User talk:Russavia/Archive 6

Disinformation campaign during the 2008 South Ossetian war

Hi. I noticed, you've made that edit on the article. You did so just as i were looking to undo a series of edits by Jason3777, which were immediately preceeding yours. In my opinion, they're too much POVed, and i'm surprised, that you've noticed only his 'cut'->'had to cut' replacement. I bet you're much more experienced editor, than I, so i urge you to review Jason3777 edits and undo them or modify the article further, if you will find it necessary. Thank you. ETST (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Transaviaexport logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Transaviaexport logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

censorship

The name censorship is in the header, but in any case, the reason I liked "combat disinformation" is because it serves to ilustrate the absurd wording of the Georgian Government: Everyone knows it is censorship, yet they do not call it such. Pretty much the same issue as with the Russian "buffer zones". In my opinion the whiskers make it clear that the wording is propaganda. Wont fight for it though, its not necessary, just adding flavor to the text. --Xeeron (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Planned airlines of Spain

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Planned airlines of Spain, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Planned airlines of Spain has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Planned airlines of Spain, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply

You asked in edit summary: when it stops? This depends on you. It is pretty obvious that you started following my edits in numerous articles and talk pages after returning from the block (this is not necessarily WP:STALK because some of your comments are reasonable). Just do not look at my edit history, please, and this all stops. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how I have followed a single edit? For example, explain how I come to Artyom Borovik. I can tell you how. Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin; I put it up for AfD (note, you had not even edited the article previous to my nominating it); having it on my watchlist, I noticed you placed something on the talk page, in which you mentioned Artyom Borovik and his allegations. In fact, if you were to look at your own contributions, you will probably find very few interactions on the various articles you have edited. Of course, the same thing can be said of yourself, in following my edits. Take for example the posts on Litvinenko on the BLP noticeboard and the post on Chechenpress on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. OK, we can assume that you have those boards on your watchlist, so they may have shown up; as I have the Admin noticeboard on my watchlist, so its not beyond the realm of possibility. However, I think what is damning is Georgia for Georgians; within minutes of me placing that article there, yourself and 2 other editors appeared on the scene, and various messages were left on various venues in what looked like a "call to arms" to editors and admins. So who is following who Biophys? I think you are somewhat paranoid, sorry but that's how I see it and will call it. You are not the reason for my existence on this project, and you never will be. I have been up front and honest with why I am here, and I will state it again right for the record.

I believe it is important to stress that whilst Wikipedia and its editors (me included) strive for a neutral point of view in all articles, I personally believe that it is important to highlight the Russian point of view wherever possible.

And as I stated, I wish to do so in peace.

This does not mean that disputes will not arise, but it also means that I expect one to approach me directly, instead of making accusations against myself, behind my back, at a venue which until recently I had no idea existed. If there was any WP:AGF, you would strike your entire evidence section which even mentions myself. Furthermore, when you come into my house (my talk page), if you come in with what is tantamount to more accusations, you will receive a response from myself as above.

And as I stated on the Piotrus arbcom, you need to step back and look objectively at your own edits, from the view of other editors. You surely know that many edits are introduction of inflammatory material and overly-promote WP:REDFLAG conspiracy theories. As can be shown by the Arbcom and elsewhere, I am not the only one who holds this opinion.

Of course, you are all most welcome to help contribute to User:Russavia/SU_fleet at any stage. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the things that is great about Wikipedia is reaching consensus with users who think differently then yourself. If it happens (it does) you get wiki-articles more truthful then articles written by a single person like elsewhere on the internet! So I applaud your aim:

I believe it is important to stress that whilst Wikipedia and its editors (me included) strive for a neutral point of view in all articles, I personally believe that it is important to highlight the Russian point of view wherever possible.

