User talk:Alex Bakharev/Archive1

Serapion Brotherhood

Hi Alex - thanks for your comment; there's a reply on the relevant talk page Breadandroses 10:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Don't forget to provide edit summaries and use the preview button. Thanks, Alphax ^τεχ 7 July 2005 09:54 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello Alex Bakharev/Archive1,

Welcome and enjoy Wikipedia. Your edits are much appreciated.

These links might help you with your contributions:

• Tutorial
• Manual of Style
• Policies and Guidelines

For Wikipedia-wide involvement, visit the Communtiy Portal and the Village Pump.

Be sure to check out Australian resources, like The Australia Wikiportal, Australian Wikipedians' Notice Board, Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight, New Australian Articles and Australian stub articles. You can list yourself at Australian Wikipedians.

Also, I have noticed you have made some unsigned comments. It is important that you do sign your name on Talk and vote pages. You can do this using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Preferably, use four tildes (~~~~) which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.

Again, welcome.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 06:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work!

It's great to see the long-overdue articles on Dmitry Levitsky and Fedor Rokotov finally appear on the Wiki. It would have been nice of you to announce newly created articles here. Thanks. --Ghirlandajo 20:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template for cities

• Would not it be usefull to create a universal template for an infobox related to a Russian city, something like Template:US City infobox? It might contain English name, Russian Name, Population, Lattitude/Longitude, Post code, Phone code, Foundation year, Architectorial landmarks, Famous people connected. If you think it is worth doing, I could start it. abakharev 10:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alex, I don't think it is a good idea. We have a number of city templates already, but actually they are not very informative and don't prettify atricles too. Also, most of the Russian city articles are stubbish, which result in the tiny article being overloaded with images, tables, and templates. By the way, I moved your porposal to the Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board, which is intended for such announcements. --Ghirlandajo 12:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, for moving the proposal, would not do it again. You are more experienced wikipedian, so you must be right. abakharev 12:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries

←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, I don't think it is fair to send Yesenin to the US. Perhaps he briefly visited the US but did not emigrate. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He lived there for two years, if he would not divorse Isadora Duncan he would probably live there indefinetly (at least it was her plan).

Sorry I didn't know that. If you could his bio stating the years, that'd be great. Also, what's the story of Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii? Thanks much. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Prokudin-Gorsky, he seemed to settle to France, only his photos some how moved to Library of Congress, that was the source of confusion. 05:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Hello! Take care lest your wonderful images of Larionov's, Goncharova's, and Serebryakova's works be deleted. I don't believe they are public domain, because the painters died less than 50 years ago. --TintoRetto 09:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• They are works of Russian painters, exponated in Russian galleries and published in Russian and Soviet catalogs, most of them are from Russian museums. Soviet Union (and Russia) jointed copyright convention quite late, thus all the works exponated before 1973 are Public Domain ouside fSU. Thus, the label {{sovietpd}}. abakharev 09:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russia Portal

Thank you very much. Presently I am involved in Venona project materials, decyphered Soviet transmissions from the U.S. between 1942 - 1946. This project may take several months, and presently I am attempting to separate GRU networks from KGB (predesseser) networks, as well as KGB & GRU illegal networks. Boris Bykov, for example, does not fit into Category:NKVD, so I would very much welcome the opportunity to work with others who have interest in organizing this material. Regarding your request, do you have any specific subject regarding Soviet foreign intelligence operations in mind? Thank you very much. nobs 16:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another thanks, for keeping Portal:Russia/New article announcements up-to-date and correcting my flop. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kondia

Thanks for a very speedy reply. --Valentinian 23:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OMO

A question has come up regarding the piece on Shevchenko. What is the meaning of OMO? I assume it is an acronym for a branch of the Soviet foreign ministry. Wonder if you can help out here. See discussion page on Shevchenko article. Xtrump 10:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Shevchenko was at a time the vice-chairman of Otdel Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsij (department of international organiztions) of Ministery for Froeign Affairas of USSR. I have put this info into the article abakharev 13:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Finite difference

Thanks -- didn't notice that there was already a "finite difference". Good catch! zowie 16:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Icons

Thank you for your earlier help on the Icon article. Editing on it has slowed down considerably, but at least the edit wars seem to be over. I moved most of one section to a new article, Russian icons, simply to save space. Any help you can offer with any remaining cleanup would we welcome and appreciated. Wesley 00:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Metro

What is your justification for changing the spelling of many of the Moscow Metro station names? The previous spellings seem to be the generally accepted ones, and your changes have created a lot of inconsistencies. Camerafiend 00:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Apostrophes in the article's titles are against Wikipedia tradition, they might be wronly interpreted in the address bars of some browsers, in search requests, etc. Many English-speaking peoples does not have a clue whow to prononce Russian words with apostrophes inside, etc.

