-1992 article, you think? --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Litvinenko article

Hey offliner, I am currently working on User:Russavia/Litvinenko, which involves me rewriting a lot of the article. Instead of making the changes on the main article, would you be open to editing the page in my userspace, so that we can keep edit conflicts to a minimum. I am already removing irrelevant material and adding relevant and NPOVing out assertions, etc. Let me know. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

All right, I'll make my next edits on your page if something comes to my mind. Here's one suggestion: different assasination theories should probably be (shortly) covered in the "illness and poisoning" section or immediately after that. At the moment many of the theories aren't mentioned at all in the main article. Offliner (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your re-addition to Biophys' talk page of information he deleted. We can delete information from our talk page at any stage, it's our own little piece of WP that we do somewhat WP:OWN. I have my talk page automatically set up to archive, so that all previous discussions can easily be found. If people want to delete things from their talk page, let them, as far as I am concerned, it doesn't show "openness" with their editing, as you say, but let them do it. The diffs are still there if ever needed though. Cheers --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted to email you but see you don't accept email. Could you email me as I would like to discuss something with you. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I just needed someone to get me a phone number in Russia (I think you are there?), and my mates over there aren't online, but my operator here just managed to get thru...finally. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Cheers for agreeing with me. I think the best place to complain would be a non American Admin or even better a bureaucrat Ijanderson (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong

Just stop complaining and READ THE REFERENCES. They are accurate

The figure was updated from 71 from 48. You are quoting old figures. If you wish to contest the 48 figure, please do that at the article talk page first. There is consensus among the editors that 48 is the right, up-to-date figure. Offliner (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Hi Offliner, I see your discussion, and you may want to point out Wikipedia:3RR#Not_an_entitlement. It doesn't entitle an editor to 3 reverts every day, but when it is used to game the system as it is being done (in order to protect their version of an article), it is clearly edit warning, and goes against the spirit of 3RR. Make it very clear to said admin that the spirit of policy is just as important at the word of the policy. In particular, make note of Wikipedia:GAMETYPE#Examples. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And you may also like to take note of User_talk:Russavia/Archive_8#3RR. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That last link was in relation to this. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Putinomics

I do not mind the way it is now in Putinism, but if you feel strongly that there is a distinct ecomomic policy that is Putinism-specific, perhaps there ought to be a separate section (or even an article) on that. Apropos the tags: look, if you say there are "problems", please expound those clearle based on the PW policies so that those could be removed by all of us. Otherwise it looks like malign glee and obstructionism.Muscovite99 (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few Google hits on Putinomics, though -- [5].Muscovite99 (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said in the article talk page, Putinism is unbalanced since it includes only criticism and barely manages to mention any of his achievements. I right I cannot say what should be removed, for now I'd just add things and make sure positive aspects are mentioned in the lead also. As long as the unbalance persists, the neutrality tag should stay. Offliner (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• That is exactly what i have been saying: if you believe something should be added -- add. But the thing is that the article is not called "Putin's policies". The term itself is not entirely neutral, as is clearly stated in the beginning. Also, the very philosophy of opposing "criticicism" to "achievements" is POV -- who and how defines what is criticism and what is the stating of facts. As per WP:VER, facts for us are verifiable opinions on the relevant subject. In fact, i cannot see any "criticism" in the article whatever: mere assessments. Then again, i do not mind you adding another section on the economy.Muscovite99 (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"The article is not called Putin's policies." - I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The lead says: "Putinism (The Putin regime) is the ideology, priorities, and policies of the Putin system of government." Offliner (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please adapt

Such phrases as "The current decade has been an economic boon for Russia" require grammatical adaptation - you cannot just pluck paragraphs from newspaper reports and place them in articles. It looks weird, especially a few months later: avoid present perfect, indicate precise time, etc. Also, it often amounts to violation of copy rights.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Let us be reasonable