But can you please put this statement on your userpage (or something simulare), cause before I read it I was puzzled by your edits and therefore wasn't sure if you strived for objective articles or where pushing true nationalist agenda's. Sorry for my suspicion but it's hard to know the intentions of people I never met.... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't see a need to specifically state that on my userpage; however, you never know what I may be preparing at the moment for inclusion on the userpage at the moment, but that is down on the list of my priorities at present. I'm somewhat perplexed by how one could be puzzled by my edits? I'd appreciate it if you could show me specific edits that have puzzled you personally, because I can pretty much guarantee that my edits abide by WP:NPOV and WP:FIVE. Of course, I am always open to having my edits critiqued by others. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Russavia, if you do not want do follow my good faith advice, this is up to you. There is no such thing as "Russian point of view" or "Ukrainain point of view". Russians have different points of view, Ukrainians too. He apparently talks about his personal POV. Placing your personal POV to WP articles is not a good idea. Biophys (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't good faith advice, that's the problem. What you have stated is tantamount to you telling me that you will continue to make unfounded allegations against myself, until such time as I stop editing any article on WP that you edit. That's not advice, that is basically an admission that you intend to harrass and assert ownership over articles; Artyom Borovik being a prime example, which I must mention here, I have asked now half a dozen times a very specific question, but have yet to receive the courtesy of an actual reply to. As to "Russian point of view", of course there are different points of view, and I ensure that I cover all major points of view in anything that I edit. Can you honestly say likewise? Take Litvinenko's article, it is in dire need of a complete re-write. In the article there is not a mention of him not presenting any evidence of his wild claims and assertions; they are all presented as fact, rather than total conjecture on his part. Do you not see the problem with it? As to your assertion of my presenting my own POV into WP articles, can you please provide here diffs and the like of that, and we can discuss it. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just one word of advice, there is no such thing as the Russian point of view. There are many Russian points of view. Keep this in mind please. In general it doesn't look good (smart, polite and responsible) when a foreigner (especially from the antipodes) starts to decide between domestic political points of view and "highlight" a POV wherever possible, because he never suffers consequences for his choice in the real life. Colchicum (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me Colchicum if you will, but I find this remark (especially from the antipodes) somewhat condescending. What has my location got to do with anything? If I didn't make it known that I lived in Australia, for all you all would know, I was living in Russia. Of course, it could be turned around, it doesn't look good when a Russian who has deserted his country starts to decide on the realities in Russia. As to "the" Russian point of view, I've mentioned it above, and frankly, you have both placed the emphasis on the wrong part; the operative words are "Russian point of view"; which for example if was not presented in say 2008 South Ossetia War, the article would read like the Russian bear growling and tearing into the Georgian democrats, with the Russian people standing by and cheering on, whilst they eat babies for breakfast. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Colchicum and biophys, when we speak about "Russian point of view" we mean the point of view of official Russian authorities. Every person (except very stupid one) understands, that there are a lot of POVs in Russia. Russia has around 150.000.000 citizens, so there are a lot of POVs in Russia, except the governmental POV. But when someone states that this is Russian point of view he/she means that this is point of view of government of Russia. The American point of view is the point of view of the government of the USA. The Ukrainian POV is the POV of Ukrainian government (however, in the case of Ukraine (or, for example, Poland) there are frequent differences between the opinion of president and prime minister, so we may refer as to Ukrainian POV only to those POV, which are the POV of both president and prime minister and other authorities). This is not very difficult, and Russavia indeed advocates Russian POV. And as for me (Colchicum you have noticed that I am from Ukraine) I advocate the Ukrainian POV in the Kosovo article, because Ukrainian government does not recognise Kosovo, and this is the attitude of all Ukrainian authorities (including President, government and parliament). All official announcements of Ukrainian authorities do not contain any signs of readiness for Kosovo recognition by Ukraine. All Ukrainian political parties oppose Kosovo independence. But your point of view, Colchicum, is not Russian point of view, at least in Kosovo case. Because all Russian authorities firmly oppose Kosovo independence, and all Russian political parties and movements (including opposition) also oppose Kosovo independence (as far as I know). I do not no about all Russian political parties, but I do not know any political announcement of Russian political force supporting the recognition of Kosovo by Russia. So, your point of view, Colchicum, is indeed your own point of view. Even more - your point of view is very rare in Russia and in no case it may be considered as Russian point of view. So, your assertions that you are from Russia is something like manipulation. Yes, I believe you that you are from Russia, but please do not state this anymore. Or please add every time you mention that you are from Russia, that your POV is very rare in Russia.