• Maybe we should discuss this with User:Mikkalai who is very vocal in opposition to apostrophes (see Portal:Russia/New article announcements). abakharev 00:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. However, the changes have created a lot of inconsistencies that someone will have to fix. Camerafiend 00:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Want to have a look at what has been happening there, read my articles on TKL stations.Kuban kazak 02:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grigoriy Frid

Hello Alex! Thanks for looking at the article about Frid and thanks for considering to trans-wiki it to the German wikipedia. Lucky Germans now have two Frids :) but I'm sure they will figure it out all right. My question to you is about what's left here in the English wikipedia: you reduced it to a stub-stub; is it your opinion that it actually isn't worth translating? Or perhaps you would be interested to give it further translation and expand it a little, and just need more time? In which case I thought I'd let you know that the copyvio question came up so it might be wiser to wait out a bit. You can check out the status on the page with the list for required translation. Your help is very valuable!

Perhaps I should have introduced myself earlier... consider I finally found an excuse :) My name is Vera, I also work in the Russian wiki under the ru:User:Bepa account. I don't contribute much, but am strongly willing to do more as I learn, and find the time. Kind regards - Vera Introvert ^talk 03:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, большое спасибо. Т.е. вы считаете, что то, что было, незачем переводить? Вы практически удалили немецкий текст, вот почему я спросила. Если бы там был хороший текст, то кто-нибудь со знанием немецкого перевел бы. Я подозреваю, что тот текст был несколько примитивный (насколько я смогла немного прочитать), да еще и copyvio... в общем, бог с ним, наверное, подожду я - две недели на перевод дается. Всего доброго и спасибо еще раз - Introvert ^talk 08:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful with the "This is a minor edit chackbox"

Hi! Please, only mark your edit as minor if it doesn't actually change the meaning of the article. Fixing spelling errors, adding punctuation, etc. Thank you! :) --Ashenai (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine related topics

Alex, I've seen you were writing for a Ukraine portal too. So, I am asking you whether you have time desire to check out several edit conflicts caused by a new user:AndriyK. So far, I am getting all the heat for taking it upon myself to deal with this user and third/fourth/fifth opinions would help. I tried to postpone asking for eyes at portals because I hoped the user could be dealt with by me alone. I now doubt that. If you have time, please keep an eye on his edits. Maybe I am all wrong and his edits bring light to WP. Nevertheless, more eyes I needed to make sure of it. Thanks! --Irpen 08:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your question about names (why yes and why not) is somewhat answered at Wikipedia_talk:Eastern_European_Wikipedians'_notice_board. If you have no time to read the whole discussion, please check the end of it. --Irpen 10:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you agree. If you are on WP and have time/desire to stay involved (for the sake of WP not for me) please keep an eye on this user's contributions. Actually, as the result, some useful info was added to some articles, but mostly by others (which doesn't matter overall). Most of what he was doing was destructive and very aggravating. The mess with Russkaya Pravda, Ruska Pravda, Severians, etc. is just a small part. The real mess is ua-L and Ukrainization. And can you beleive that I used to be accused in WP in Ukrainization of the articles? I wonder what would that guy say now about AndriyK. I hoped that editors of ua-wiki would finally come here but not like this :(. --Irpen 13:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I did try to edit and explain at talk both Lviv and Ukrainian language. We'll see what reaction will follow. Cheers, --Irpen 02:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, opposing strongly opinionated editors, may get costly but I do appreciate your participation in the dialog. Please let me know if you think I went over board. Personally, I tried all I could to act with restraint. It is up to the others to judge how good I am at it. Thanks again for your attention to Ukrainian topics. If only Ukrainian topics could get half as much attention from good editors as Russian topics are getting... Cheers, --Irpen 04:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Bulgakov

Hi, refering to your work on this article. I realise that you have probably added the foreign language stuff to work on it and translate. But, it seems to me that it is copyrighted material from a different website. Even if you translate it and then remove it, since your original post will remain the edit history, we will still have a copyright problem. Please consider working on an external editor (wordprocessor or notepad) and then only submitting material that is in English and not copyrighted. Thanks. --Doc (?) 12:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The staff I based the article on is the article on Sergei Bulgakov in Russian Wikipedia (ru:Булгаков, Сергей Николаевич), you could realized that it had Wiki markup. Obviously if GPDL. abakharev 12:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• • It would still be better if you didn't post the material until after you have translated it. Alternatively, create a temporary article for working on e.g. Sergei Bulgakov/temp - working in the main article space is not desirable. --Doc (?) 12:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Careful with the speedies

You nominated Armenak Petrosian for speedy deletion on the grounds of non-notability; a bit of research quickly indicates that he's a professional soccer player in Iran. No harm done; be a bit more careful next time, okay? Thanks. DS 13:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salahov