I've removed the out-of-date socio-economic data that you put in Putinism. First off, the article is not about Russia's socio-economic dynamics between 1999 and July (yes, you do not want to reflect anything beyond that) 2008. As is clear from the defintion, the article is about the essence and evolution of a certain political regime and a concommitant ideology. Rising (or otherwise, as is the case now!) wages is quite incidental to the subject. If you insist on having this stuff there, there would have to be all the negative data from the recent developments (and i can assure you there's plenty of extremely negative stuff on that, read, just to get a taste of that, [6] or [7]) as well. Is this the way we are to take? I strongly feel this would make an article into a joke. I do agree that the fact that the economy grew between 1999 and October 2009 is an important backround factor for the evolution of Putinism until then - and this fact is indeed mentioned in the article several times within the appropriate context. Every one in Russia (incl. the official experts) now agree that what had been going on in the economy until July 2008 was essentially one of the multiples bubbles occuring in the US and its economic periphery (i.e. the rest of the world) - this is not a matter of Putin's policies: the same was going on in the USSR in the latter half of the 1970s under entirely different system and policies. I would not mind expanding the "Liberal economic policies" section though as this ostensibly WAS (until recently) part of the regime's directions, albeit with many other facors at play, which would question its genuine "liberalism".Muscovite99 (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

New Figures

I dont see a lot of consensus among the editors. When I took it to the talk page, I was provided with an even greater figure than I had thought, 74 dead. I clicked on "discussion" and did not see ANYONE say that 48 had been killed. This is on the most recent talk page. I briefly inspected previous archives and found a lot of people supported the 71/74 figure.

Your request

I don't know if you saw this, but someone has fulfilled a request that you had at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#The_Tragedy_of_Russia.27s_Reforms. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I had actually found the page a few days earlier, but forgot to cancel the request. Interesting info from the book: A journalist who in mid-August 1999 travelled to Karamakhi and interviewed some villagers and their military Commander General Dzherollak, wrote: "The Wahhabis' trucks go all over Russia. Even one wrong move in Moscow or Makhachkala, they warn, will lead to bombs and bloodshed everywhere." According to the journalist the Wahhabis had told him, "if they start bombing us, we know where our bombs will explode."[15] In the last days of August, Russian military launched an aerial bombing of the villages. Offliner (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Georgian rocket launchers.jpg

You put that one back in the article. Can you give a link to the origin of this picture? The one in the file only delivers the picture itself, no description or anything else. That leaves 2 problems: First the ad in the top right corner and second the context. From all I see on the picture, that could be any countries rocket launchers, being anywhere, doing anything. A military expert could maybe tell the exact model, but thats about it. I agree that having a photo of the artillery would be nice, but compared to this one, the old one was better. --Xeeron (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The picture is from here: [8]. All of the images on that page are in public domain, by the way. Offliner (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you know who or what the "MP" is? It also says "photo AP", which would mean it is a copyrighted photo. --Xeeron (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: I did a quick google check and confirmed that it is an AP photo (a television capture to be exact: http://patdollard.com/2008/08/war-breaking-russia-bombs-georgia-as-georgia-attacks-russian-backed-province/). At http://iphone.foxnews.com/slideshow/0/399962-Georgia-Russia-Very-Close-to-War-Over-Breakaway-Republic-South-Ossetia.html you'll also find the photo in a series of 3. The first one of the series is, imho, much better, but that doesn't help as long as it is copyrighted as well. --Xeeron (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In any case, all the pictures on the page [9] have been released into public domain by Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The permission/license is in the picture file. Offliner (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I can make a page with photos on it and write "all photos here are public domain" on it. That does not change the fact that they are still copyrighted. --Xeeron (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Math notation style

Hello. Please see my recent edits to approximate string matching. Note that

• WP:MOSMATH exists.
• The following differ from each other:

E(i-1,j)

E(i − 1, j)

Specifically: variables are italicized (digits and punctuation are NOT); spaces precede and follow the minus sign (I've made them non-breakable for reasons that should be apparent); a minus sign is not just a hyphen; it's a proper minus sign.