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting opinion. Russavia, do you agree with Yuriy Kolodin?Biophys (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's his opinion, and he's entitled to it of course. It's not my opinion, but I agree with parts and disagree with other parts. I have of course already stated my opinion, and it is my opinion that the "overall" Russian point of view is not dictated only by the government, but also by the people. If 90% of Russian people agree on a particular issue, and the government also holds said POV, then one can safely say it is the Russian point of view, and the 10% opinion should be dealt with as per WP:UNDUE. If however, the government POV is X and the majority POV amongst the public is Y, then there is no "the" POV, and needs to be dealt with accordingly. That is in essence how WP works. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • Yuriy, this is off-topic, but my opinion regarding Kosovo is not "very rare". It is shared by about 50% of the Russians I know (not very representative sample), and according to a recent poll conducted in August, if I recall correctly, by about 25-30% of the general Russian population (though the figure was much lower in February), the majority simply don't care rather than oppose. Such is life. Actually, even in Serbia proper there are political forces (minor, but not entirely marginal) supporting Kosovo's independence. And it is not very polite, to say the least, when a Ukrainian tells a Russian what should be considered Russian point of view. Never ever do that again, especially in the real life. As to your statist beliefs, mind the 3rd Article of the Russian constitution. Colchicum (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • I shall refer to POV of the Russian government as to Russian POV. I shall refer to POV of the Ukrainian government as to Ukrainian POV. I shall refer to POV of the US government as to American POV. Etc. This is common practice in the media. And the fact that 30% of Russian population support the independence of Kosovo (however, I do not believe in such number, maybe it will be better for you to provide a link to your data, because you are in Wikipedia) cannot change may opinion about the issue. The overwhelming majority of Russian people do not oppose the government in the Kosovo topic. I have never read or heard about the announcements of Russian opposition about Kosovo, opposing the governmental POV. Also it is very unbelievable for me that there are some political forces in Serbia, which are not marginal, which support Kosovo independence. It is better for you to provide a link to this assertions also. And as for Ukraine, Ukraine has a very pro-Western government now. But even this government, even pro-Western parties of Ukraine do not support the independence of Kosovo. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't care what you shall do. None of my business. Here is another poll: [1]. The overwhelming majority of the Russian people still don't care at all. "Некоторые страны Евросоюза, а также США признали независимость Косово. Как Вы к этому относитесь? Безусловно одобряю - 7%, скорее одобряю - 24%, скорее не одобряю - 17%, безусловно не одобряю - 11%". Bwahaha. Colchicum (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • When the 28+44=72% of Russian people do not have their own opinion about Kosovo issue or support the territorial integrity of Serbia (according to the poll), and the Russian government oppose the independence of Kosovo, it is obviously that we have to consider the Russian POV as the POV of Russian government. Only in the case when the majority of Russian people oppose their own government in the issue we may not use such terms as "Russian POV" at all. Also, I have to note, that this is very strange and manipulative poll. The fair Russian poll has to raise the question "Do you support the recognition of Kosovo by Russia" instead of "Do you support the recognition of Kosovo by the EU and the USA". Because Russian poll has to deal with foreign policy of Russia, not with foreign policy of the USA or the EU.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
                              • Well, слив засчитан :) It is not a strange poll and there are other questions. By the way, VTsIOM is the most pro-government of the major Russian polling agencies you could imagine. Colchicum (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • The Russian governmental polling agencies are very manipulative, and there is clear manipulation in this very issue. If you cannot understand the essenсe of this manipulation - this is just your problem.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • Liberal Democratic Party, 5.24% of the vote in May in general, even among the Kosovo Serbs 0.66% rather than 0%: "Jovanovic, who heads the pro-Western Liberal Democratic Party, LDP, has repeatedly offered Tadic a hand in forming a new government after the May 11 elections, providing the DS change its policy on Kosovo, in recognising Kosovo as an independent state" [2]. Bwahaha. Colchicum (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Yuriy: Sorry for interrupting. Relying on the govt's POV is a fallacy: it's not set in stone and it's not always clear if it exists. One POV on the diplomatic stage, another for the foreign media, something else for the masses at home. Good cop, bad cop. Which one would you pick? It's easy in remote cases like Kosovo (who really cares?) but step down to the things that the street cares about (say, price inflation) and the govt machine splits in a variety of opinions. NVO (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • I think that such terms as "Russian" or "Ukrainian" or other POV is applicable only to the foreign policy, not to the internal affairs. And it is general practise to use such term as, for example "Russian POV" as the synonym of term "POV of the Russian government", when there are no clear impediments for such using.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• • I have to say even more. We should not try to intoduce the Russian, Ukrainian or American or Japan or Nicaraguan POV in the article. We have our own POV, but we should not introduce them in the article. We just have to prevent the introducing the anti-Russian (Ukrainian, American, Japan, Nicaraguan etc) POV in the articles. And if Russavia prevent the introducing the anti-Russian POV in the article - this is very good. If I prevent the introducing the anti-UN POV in the Kosovo article - this is also very good. Because a lot of editors of Kosovo article think that UN means nothing (including Colchicum). Such POVs should not be presented in Wikipedia.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:United Russia logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:United Russia logo.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Mosk'va - saw your name in the edit history