Hello Alex,

Could you please help me with the article about Salahov. I think there are too many redirects, and in my opinion we should only keep the name Tahir Salahov according to Azeri spelling and redirect from Tair Salakhov according to Russian spelling. Any other spellings should be deleted, including the one with his father’s name in the middle. I’m new to wikipedia, and sometimes have difficulties with making things work. Thank you for your kind assistance. Grandmaster 12:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Once an article is created in Wikipedia, you have to have administrative rights to delete it. Neither me nor you have such rights, thus, we have to go through voting on AfD page - that is reasonably cumbersome and lengthy. Thus, I would not recommend to delete an entry (unless it is somehow offensive, harmful, etc.), just make it a redirect to an article with the right name. See Help:Redirect. Usually redirect does not harm - they a take negligeble amount memory, but simplify search. Even the redirects with an orphographic errors might be helpfull, if you made such an error been our expert on Salakhov, then quite possible that an American schoolboy or whoever would look up the wikipedia would make the same mistake - so the more redirects the merrier.

• Thus, the strategy would be decide the right name for the main article. Move the article there by pressing the move button on the top and entering the right name. It would create a redirect on the place of the right name. Check that all the other redirects points to the main article, so that there will be no double redirects, if necessary, edit the redirects. That's all.

• Last few words, for the Russian-related articles we decided to avoid using patronimics in the titles of the main articles - they look foreign for the English-speakers, to long to type, introduce additional errors (what is right: Ivanovich, Ivanovitch or Iwanowitch?), etc. So we decided to use them only to distinguish among equally notable people - Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy vs. Aleksey Nikolaevich Tolstoy, etc. It is in theory, but in reality many people are still using patronimics in the titles. I am not sure if it is relevant to the Azerbajani form of patronimics with ogly/kyzy. abakharev 13:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He

George W. Bush

Hey, thanks for your help with the vandal hitting George W. Bush. You caught some edits that the last two people hadn't. Keep up the great work!!! >: Roby Wayne ^Talk • Hist • E@ 04:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Svyaschennaya Voyna

Thanks for letting me know about this before I took the article too far. But, I wish to ask can I add a sound recoding? Zach (Sound Off) 09:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Прокурор / Prosecutor

Hi, I am not that familiar with the Russian legal system, and only know that Genprokuror is not part of the executive power. Is this correct? Can you direct me to a site where I can learn more. -- Goldie (tell me) 06:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arseny Tarkovsky

Hi Alex-I removed some material from Arseny Tarkovsky because I couldn't understand it. You put it back, but I still don't really know what it means:

he worked for the newspaper "Gudok" managing the section of the Rhymed Satire (Поэтического Фельетона). In 1925-1929 he studied at Higher State Courses for Writers (Высшие государственные литературные курсы).

I'm not familiar with "Rhymed Satire" - maybe you can find a better English translation of this concept? If not (maybe it doesn't really exist in English journalism), then you can give a brief description of what it is. Just saying "Rhymed Satire" with no explanation is confusing. And about his studies, can you clarify as to exactly what that means? I assume that it refers to studies at a state university- but that's not clear. I know all 4 of those Russian words, but I still don't know what exactly that refers to, and it makes this sentence confusing rather than informative. Thanks-- Staecker 11:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits look great- thanks for the clarification. --Staecker 21:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please

Hi Alex, if you have time, could you check List of Russians (Authors) for alphabet and duplicates. Cheers, Vald. Vald 23:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Volodymyr's

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_wholesale_removal_of_info_from_St._Volodymyr.27s_Cathedral. Feel free to comment. --Irpen 01:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on David Buliuk

I was wondering if you could help me do the same with the other Ukrainian painters. Also, was David Buliuk a jew? (the name David?? just a given name?)

• I will try to help, if I would have spare time. I do not know for sure, but strongly doubt that Burliuk was a Jew. His father was David Fyodorvich, his brothers were Vladimir (or Wladimir) and Nikolay (Mikolay). A Jew of that time could have name David, but not Fyodor, Vladimir or Nikolay, they are New Testament names of Greek, Latin and Slavic origin. His father was an agronom, Jews of that time usually hated agricultural jobs, and the Government usualy forbade Jews the rural living (it is not absolute, the father of Trotsky was a farmer, but it was a rare case). He lived outside the Pale (in Kazan and Saint Petersburg) but there are no evidences of difficulties in obtaining the permit to do so, as in the bios of e.g. Chagall and Bakst. Thus, I think Burliuk was a Ukainian Ukrainian not a Ukrainian Jew. abakharev 08:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Ivanovitsch Motschulsky

Very many thanks Alex. More Russians on the way. Will you help with those too? Best wishes from rainy Ireland.Notafly 08:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Levenshtein