• The following differ from each other:

O(n^3 * m)

O(n³ m)

Superscripts and subscripts are available. The use of the carat (n^3) for exponentiation and the asterisk for multiplication should be reserved for typing with limited character sets in which nothing more sophisticated can be done. Also, you italicized the "3"; only the n and the m should be italicized. (Whether the "O" should be in italics is a subtler question, I think.)

Michael Hardy (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I was going to fix the notation later, but I've been busy with other things. Offliner (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the 2008 South Ossetia War article

There is criciticism of the ISDP source, and a discussion on it, and some editors making edits without even bothering to discuss them first. Thank you. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Turkish Airlines Flight 1951

On 25 February, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Turkish Airlines Flight 1951, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Your reply at the noticeboard

It is not that I want to disencourage you from replying there, but I perfectly know your position from the South Ossetia war talk page. That notice board only makes sense if we get people who are not regulars to comment, otherwise we might as well leave everything at the article's talk page. --Xeeron (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Somehow I just couldn't resist repeating my view on the board. Offliner (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war

No offense, but I think you have been completely overreacting. I don't think there was an "edit war" going on before you came in, just normal disagreement over content and wordings. Furthermore, there was discussion going on on the talk page. Your actions (locking the page for an extended period of time and making threats on the talk page) have been helpful. Offliner (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The editing with accusations and misleading edit summaries is not productive which is why I am watching the article now. I protected the page initially for 3 days but finding that all that happened on the page was more arguing and pointing fingers I figured a few more days for you guys to come to some sort of reasonable compromise on a few of the issues would be helpful. We shall see if it actually is in practice. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that your actions have not been helpful (forgot the "not" last time.) Offliner (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop vandalising the article

you are putting the same assertions many times. The lead defines Putinism - not expound reforms - there are other articles for that. You creat multiple refs to the same marginal Finnish source (everybody knows on whose payroll Finnish authors have been)...Muscovite99 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the material you have been inserting all the time, it is clear to me that the article is about Putin's policies. And even reforms that have lead to positive results are part of those. You clearly want the article to contain only negative things, and are removing everything that has the slightest hint of positiveness. The sources I've used are credible. Please stop reverting all edits done by other people, you don't own the article. Offliner (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• First, all the quotes i use have "Putinism" in them - as this is the subject. Yours do NOT. I agree that some socio-economic data can be mentioned as background. But you are creating several duplcating sections saying the same thing - there is a section "Other economic piolicies...".Muscovite99 (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war title vote

You took part in a previous discussion about that articles name, therefore you might be interested in Talk:2008 South Ossetia war#Article name vote. --Xeeron (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Repetition?

Can you point out to me where this sentence is repeated? I see a remark calling the Georgian account not conclusive, but none for Grist's story. --Xeeron (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The same information is repeated just a few sentences later: The OSCE itself, while refusing to discuss its internal findings, stood by the accuracy of its work but urged caution in interpreting it too broadly. Monitoring activities in certain areas at certain times couldn't be taken in isolation to provide a comprehensive account. Offliner (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

re We Don't Wanna Put In

Why are you so sure that this is a case of clear copy-vio? Did you talk to the Georgian proprietor? Or are you just presuming that the external link should go because you don't support the inclusion of the link for other reasons? --Hapsala (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Answered on the article talk page. Offliner (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

expression of disappointment

I'm severely disappointed at the level of silliness you have descended to in the Put In debacle. [10] is obviously a Georgia State Broadcasting website dedicated to Georgia's participation in the Eurovision Song Contest. Did you even take a look at the site? Sheesh. :-P

And don't now try to argue that you can't read a single word of Georgian. It's so predictable, and it's even worse an argument. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on 2008 South Ossetia war‎

Hello! No, I didn't know about that. Thank you very much for the information! I didn't want to violate the rules, I just wanted to remove the word separatist from the context. I started the discussion, but some editors prefer undoing rather than discussing. Now, as I can see, there is no result. Taamu (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re [11]:

Do you have any reliable source saying that during and after the war, villages of one side were removed? Claims of genocide require rather good sourcing; unless you can support the claim that Georgian villages are no longer there, the Reuters' report from immediately before the war should be considered relevant. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Reuters article is from August 8, and a lot has happened after that, so I'd assume the information there is no longer current, although I'm not claiming that it isn't. Unless there is a more recent source making the same claim, we should add "Until the war...", or better yet: "On August 8, South Ossetia consisted of a checkerboard..." in front of the claim. Offliner (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Link for your interest

[12] That's just a link for your interest. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Vexatious litigation

I've just read 3 of your 3RR reports and approved none of them. I suggest you do fewer, but of higher quality. Do another one, within the next month, that gets turned down, and I will ban you from the AN3 page. To all your "opponents" reading this... please stop the edit warring too William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I provided more evidence for the first and third cases. As for the first case, you can see that he reinserts a piece of text in his revert number 3 - he did the same in his first and fourth reverts, thus the third one has to be a revert as well. Offliner (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I agree. Still, quality not quantity in future, please William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to remember that. Did you also take a look at the additional evidence I provided for Colchicum's case after you posted your initial "no vio" conclusion? Offliner (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Digwarrior is stalking you now too

Notice how he has never edited this article before, yet finds it in order to "rvv". If this is not WP:TEDIOUS by Digwuren, I really don't know what is. "rvv" is not a reason for blind reverting other's edits, and he only does so to piss you off. If this stalking becomes a problem for you, let me know, and I will file RFAR straight away in regards to it. His accusation that both you and I are neo-nazis almost got him block the other day, and I know that Arbcom will not look upon such things kindly, and even moreso so as the warrior is only recently back from a year long block. The sooner POV-pushing Digwarrior is gone, the better off the project will be. Of course, it would be better if he changed his ways -- one would have thought that a year long ban would have helped with that, but it obviously hasn't changed his way one iota. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at your other edits as you know I often do, and agree with the removal of WP:ELs from articles. If they are good enough for EL, they should be included within the article itself as references. It's good to see that another member of that project thinks like that too. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fun fact: I'm a mathematician by profession. I work with algorithms. I watch quite a number of mathematics-related articles on Wikipedia, even if I don't always edit them. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't excuse your stalking Offliner's edits, and tendetiously reverting with "rvv", when he has rightly removed non-reliable sources, and reduced a Template:linkfarm. All too often you revert either without a summary, or simply with "rvv", and when it is done with your stalking of others, it is obviously done just to piss off other editors . Love the conversation on your talk page also Dig, it's hilarious. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoy stalking my homepage. I always do my best to entertain.

I trust you've already found the little poems I hid in the edit summaries from past week? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Offliner, you are a lot like me right, in that I have far more exciting and productive things to do with my time on here than to worry myself with stalking insignificant POV-pushing warriors. But it's always nice to see yourself and I seem to be the only reason for certain editors existence here on WP as of late; they're acting like a bunch of children doesn't describe it in the slightest. It's quite hilarious how it took less than a few minutes of my posting my initial message before one of the them sprung into action and just had to alert other editors to my ravishing words existence here on your talk page. I'm sure you will find this from Colchicum quite telling; they would run to Moreschi to have people banned -- just like a web brigade would. Isn't it funny Offliner? That they act just like the brigades they accuse us of being members of? :) --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Their misconduct in Wikipedia seems obvious. But I guess stalking is next to impossible to prove. Offliner (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a good thing I can do it, then. I may be lazy, but I'm a lazy mathematician; proofs are my domain. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Mathematics is great fun, but proving things takes a lot of time. You can achieve cool results faster by just hacking away with your computer, don't you think? Offliner (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Dig back in Tallinn again? --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I feel stalked. :-(