Looks like a hoax to me. NVO (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's one we definitely need to check out, as it is possibly a hoax. I have searched at http://region.tver.ru/municipal-struct/p1.html and can find no reference to this 'town'. I've requested speedy delete therefore. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You can thank User:Phoenix-wiki for this one. One day the guy decided to take the Encarta atlas and to start create stubs on Russian places based only on what was in it. Very quickly he found out that some of the placenames are not unique, so instead of properly disambiguating them he started to introduce minor spelling variations, which is how we got "Mosk'va" (which is actually "Москва"). Luckily someone knocked some sense into him, but not before he created a few hundred of these senseless stubs, which took me forever to clean up (I am mostly done, but there are still a few dozen I need to go through, "Mosk'va" being one of them).

Other than that, the place is real—it's a village in Penovsky District of Tver Oblast. I've untagged the "article" and moved it up on my to-do list.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ezhiki, I've withdrawn the nom. Wonder why it's not found on the Tver Oblast website at all. Do you know the geo co-ordinates for the location? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The website only goes down to the level of rural settlements; it does not list individual villages. As for the coordinates, no, I don't have them. It is, after all, a very small village, so it was marked neither on any of the maps I have nor on google maps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see it on a map at http://www.penoadm.ru/peno.jpg at the far left of the district. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Good one, but unfortunately this particular map does not help us determine what the village coordinates are (unless you are willing to manually approximate it on google maps :))—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added co-ordinates, can you check it against http://www.kosmosnimki.ru/index.html#x=32.163501&y=56.917946&z=11&fullscreen=true&mode=map to make sure I have it approximately correct. It seems I do. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, your guess is as good as mine here. Lake outlines seem to match, and so does the outline of the village itself. I do, however, wonder, if you've just committed an act of OR :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR? Oh, I get it. Orsome Research. ;) --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ну шо хлопиц "Брихадир" поддём "пААбАмАем им рАгА"

Perhaps you should address this--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Russian airbases

You'll probably think this is another attempt of mine to pull you into a numbingly boring maintenance endeavor (and you wouldn't be far from the truth), but would you be interested in cleaning up this category (and perhaps this one as well)? The reason I'm asking is that quite a few of the airbase names conflict with the names of inhabited localities, but since the sources used to support the airbases information leave much to be desired, and since every other airbase article contains at least one alternative name, I'd very much want to see them cross-verified before I put any labor into incorporating these article into the overall disambiguation scheme. You are the only active editor I know who has interest in Russian aviation, and this is aviation-related, right? Right?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can take a stab at them in the near future if that's ok. At the moment, I am somewhat tied up with this fun project. I'll also have to dig into my various sources and get as much as possible from them and that you can probably imagine will take some time. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No rush. Those articles have been sitting there for almost two years now, if I am not mistaken, and can certainly wait another one if not more :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:SIA lead

Dearest Russavia, thank you for the warm welcome. As much as you have plenty to say to me, however, you are strongly advised to post comments on content issues at the article talkpage, and not in my talkpage. I will continue with the discussion once this is done, thank you.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

A discussion is currently taking place here in regards to your account. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 20:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've been blocked for 24 hours so I am unable to respond to yet more accusations from Biophys and Grey-Fox. As you are an admin, I am asking you to look at this and act accordingly as well. It is pretty rotten that an editor who inadvertantly breaches 3RR is blocked, whilst an editor who also breaches it (as evidence clearly provides) and additionally seriously breaches WP:BLP, get's nothing. I hope you are objective enough to act on this. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[3] made on November 13 2008 to Alexander Litvinenko

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I do feel that I have to say this.