Thanks for the help! :-)

Vanbdalism from User:130.56.36.2

I see you've spotted the vandalism of User:130.56.36.2 and given him a warning. I was on my way to doing this when I noticed your warning. I'll keep an eye on him too. -- Cnwb 05:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Soviet Union

Hi, thanks for joining WPSU :) Please feel free to contribute to the main project page any ideas you have. - FrancisTyers 03:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moral Support

Alex, many thanks for moral support, especially as I am a recently new wikipedian. Special thanks for the recent help with the Silver Age of Russian Poetry article. Many thaks for your kind words about my amatuer translations of Semyon Gudzenko. Vald 10:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt

While I admit some recent Halibutts action regarding recreation of pages (template support) are questionable, and right so, what do you mean by him harassing other users? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello!! Can you add and write in Onomastics on Judaism and Jewish history, List of Eastern European surnames, like Vinogradov. (I'm Japanese) --Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 04:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ustinov (Jaffa)

Hi, can you prove that Peter Ustinov (Jaffa) ever existed? Why did you add to it? I will propose that this article be removed very soon. Thank you. IZAK 03:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr

An arbitration request against User:AndriyK has been filed. If you intend to participate/co-sign, please add your name to the "Involved parties" section and write a statement.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom accepted

This is the generic message left at several editors' talk pages in relation to the ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Community_vs._User:AndriyK. Since the fourth ArbCom member has recently voted to accept the case, the case is now considered accepted by the ArbCom as per Arbitration Policy. Please make sure your statement for the ArbCom is on the page if you are willing to write one (OTOH, being named as a party does not require you to make a statement, it just gives you a right to write one) and please make sure your statement is proofread if you wrote it earlier. Please, also, make sure your statement is in the appropriate place of the ArbCom page and not interjecting with others' statements. You are welcome to read up on the Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy and the associate pages.

--Irpen 04:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belarussian History

Have a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Belarus#Russian_occupation, and tell me do you see this as History of Belarus or more like the history of Poland and the Polish Partitions, lets modify it I have an excellent source on 19th century history in Belarus, it is slightly religiously orientiated but good nevertheless. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/arhiv/050513111111 Kuban kazak 23:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK has been accepted. Please place evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK/Proposed decision. Fred Bauder 02:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: SFD of Azerbaijan-stub

Hi Alex - I don't know whether you saw my later comment on SFD, but if Azerbaijan-stub is deleted, then there is still a {{Caucasus-stub}} which would be used. Given the overlap likely on articles relating to Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, and the disputed borders between these countries, it's probably easier to group the stubs from these countries into one stub category anyway, at least until there are a large number of them. Grutness...wha? 06:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cnwb's RfA

Alex,

Thanks so very much for supporting my Request for Admin. The final result was 38/0/0. I'm looking forward to spending my summer holidays shut away in a darkened room, drinking G&Ts and playing with my new tools ;-) Please accept this Tim Tam as a token of my gratitude. Cnwb 22:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Budionovka

Thanks for a quick redirection from my budionovka stub article to the real budenovka article!

Mykola Burchek

Please ask me and don't just assume I don't know the policy. The author of the article was asked and agreed to the use of his work - which can then allow a verbatim listing. Antidote 20:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate how much you improved the article though. It looks 100X better and I praise you :) Antidote 20:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also

Having the {{wi}} tag there is not a reason for speedy deletion. In fact, that's the intention of the wi template - to exist as a notice by itself on a page that isn't meant to exist. Enochlau 13:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with stubs?

Ok once I have expanded the article that I think goes beyond a stub, where can I notify of this? The article here is Kremlin Wall -- Kuban kazak 15:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zulfiya Zabirova

The article on ZZ which I recently created states that she is Russian. In fact, for many years, she reced under a Russian UCI license and was identified everywhere I could find as a Russian. She also (or so I believe) lived in Russia for those many years and raced in the Russian cycling championships.

However, I believe she is Kazakhistani and last year (her last before reitring), she raced under a Kazakh license and is listed as Kazakhistani in the UCI points list for that year. If she is Kazakh, you might want to alter the category listings. I will be completing the Palmares section of that page in the next couple of days.

Then there is the question of the transliteration of the name. I checked on the Russian (sic!)Cycling Federation web site and saw the name in the original Cyrillic. I believe I have applied the correct transliteration. The UCI lists the first name as Zoulfia, which is more a phonetic transliteration. JFPerry 18:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Cyrillic version of ZZ's name in the article on Zulfiya Zabirova. But there is a typo which I haven't figured out how to fix. The third letter of the first name is an "l", not a "d". Also add that the third letter of the last name is a 'b', not an 'f". JFPerry 16:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lost cosmonauts

do you think there is an NPOV issue with the lost cosmonauts article? Solidusspriggan 11:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Victoria, Australia according to VCE results

Hi Alex. I noticed you just created this page. Are you sure it's a good idea? First of all, it's just a copy of the Age data, right? Then it might strictly be under copyright. Secondly, it seems like it's going to be a lot of work to maintain. It would have to be updated every year, right? Not to mention all the possible lists from other states and their education certificates... who do you see this page as being useful to?