How do you do that? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to prove, and they know it, hence why they do that. But unluckily for them, patterns don't look good. Also, Offy, do you have tinnitus also? I do, and I can't shake it. Can you suggest a way to get rid of it? --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll also have to teach you about some great philosophers of our time Offliner. One of the greatest philosophers said something great some years, and I will paraphrase here....myself being attacked by the brigade is like being flogged with a wet lettuce. Look it up, you'll find some great insights in his speeches. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have tinnitus, but when I was in Germany and living next to a busy street, I had to use earplugs a lot to be able to sleep. Because of this I had a lot of ringing in my ears, but luckily it has gone away. BTW, do you own any Russian stock? The market seems to be recovering now, so maybe there's a buying opportunity? Berezovsky must be smiling. Now he can afford to finance conspiracy theory books and other anti-Kremlin operations again. Maybe it's time to create Internet operations by Berezovsky's anti-Kremlin team? Offliner (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, did you read this? Nothing is impossible when it comes to Berezovsky. He is an audacious and cunning man, like Richard Sakwa said. I wouldn't wonder if he tried to implement his "regime change" by provoking a conflict in the Russia-NATO border, causing NATO to attack Russia. Offliner (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Do I own stock? I sure do, a small parcel in Aeroflot, to many people they recognise this as the de-facto national airline of Russia; you may additionally recognise it as one of those companies which Berezovsky embezzled millions from when he had his grubby little fingers in the company. He's no better than a common thief in my mind, except commons thieves don't finance terrorism as he has done, according to those accusations. If added to any article just be sure to word it very carefully in order for it to comply with WP:BLP. As to Internet operations by Berezovsky's anti-Kremlin team, I wonder if anyone is going to admit to it so we can include a Wikipedia section? ;) --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Opposition protests in Georgia

I will work on it after I'm back from the epicenter of the events.--Kober^Talk 06:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Good luck! Offliner (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP problem

This your edit represents selective citation out of context. It is not compatible with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies. Please look rules here [13]. That can be reported to AE [14]. You have been warned. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

How exactly does it violate WP:BLP? Goldfarb is definitely well known, and mostly precisely because of the Litvinenko event, in which he received a huge amount of publicity in international media. His activities during the affair are an essential part of his biography. Offliner (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Offliner, it is not a violation of WP:BLP to include verifiable information into articles, so long as it is worded neutrally, and doesnt misrepresent the sources. The only thing your edits were a violation of is Biophys' POV. As you probably know Biophys has a long history of removing information from articles which doesn't go with his own POV, or "his work" plan. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bibliographies

Hey Offy, in regards to Russian apartment bombings, I see Ilgiz reverted your removal of the bibliography section. Whilst I do agree with the purging of links which don't comply with WP:EL/WP:NOTADVOCATE, etc, just be careful with the biblio section. You'll notice I am using such a section at User:Russavia/Australia–Russia relations; it just makes the referencing easier. Other than that, it's all good. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you like seeing <...> in articles?

Take this for example: http://2005.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2005/91n/n91n-s16.shtml

«Сразу после Беслана В. Путин признал слабость существующей системы и пообещал новую систему координаций действий всех сил на Кавказе. Реформа, начавшаяся еще в августе, призвана увеличить финансирование спецслужб, сделать их более оснащенными и лучше скоординированными. И в первую очередь усилить их на Кавказе… Предполагается более тесное сотрудничество армии с другими структурами.

Достигнуть этого непросто, хотя общее прошлое в КГБ министра обороны Сергея Иванова, главы МВД Рашида Нургалиева и шефа ФСБ Николая Патрушева может в этом помочь… Придание главной роли в борьбе с терроризмом МВД, особенно на Кавказе, рискованно стратегически, поскольку для достижения успеха министру необходимо прежде всего реформировать ведомство и провести там чистку, для которых у него в данный момент нет ни средств, ни времени… Это ведомство было избаловано еще Ельциным, в нем процветает коррупция. <…> Также известно, что некоторые люди в органах МВД на Северном Кавказе, опираясь на родственные связи, сотрудничают с террористами… <…>

Президент Путин и его команда теперь испытают желание реформировать правоохранительные органы и спецслужбы как на стратегическом, так и на местном уровне. <…> Его наиболее сложная задача — это изменить методы работы поколения 50-летних сотрудников правоохранительных органов и спецслужб, кто, как Путин, начали служить в действенной, но неэффективной советской системе безопасности и затем испытали десятилетие разочарований. <…> Советская модель работает <…> только в условиях Советского Союза. Они могут захотеть восстановить КГБ и использовать часть его методов в соответствии со старыми внутренними все еще действующими инструкциями. <…>

Владимир Путин, возможно, будет вынужден изменить свою новую стратегию в борьбе с терроризмом, если координируемая МВД война против террора провалится. Тогда у него есть следующие возможности: создавать новую силовую структуру, передать координирующие функции на Северном Кавказе ФСБ или, что менее вероятно, армии. В любом случае, их modus operandi (образ действий) не в состоянии кардинально измениться».