1. The article in question has since been fully protected, so a block at this point is clearly punitive;
2. Blocking only one participant in this specific situation does nothing but inflame the already long standing issue;

So, I see two options here. Those being unblocking Russavia with the understanding that he will civilly engage in discussion on the articles talk page. Or (the better option IMO) block both parties, and un-protect the article.

Tiptoety ^talk 21:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is now a relic, but to avoid confusion: T has unprotected the article and decided not to block B William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be harmonious to you guys, but it ain't with me. Going by my timestamps. Revert #1 @ 09:16, 13 November 2008, Revert #2 @ 09:59, 13 November 2008, Revert #3 @ 10:04, 13 November 2008, Revert #4 @ 10:46, 13 November 2008, Revert #5 @ 13:31, 13 November 2008. It was laid out in black and white. And I am not evening mentioning again WP:BLP, unless of course it's completely OK to have unproven accusations presented as fact in an article, i.e. "He wrote that among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia". I think some serious lessons on WP:BLP are in order here. We could try it out, and let's put it on, let's say, George W. Bush, that Billy Bob accused GWB of paedophilia, and compared him to Jeffrey Dahmer. Billy Bob wrote that among people who knew about GWB's paedophilia (remember, we are presenting this as fact) are Joe Blow and Mavis Brown. What would happen if I did that? Stupid question, right?

I refer all admins to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Biographies_of_living_persons, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Problems_with_biographies_of_living_persons and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Special_enforcement_on_biographies_of_living_persons.

Somehow, WP:3RR is a graver crime on WP than WP:BLP, but hey, so long as it's only Putin who the hell cares, right? Just so long as its not against Johnny Two Tooth. This is adminning at its worst, sorry to say guys.

And I love the way you guys have listened to Biophys and his promise to 'discuss' it, but as one can see from his talk page, attempts to discuss this in a civil manner have resulted in him closing avenues of discussion, not myself, as one can see from here, I have continued to discuss, even as I was oblivious to the 3RR discussion taking place. And I have continued to discuss; all the while Biophys is throwing around more accusations of me being a sockpuppet; now where is that checkuser?

Sorry guys, it's pathetic, it's not harmonious. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 00:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Response: Alexander Litvinenko/Vladimir Putin

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. I appreciate you concerning me with this, but I've lost interest in that article and others that Biophys and his tag-teamers have their iron grip on. Edit-warring, arguing and debating with these people is a waste of time and I want nothing to do with it anymore. My new personal rules are to edit only when it's enjoyable, and not to engage in arguments or edit wars at all. See as far as I'm concerned, the credibility of wikipedia is already well out the window, so while I can do my best to put legit information into the encyclopedia, I will no longer attempt fight an impossible to win war against propaganda and misinformation. It's not about right or wrong, as you've probably realized. They have much more time and far better connections than I do, as is evident by my most recent block and the fact that my Krawndawg account was only accidentally "discovered" because of fishing and baseless accusations (which were proven to false) that never should have been given attention to in the first place. This place is pretty corrupt, I think my best bet is to stay out of the politics and the bottomless pit of bureaucracy and just stick to editing.

But that said, if you need any help with any other Russia or war related articles, I do think I can still enjoy editing sans the BS, and would be glad to help out. LokiiT (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting 2008 Russian financial crisis reform