Thirdly, and the most important reason, is that I think it's not terribly NPOV and it's just going to introduce a bunch of shitfights from people trying to talk up their school or talk down another school. Bored schoolkids, you know... and there are lots of different ways of ranking schools, even just from VCE data.

Some things to think about. You can reply on my Talk page, if you like. cheers, pfctdayelise 01:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your point on copyright. I'm not totally convinced that it's encyclopaedic material though. I mean why should parents turn to Wikipedia for this information? I'm not going to AfD it, but I'm just saying - don't be surprised if it happens.

A couple of points about style. Firstly, some of the schools are marked with asterisks (*) but it doesn't explain anywhere what this means. Secondly some comment needs to be made about how complete this list is. Is it every school in Victoria? Every government school, every private school, every school above a certain threshold?

Also, the table is kinda... ugly, I'm afraid. See Help:Table. Wikitables are much prettier:

School	MSS~	P~
Mac.Robertson Girls' High School	38	38
Bialik College Hawthorn	37	36

~ MSS: Median study score
~ P: Percentage of the students with the study score above 40%

Just some things to think about. Cheers, pfctdayelise 02:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no doubt that the list is worthy of inclusion, the table does have some major problems. Firstly, the way the schools are named is...odd. They should really be in lowercase, spelt out and linked. Secondly, the table really should be in Wikiformat. Thirdly, it really needs to do a better job of explaining the criteria that it was based on - the study scores are not a percentage. I spent quite a while trying to fix this up last night, when I suddenly realised that the list would be completely out of date and would need to be replaced from scratch in three weeks, so I threw the draft away. Anyway, it's some things to think about when the 2005 list comes out. :) Ambi 06:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T-34

We're not voting for Featured Article yet, just asking for input in polishing it up, and of course further contribution (but thanks for the vote!). Please see other examples at WP:PR#Requests. —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 07:46 Z

Order of Crank Nicholson

Hello. You wrote in finite difference that Crank-Nicholson is fourth-order in space. Could you please make sure that this is true, preferably by giving a reference? I'm pretty certain that Crank-Nicholson is second-order, but it might just be possible that it is fourth-order for this specific setting, and I won't be in my office for some time so it will be hard for me to check it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I made a note to look into this, not because I don't trust you (I'm confident that you know what you're doing), but because this is new to me and I'd like to know a bit more about it. I'd be very interested if you found it mentioned somewhere (this is me in my professional role speaking). Keep up the good work! -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I noticed you are reverting all of my edits, I'm especially curious for your reasons of reverts on totse, I'd appreciate if you would look into something before you just blindly revert all of me edits, thanks.

I strongly support Alex's reversions. Most of your edits are blatant nonsense. Who is supposed to have time to check which aren't? I agree that the best way to deal with rubbish like this is to revert everything the user does. If the user wants to make serious contributions then maybe they will change their approach. 138.37.199.199 15:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying if a kid fails on a report card, he will fail life. No, you read into something, deleting a spam link is not vandalism, or adding a sentence, also a user from the same IP as me, doesn't have to be ME also. Obviously, I can see one, two or maybe even 3 but to go to them all and BLINDLY revert them is vandalism in itself.

OK, if you intend to do good faith editing since now - welcome to the club. All bad history is forgotten (who can remember an IP address of an anonymous user anyway. Jokes are fun and fun is good, but they would be much more appreciated at Uncyclopedia. Here thousands of people are trying to establish a reference material of a scale never seen before, a few jokesters can destroy all the work of thousands of people. If your totse edits were in good faith - my apology. After you see ten edits of an anonymous user, you become a little bit suspicious. abakharev 04:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Timoshenko