Now let's see what he actually wrote, and I will bold the parts for you which Soldatov/Novaya Gazeta "conveniently" left out....

NG's first paragraph isn't taken directly from "Beslan - Lessons Learned" (PDF) but is a mish-mash from paragraphs 1 and 3 of the section "More Money For Security Reforms", which NG has put together themselves, and presented as direct quotes, but the meaning hasn't really been changed

Sergey Ivanov, Russia’s Defence Minister, said that by the end of 2004 there will be no conscripts in Chechnya, and a first-year private serving in Chechnya will be paid 15,000 roubles a month.72 The army will be forced to cooperate more closely with other power organisations operating in the region. This has not been an easy process, although the common KGB roots of Sergey Ivanov, Minister of Defence; Rashid Nurgaliyev, Minister of Internal Affairs and the head of the FSB Nikolay Patrushev may help at the ministerial level in Moscow.

Each commission has an operational management group. These groups coordinate the antiterrorist activities of the local outposts of the power structures under their jurisdiction. They have considerable freedom to take decisions in case of a terrorist attack and will not have to wait for Moscow's orders. Giving the MVD such an important role in combating terrorism, especially in the most volatile part of Russia, is a risky strategy because, to succeed, the Minister of Internal Affairs will have to reform and purge the ministry, for which, even in the present atmosphere he has no funds or, more important, time.

Pampered by Boris Yel'tsin, inadequately supervised but playing an increasingly important role in the anti-terrorist campaign, the MVD is still ridden with corruption, in spite of the strenuous cleansing efforts of Gen Nurgaliyev and his predecessor, Boris Gryzlov. Individuals in the police structures in the North Caucasus, linked by ethnic and family connections, have been known to cooperate with terrorists. The Chechen law enforcement bodies suspect that Chechen police still have about 100 clandestine terrorist collaborators.75

President Putin and his team will now be tempted to micromanage security and law enforcement bodies at both the strategic and local levels. That will not please liberal democrats but it could help combat terrorism. His most difficult task will be to change the working methods of the 50+ generation of Russia's security and law enforcement officers, who, like Putin, began their careers in the effective but inefficient Soviet security and law enforcement organs and then experienced a demoralising decade. Were they to be tempted to think that the first period of their careers shows that the Soviet security model worked, the second should warn them that it could function only in the Soviet Union. They may want to recreate the KGB structures and use some of its working methods in accordance with old internal regulations still in force. The President's decision to saddle the MVD with the responsibility for coordinating the security campaign in the Caucasus suggests clearly that it is not his intention and that, for the time being at least, the KGB's successor, the FSB, will concentrate mainly on collection and analysis of information. Had he intended to create a Stalinist style security monster, he would quietly have merged directorates and department from several power structures and called it a commission or a service – Boris Yel'tsin's attempt to build a similar monster in the early 1990s failed on a legal technicality, because he decided to call it a ministry.

Vladimir Putin may be forced to rethink his new strategy of combating terrorism if the MVD-coordinated war against terrorism fails. He would then have three options: creating a new security/law enforcement organisation, transferring the security coordination in the North Caucasus to the FSB or, much less likely, to the Army. However, their modus operandi is unlikely to change significantly.