Please take a look at Talk:2008_Russian_financial_crisis#Counting_the_beans. As you said earlier, "the timeline and quotes need to go" (well, some of the quotes are necessary anchors). In better days I would rewrite it anew in one weekend and "stun the world", but not these days - damn recession and overtime work. It's a plan anyway. NVO (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey NVO, when I said that the timelines need to go, I don't mean that the information itself needs to go, but rather they need to be rewritten as coherent encyclopaedic prose in the article. So the information should still be present, but in a different form. I don't know if you know, but Vedomosti has a free subscription offer at the moment, and as a highly respected Russian business news resource they have some great analytics and information - the link you will need for this is http://www.vedomosti.ru/ad/redirect.phtml?bannerid=7669 - note they say about using the homepage setting, you don't need to do this, maybe put it in your bookmarks instead. I am sure their materials will come in handy for any such article. At the moment I am collaborating with another editor on User:Russavia/RusAmb and also a vast expansion of Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Russia). When it comes time to you expanding the Financial crisis article, get in touch with me, and I will try to help where I can with it also. Cheers, --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 09:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Most Vedomosti texts are available in English at Reuters. Meanwhile I'll be putting together a new version here, feel free to reuse. NVO (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Want to run a checkuser on me? Well read on......

You can also take this message as my permission to perform a checkuser on myself, so long as I am advised who is performing it before it is done. I will not agree to a checkuser being done under any other circumstance, because the debacle that FayssalF caused, with myself being called a lier on several occasions, and after a request to arbcom for an explanation on how the checkuser was performed has gone unanswered now for 2 months doesn't give me much confidence in the ability of arbitrators, let alone admins, to be able to perform a simple function.

I don't have to explain to Biophys, or any other user, why as of late I have been online a fair bit. And I don't have to explain this for the same reason Biophys doesn't have to explain why he is so paranoid. It's none of my business, like this is none of his or anyone elses. Anyone who needs to know, knows, and anyone who cares to know, can ask, and if I care to tell you, I will. So speculate all you like Biophys, you'll soon be shown as the fool, not me.

But again, I want to know who is running the checkuser first. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Online a fair bit is rather underestimated, those lengths are pretty absurd man, you can call other users "paranoid" but get some rest alright :-). Meanwhile I've asked for you to be unblocked because I really do not want all this drama. Let's takes things easier alright? Regards. Grey Fox (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And I have to explain myself to who exactly? I want that check user done, and this will hopefully put a halt to Biophys' paranoid accusations...one can only live in hope...because frankly, the consistency and the veracity of them are starting to piss me off. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 00:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Email sent to User:Sam Korn giving him permission to humour Biophys' fishing expedition. Woah! We caught a big one. Might I add, Biophys' continual accusations are under scrutiny here, in which not 2 days ago he stated "Why I said that? Because I was asked, and because I thought this is something really important. But I am not going to repeat this ever if that is what you want." And he is still at. He just doesn't get it. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 00:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I repeat what?Biophys (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Per your request, I have run a check. I see absolutely no evidence of multiple users. There are various features that convince me that all the editing is done from one computer. I can't absolutely rule out the idea that there are two people in the same building using the same machine, but it is a rather fanciful suggestion. I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the accusations are thoroughly without merit. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 01:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to explain yourself to anyone, Russavia. I'm glad to see the gossips of account abuse gone. Don't think the request from Bio came out of the blue, because the timetable of your edits has been rather unusual (while I'm not saying that's bad). Nobody is trying to "piss you off" or anything like that, and I think we should all attempt to just get along with each other, despite differences in viewpoints. Grey Fox (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Grey Fox, I agree with you. However, I would like to see any reasonable explanation how Russavia can edit 24 hours a day non-stop with a couple of one hour breaks (day after day after day...). Someone tells that he can jump 100 feet high. Would you believe?Biophys (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, does it matter? Tiptoety ^talk 03:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If several people should not edit from the same account as you said, then it does matter. If one wants to "ignore all rules", then it does not.Biophys (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

But a CheckUser has already been ran and it has determined without a doubt that Russivia's account is being used by one person, and that person alone. Tiptoety ^talk 03:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree to abide all WP policies, including CheckUser conclusions, if that is what you are talking about. However as a person, I can not honestly believe anyone's conclusion if it contradicts laws of nature. I hoped that Russavia would explain himself the controversy, but if he does not want, this is his personal business. Fine, let's consider this matter closed.Biophys (talk) 04:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, calm down a bit. It is none of our business how he can edit non-stop. Frankly, your behavior lately has been over the line. Just because Russavia harassed you earlier doesn't entitle you to harass him now. You both leave each other alone. Colchicum (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, that is exactly what I suggested to Russavia when he came back from the block and started following my edits everywhere. I even apologized to him for the trouble: [4]. However he continued doing the same, including accusing me of BLP violations everywhere (and then re-inserting disputed BLP materials I deleted to satisfy his request), reverting my edits everywhere including at ArbCom pages, and so on.Biophys (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A question and suggestion