Hi, Alex! You did such a great job on this article, and thank you very much for helping out, with those unfortunate reversals. I just added a bit more; I was trying to clarify why he, born a Ukrainian, is reputed widely as a Russian engineer and his works published in academia papers under "Russian Engineering school" and such. Also added a ref to his autobiography. It seems like a rare edition and I'm not sure if I can easily get it to check out the important facts - would be nice though... So perhaps someday somebody (if not myself) will find the way to do it :) I also wasn't sure how best to structure the text but it's growing large, so may be you could think of a way to break it into paragraphs? In any case, I think we should un-stub it, what would you say? Kind regards - Vera - Introvert ^talk 21:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess for the same reasons as Igor Sikorsky. He was not particularly associated with Ukraine, that's why. This does not deny their ethnic roots. It's just that their work did not connect particulalry to Ukraine which was just a part of the Empire. A totally opposite example would be Kostomarov, a scientist of also a Russian Empire. He, as one of the fathers of Ukrainian national awakening, is justly called as both a Russian and a Ukrainian historian. --Irpen 21:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Irpen! Warm greetings, I meant to thank you too! just didn't make it yet :) Yes you are right (as always :) and I agree. We do need to explain the roots because that speaks of the person. Except I also think that for mathematicians, physicists, engineers, other "abstract" scientists, especially those *not* in humanities, and especially of such caliber, who are really, citizens of the world indeed... does it really make sense to insist on any ethnical categorization at all. Shouldn't it be: by nationality, in the sense of "a national of a country", a resident, a citizen on one hand, then on another hand, based upon which school of science does one represent - unless someone's life and professional work truly has deeper interconnections on the ethnical basis (which is not the case I don't believe?). In this case, for Stepan Prokofyevich, I think you got it right: we should categorize as Ukrainian -- not because he was (or wasn't?) one ethnically but mainly because that's where he was born and raised, and due to his indisputable worth for the Ukrainian academy and Kiev Polytech; as Russian -- because of his education from the St Ptersburg school, which he would later distinguish as the strongest in the world, by the way, and because that's what the entire wrld-wide academia knows him to be (as of today at least); and finally, as an American engineer I guess, also -- because, well. (Yet, clearly we shouldn't be making up a Serbian or a German engineer for him.) All in all, I suspect I am just comfirming the obvious for the record :) Best wishes for all the coming holidays to you both! (saw it called "Chrismukkah" on TV today and - lo and behold! sure enough... is it called differently down under? :) - Introvert ^talk 22:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

С Новым Годом!

. --Irpen

• Thanks a lot, so to you and your family! abakharev 00:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

push POV again Transnistria

Can you explain your push POV http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=33468672&oldid=33468577 here? It seems strange that you don't want to discuss first any change on the talk page and you try to impose a POV. Bonaparte talk 10:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of the topic or no interest in it but revert wars are bad, and reverting to a version that has a protected template on it that is no longer true is disruption. Rather that revert the whole article try working on the section that is under dispute. The usual way to NPOV such disputes is to write about the dispute "Blah de blah claims the Russians are there illegally however blu blah says they are there in a peacekeeping capacity". Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria

Alex, please do not make radical changes to the article without first discussing your plans on the discussion page. You may well have valid concerns and all of them can be taken into account and acted upon as proper for each case. However, do not simply go ahead and completely alter the facade of the article. Thank you. TSO1D 02:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at your changes in the Ilascu section. I only made a minor change to correct the grammar of a small section, but kept most of your text as it is logical and well-organized.

---

Alex, I almost thought I'd treat you seriously, until I read this on my talk page: "Do you really have the orgasm [...]". I'm reading no further until you learn to behave civilised. --Lysy ^(talk) 13:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The problem is that the article is being reverted too fervently, esp. with User:Node ue removing whole sections or anons chaging "Moldovan" to "Romanian" and back. I do not mean your edits, but what's happening there is on the verge of vandalism and I start to think that the page should be best protected for some time. --Lysy ^(talk) 13:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lysy, how this all explains your wholesale revert of Alex's thoughtful and careful attempt to order this page somewhat from its messy state? Others did revert too ferverntly between two messes. Alex came to organize it, you were in your very respectful words "almost treated him seriously" but probably it wasn't much if you reverted his edit the same way as Node and Bonaparte revert each others. I must say that I did treat you seriously and without the almost thingy. --Irpen 16:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lysy. That will lead definitily to reject of your Admin proposal. Don't you even think ...However you said that you want to introduce russian POV. How is that suppose to mean? Bonaparte talk 16:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now that Bonaparte is here too (got an edit conflict trying so save), I wonder what else with Lysy say. --Irpen 16:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if some, probably reasonable edits of Alex were removed. consider this collateral damage. I've tried to revert to the last "pre-Node ue" version and restore Phil Boswell's edits. I've not seen edits by Alex other then reverts since the version, but maybe I've missed someone in the mess there. OTOH Node has repeatedly removed whole passages of mine claiming they were copyvios, and Alex seemed to support this. I'm also a bit allergic to when people write about my orgasms in my talk page and not apologize for this. Also writing about "my trolls" increases my wikistress. I think we should all let this cool off a bit and I'm glad the article is protected. --Lysy ^(talk) 09:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right Lysy. Look at your page now, node ue had post there a message and now he denies it. You'll get used with his approach. He is well known for this kind of approach since the moldovan language edit wars. Bonaparte talk 10:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin nomination