The second last paragraph is especially telling. And does such convenient editing remind you of anyone? :) --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Henry Plater-Zyberk

I have nominated Henry Plater-Zyberk, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Plater-Zyberk. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Colchicum (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Moldova civil unrest

Hi! I reported the situation of the article here. If you believe that I broke the 3RR, give me please the examples. However, I believe that this article needs a higher protection level. --Olahus (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there seems to be a lot of edit warring going on. I don't really know what to do. You have made 4 reverts in the last 24 hours: [15][16][17][18]. You should self-revert your last or you might get blocked. Offliner (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As I know, a revert is an edit that restores an article to a previous version. As I know, I only inserted quoted phrases, isn't it? --Olahus (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You reinserted the material, when other people had removed it. Therefore, you reverted their edits. Offliner (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I invite you to talk here abou this issue if you believe taht my edits are not justified. Please justify your point of view and let us come to a consensus. --Olahus (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already posted my argumentation there, and I don't think I have anything else to say at this point. Offliner (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you stil have the same point of view? Isn't there more to say? The point is that there is no definition in WP about the term "enough" ...--Olahus (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think your last chanhes on the artilce are fine. Regards! --Olahus (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I ask you for the record never came to my talk page again. Your inflammatory suggestions about Berezovsky and a conflict of interest are over the top.Biophys (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. No, I do not have any conflict of interest in political/history articles. I do not have any political connections since 1991.Biophys (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for answering my question. I didn't claim that there was a COI; I just asked a honest question about a subject I've been wondering about, so that I wouldn't have to keep on guessing.

It is my personal suspicion, that there is a very elaborate smear campaign going on against the Russian government, led by the absolute genius and world champion of media manipulation - Berezovsky. Of course, there is no evidence that any operations would be taking place in Wikipedia, and I'm not suggesting that there were. Offliner (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of articles

This is not the first time when you make such edits. Please follow WP:Merge policy. If you repeat such edits, I will have to ask an advice from an administrator. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Offy, what the hell is going on here with these articles? Who the hell is creating such POV-pushing things? Nevermind, I just checked, and it is low-and-behold Biophys. Biophys, why are you intentionally creating articles which are a blatant violation of WP:POVFORK and christ know how many other policies and guidelines. When does the absolute madness end? --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone should stop Biophys from creating all those POV forks. Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings is a very obvious one, I think. Offliner (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, now I guess we have 4 articles which duplicate each other (either completely or in major parts): Russian apartment bombings, Theories of the Russian apartment bombings, List of people allegedly involved in Russian apartment bombings, Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings. Note that the last one contains many things that are copied from earlier versions of Russian apartment bombings, from times before evil editors "destroyed" the article. Reminds me a lot of Internet operations by Russian secret police. Maybe I should cut and paste together my favourite version too? Offliner (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

5 now actually: List of deaths related to Russian apartment bombings. This POV forking seems to be getting out of hand... Offliner (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You both, please stop groundless personal accusations. According to the policy, "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines...". I did nothing of this kind. I created a couple of lists that do not express any POV and an article that describes factual events ("Evidence..."), whereas Igny created an article entitled "Conspiracy theories...". The last is indeed POVish as admitted even Alex Bakharev. I only asked you to follow WP:Merge policy.Biophys (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

When we have an editor, such as yourself, who ignores guidelines on how to fork articles, we merge content and POV forks as per WP:CFORK and WP:POVFORK. You are a problematic editor Biophys, and you should start using common sense and guidelines/policies, instead of using WP to advocate, and that has been recognised by many editors. Just stop with the creation of all these bloody forks, because Russian apartment bombings is not at a length which would require any type of splitting or forking. Offliner has been doing a good job in helping to present a balanced, NPOV article, and you just do not like that. Enough is enough. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying WP:POVFORK! WP:POVFORK! but I do not think it means what you seem to think it means. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No policy prevents WP editors from creating new articles. I created or significantly expanded hundreds articles and will continue. This is actually you who systematically violate WP:Merge and WP:Deletion policies. Please read them.Biophys (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you read talk page of Russian apartment bombings, you will see that I was initially against creation of sub-articles, and it was actually User:Igny who created a content fork by copy and paste. But there is nothing wrong with creating sub-articles or "umbrella articles" (like "Operation Successor") per WP:MOS.Biophys (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)