Russavia, I have never followed your edits on the Russian aviation and foreign policy issues. Would you also agree to stop following my edits on the subjects you was never interested in before returning from the block?. We could also ask Colchicum to be our informal mediator. He thinks it is me who is at fault. This is fine. You and me would explain him a problem. If he tells: "B., I still believe this is all your fault; do not do this; do that", I will follow his advice. Is that something reasonable?Biophys (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks I would agree to such a thing would have to have rocks in their head. For the umpteenth time, I have not, and I do not, follow your edits on WP. Do you think I am only here for Russian aviation - I have done very little on Russian aviation in the time I have been on WP -- I am working on bits here and there, but for the most part, I have been working more on foreign relations of Russia, and will delve in on politics of Russia, as I will also delve in other areas of Russian topics in future. You don't WP:OWN a single article on WP, and your suggestion is nothing more than an assertion of ownership, and that is not on. Additionally, it was yourself you closed all avenues of communication, as proven on your own talk page, after I tried opening those lines with you.

You made accusations against myself on another users talk page, which again, you didn't have the common decency of advising me it was going on. Such sneaky tactics, like the 3RR report, are the acts of children. Grow up. To prove your nuttery wrong, I asked for check user to be done on myself -- of course, I could have let it go on and on and on and on, and laugh at how idiotic it is, but I asked for it -- and in asking for the checkuser, your accusations have been proven wrong. But yet, you still continued to engage in ennuendo and questioning and hounding on my talk page and others talk pages, whilst I made it very, very, very clear that it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS why I may or may not be online at any given time.

I agree with the block I got, because yes, I did breach 3RR, and there should be one rule for all, not one rule for some, and one for others; and I would have insisted on the block for myself even if Grey Fox did withdraw the complaint (which mind you was done after I demonstrated you had also breached 3RR, thereby showing this was a sneaky attack); and I would have insisted on it, because I believe in one rule for all. You may have been able to weasel your way out of also getting a 3RR block, when you are clearly guilty, by offering to discuss things (an option which I was not given mind you...go figure), but that sincerity is in my mind false sincerity, as demonstrated by you sneakily block-shopping at other venues behind my back afterwards, and then also after I was blocked you started reverting additions to articles which I had edited such as this and this. They don't look like the acts to me of someone who will discuss things with others.

As I said quite clearly on several occasions, I am here to contribute to building an encyclopaedia, and I would like to do so in peace. I try to assume good faith but one can only AGF for so long. So I would kindly ask that you stop harrassing me via evident covert block-shopping, ridiculous accusations and the like, for the consistency of them is pissing me off, and I have had a gutful of it. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

So, your answer is "no". Sorry, but I simply wanted to follow the advice by Colchicum. I have never harassed you anywhere but simply asked for a little of cooperation. If you do not want, no one can force you. Sorry for the trouble.Biophys (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I have never breached 3RR rule. If I did, I would be blocked just like you. Some of your diffs are not reverts; I also made a self-revert to create a compromise version instead.Biophys (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort; so I will collaborate with all editors, however, it is near on impossible to collaborate with an editor who:

• Continually accuses me of stalking with no evidence of such.
• Continually indirectly accuse me (and others) of being in the employ of Russian security services, simply because I dare collaborate by inserting information which dares go against one's POV. This, especially, can have "real life" consequences.
• Continually accuses me (and others) of being part of some co-ordinated team.
• Continually accuses me of what amounts to vandalism (i.e. removing information which you describe as "protecting vladimir putin").
• Accuses me of using poorly sourced information.
• Engages in sneaky block-shopping and fishing
• After clearly being advised that my account is not used for meatpuppetry, and being told that they are owed no explanation, continues to engage in inappropriate discussion and assertions - also here and here.

Additionally, one finds it hard to assume good faith, when an editor comes to their talk page and again insinuates that I am wikistalking them and that editor asserts ownership of entire articles in the same breathe, and hides it as a question/suggestion.

Add all that together and you get unabashed harrassment.