What you made already to Transnistria article will lead to failure I can assure you about this. Bonaparte talk 16:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if attempting to clean up an article is undesirable, then I must admit that Alex will be a miserable failure as an admin.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=33824629&oldid=33822097 is called cleaning? Removing neutral sources and references certainly is not cleaning. Well I guess it will be just a failure as you predicted... Bonaparte talk 21:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged copyvios at Transnistria

I did review that particular diff even before you posted it here, and all I can see is an attempt to clean up and format the page, to remove blatant POV, to re-organize the reference section, and to remove copyvio. If you would be so kind as to actually name the "neutral sources and references" within that diff which Alex removed without any explanation, it would be most helpful.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what copyvio are you talking about ? --Lysy ^(talk) 10:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is copyvio they talk about on Talk:Transnistria/archive 2#Copyvios, brought to us by Bonaparte, Talk:Transnistria/archive 2#Copyvio and Talk:Transnistria/archive 2#Copyvio diffs. Since I have not seen the alleged original, it is difficult to tell if it is serious enough to act on it. If somebody have this article by Pavliuk in an electronic or scanned format and could send it to me or Lysy, it would be helpfull. In my editing I was trying to be neutral in respect to the alleged copyvio, keeping the latest version of the article unless reverted abakharev 11:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So...in other words Alex has no clue about the problem. Follow my advice, try to read first, research and only then say something. Your selfproclaming russian POV pushing looks not good. It's the last time when I send you to research. I'm expecting from you more respect for the work of the contributors. Bonaparte talk 12:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. I said only what I know, not hearsay. I have an equall respect to User:Node ue and to you. You are telling that there is nothing to worry about here, he is telling that this is a blatantly copyvio, that should be removed. I was neutral, my original changes have the paragraph in question. then User:TSO1D edited my edits, then User:Zscout370 worked on infoboxes, then Node ue removed the alleged copyvio, then Phill Boswell worked the format of the article references. The came an anonymous reverter and twice reverted all our work. If he would only restored the paragraph removed by Node ue, I would not interfere as yes, so far I heared only allegations not proven facts. But the reverter did not bother to only restore the paragraph, he reverted all the good changes quite a number of people did that day. Why should I have a preference to the edits of the anonymous reveter over Node ue? I reverted the POV fork and think I did the right thing. abakharev

I know that these edits have been confusing, probably equally for me and you. Node's recent edit there had this misleading summary: disentangling copyvio; making other minor corrections (see diff), but in fact it must have been some revert, as he changed whole lot of the article. I was not even able to guess which are these supposed copyvios there that he removed. Most of what he removed were my edits. Again, I can only apologize if you got caught in the middle of this, but your lack of reaction to Node's edit seemed like your support for his revert at that time. --Lysy ^(talk) 16:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, you, Bonoparte, have the electronic versions of the papers. Would you mind to send them to Lysy, so he could evaluate if this a copyvio or not. I would prefer to err on the safe side and be called a stubborn editor rather than a thief abakharev 12:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the links you've kindly provided above but they are only discussing some copyvio allegations without any specific informations. Would you be able to point the sections in the current article that are supposed to be the copyvios ? Then I would at least know what to search for. --Lysy ^(talk) 16:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have got an impression that User:Node ue alleges that the following:

Moldovan and Ukrainian authorities share an interest in a resolution of the crisis within the framework of Moldovan sovereignty and in the removal of Russian forces from the region.^[1] OSCE is trying to facilitate a negotiated settlement and has had an observer mission in place for several years. The Russian army was still stationed in Moldovan territory in breach of the undertakings to withdraw them completely given by Russia at the OSCE summits in 1999 and 2001. and

military equipment and the remaining forces coupled with Moldova's dependency on Russian natural gas and electric energy are clear signs of the country's limited sovereignty. Eventually, Russia declared to unconditionally withdraw all the forces from Moldova by the end of 2002 during the OSCE Istanbul summit in November 1999. Since Boris Yeltsin placed the 14th Army under his direct control, the Russian authorities were a party to every significant document signed by Moldova and Transnistria. While the Istanbul declaration is a binding commitment within the OSCE framework, Vladimir Putin backtracked and stated in June 2000 that Russia would only 'try' to withdraw its troops from Transnistria. He also appointed Yevgeny Primakov, the former prime minister and architect of the 1997 memorandum, as the head the commission to resolve the crisis, which only led to increased anxiety among Moldovan politicians. Consequently, Russian policy regarding the obligation to withdraw its military forces has returned to its pre-Istanbul position. ^[2]

are copied verbatim from some papers (probably Pavliuk's and/or Hughes's). I also got an impression that User:Bonaparte does not deny copy/pasting but thinks the copied block is to small or deviated enough from the original to warrant the copyvio charges. My impression might be wrong. Before either me or a person I trust will see the alleged originals, I intend to be neutral to the argument. Asuming the copyright charges are frivolius, I have a problem with these paragraphs as they are set now because they sometimes present unattributed opinions as facts, I am certainly not for the censoring the paragraphs out, but all opinions should be attributed. abakharev 22:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to refactor the above ? This would save us the further copyvio dispute. You could also point out what you find disturbing in the text, at the same time. Therefore it would be best if you did this. --Lysy ^(talk) 23:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