As to 3RR, if you look at WP:3RR you will see that you also breached it. To prove this, perhaps you would be willing to wave the immunity which you received from William (I guess it was), and have an admin who wasn't involved look at the diffs as I laid out above; for if you do you would find yourself blocked as well. One rule for some, one rule for others. If I do something wrong, I cop it on the chin, and have copped this on the chin, I haven't denied even that one provable fact.

Before any "discussion" can take place, I feel I need an explanation as to each and every one of the accusations you made against me and why you made them. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 23:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The entire idea was to stop confrontation. But instead of doing just that, you accuse me and ask to provide evidence of your wrongdoings. Is that the way to peace? OK, I can provide evidence, but that is only because you demanded it. I am still not sure this is something we need...Biophys (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's briefly summarize a few events after your return from the block for harassment:

• my suggestion of peace
• your statement at ANI
• your statement to ArbCom ("Discussion of ethnicity by Biophys" at the bottom)
• reverting me in my own evidence section. Reverting me in different articles: [5][6], [7][8]
• Reporting me to Kirill, accusing me at unrelated talk page, accusing me at BLP. Then the disputed text was removed by me. But essentially the same text was reinserted by you.
• That are your plans for the future
• That was my final suggestion

Should we debate this publicly? I am not quite sure.Biophys (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed most of main evidence about you from ArbCom pages as a gesture of good will. What would be your response? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. No response here apparently means that you stick to your previous statement. It means you are going to continue everything as it was lately. Then at very least, I should adequately reply to your statement in KK-H case. People thinking that I am harassing you is really bad.Biophys (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, I am still working on my response to you ok. Give me a day or two on that. As you have removed that part of evidence, I have done likewise also, thanks. I would withdraw my other evidence if you were to do likewise. And if this is done, in doing so, we agree that it is dead and buried as far as that arbcom is concerned. If you can agree to that, then all good, because WP:AGF is an integral part of WP, and there is basically none in 'this section' of WP. But I will mention that I will not be removing the BLP evidence, as I do believe it is a serious problem affecting WP, and its not directed at you as it is all over WP. And as stated I will not push for "sanctions" against yourself, but rather some education/mentoring on BLP, because I do believe that you may not fully understand the BLP policy, and perhaps I am not the right person to explain this to you. As to the KK case, if you will confirm on the evidence talk page, that you fully understand that discussion of other editor's age, sex, ethnicity, etc is not acceptable, as was made clear at the Miyokan ANI, I will remove the evidence from the case. Anyway, I'll respond to the rest of everything within next couple of days. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You still continue telling that I violate BLP, that I have something to do with "discussion of other editor's age, sex, ethnicity", that I harass you (your statement above), and that you did nothing wrong. That is something I must object to.Biophys (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to subdue the problems here Biophys, and if you can't see that then I am sorry. I am the type of person who asks for explanations of why something may or may not occur. Given that you wish to escalate this by adding evidence to the Kuban_kazak arbcom, I will scrap my longer reply to yourself, and if you wish, it can continue at the arbcom and let them sort it out; as an adult I always try to sort out my own problems. No further reply is required from you on this issue if that is the case. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I never accused you previously of anything in KK-H case. It was you who accused me of outing users there (this is serious). Therefore, I had to present my part of the story.Biophys (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not accuse you, nor am I accusing you, of outing KK, I said that discussion of others ethnicity is not on, and that was said as a result of the Miyokan ANI discussion results. That the difference. Although you removed it, it was posted and it forced a response from KK. All you have to understand is it has nothing to do with outing, but that discussion about ethnicity, which isn't exactly on according to Miyokans ANI. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This is one of possible interpretations. But even if to accept your position, I never wanted to disclose anyone's "ethnicity". Unlike some other editors, I do not care about "ethnicity" at all. When I tell "Russian", I mean the citizenship or the culture. Most probably, ArbCom will ignore my evidence because Kirill already made his proposals at the workshop (and I am not going to push anything there unless things become really bad). My main message to you is this: please, do not pay too much attention to me and my edits; and do something you are really interested in.Biophys (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Upps... The case has been moved already to "proposed decision" stage. It means I wasted my time and you have probably nothing to warry about. We must sort this out ourselves.Biophys (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)