This kerfuffle by Bonaparte is rather telling :). I think I used the right word. My dictionary tells me it's Australian. --Irpen 22:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikka Ghirla etc

saw you on Ghirlas page. Came to his page because he mentioned Mikkalai somewhere. It's really bad what some admins can do. Me too I am sometimes very annoyed by their actions. Yes, if this goes on WP will lose good editors. From what I know Mikka is a good one. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Share the feeling on Mikka being a very good editor. But don't believe that can be generalised into something as simple as "large number of edits = good judgement" for all editors. --Lysy ^(talk) 23:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was trying to tell exactly the same idea, sorry if I was misunderstood. I will fix it now. abakharev 01:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agree "large number of edits != good judgement" Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know that most his large edits were simple reversions. He has a very poor ratio of edits per article. It works like a bot. Keeps reverting. That's irrelevant. I've heard another russian language editor about his 20,000 edits but most of them very controversial. I suggest you Alex, hearing your age and life experience, to emphasize the role of quality and not the quantity in your community. Otherwise we will hear in the future that all that counts is the number of edits. Bonaparte talk 08:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

I think 3 or 4 votes in opposition on your rfa are to be thrown out as it appears they were by sockpuppets. Also, Nobs is banned for year in case you didn't know. Good luck on your Rfa--MONGO 04:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't sort out the sockpuppets, just gave you a support vote and commented...in case you haven't seen it, you may wish to read here :[3]--MONGO 05:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Hi Alex. I have seen it, although I wasn't aware of the latest apparent controversy. Apart from that one article, I'm not very familiar with your edit history, so I choose to abstain from voting. Good luck, though. :) pfctdayelise 08:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex. I can only second to this (answered already on my talk). Hope you will not lose your entusiasm in opposing Anglo-American bias of English Wiki. Greetings, Goldie (tell me) 02:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was my fault. First I thought the requirement is 2/3+1 vote that I was quite comfortable with so I did not advertised the RfA in time as much as I could, the second I have mixed-up the summer saving time (I am in the south hemisphere) and thought I have a couple of hours left. :-(. I do not see myself fighting some bias on Wikipedia. It is just so happen that I know a few areas better that an average Wiki-editor and some things worse. There is no point in writing about the areas I know worse. I thought that Russian-related topics might be of better interest to an average user than say numerical methods or plastic rheology. abakharev 03:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stoli.jpg

Bah, let's have a drink!

Try not to be disheartened. If adminship is truly no big deal, you're not missing much. And I think you would have had people following your contribs very closely. Now we can sit back, have a drink and get on with the real business of building an encyclopedia, eh? :) pfctdayelise 07:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Request for Adminship

Hi Alex. I'm afraid I have to inform you that your request for adminship was unsuccessful on this occasion because even taking into account the alledged sockpuppet votes, an 80% consensus was still not reached. I hope you continue to build up your work here at Wikipedia, and I look forward to seeing another nomination with your name on it in the future. Best of luck! -- Francs2000 02:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh. I'm sorry your nomination failed. I hope you'll not loose the spirit and will be ready to try in some time again. --_Lysy^talk 10:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a shame your nomination failed, but I wish you the best of luck next time, which will hopefully be soon! Happy editing from King of All the Franks 10:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Alex, не журись! The good news is, you did get a lot of support, and I am sure you'll get your mop in a few months, meanwhile fill those edit summaries, etc. Um, that bottle was already opened when I came here... ;-) ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It's too bad it failed, but we will try again :) On the bright side—70 support votes, wow! That's better than what most of the successful nominations get. Hope this cheers you up a little.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Alex, thank you so much for your warm note. Please don't get discouraged, and yes we will try it again! :) With your handling such a difficult situation, you earned even greater respect with your fellow editors. Best of luck! - Introvert 10:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Hi Alex! It's unfortunate that your RfA was not successful. I think you would make a great admin. Yes, I suppose there was peer pressure but I'm not one that bucks under that too much, and I really appreciated your neutral stance in my dispute with Ghirlandajo, and the way you clarified that after. Hope your next nomination is successful :) Spasibo! Ronline ✉ 10:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Старый Крым

Hey Alex...sorry I didn't get your note until voting was closed. Better luck next time (let me know sooner!) ... On the issue of Старий Крим/Старый Крым/Solhat, I added a link to the Ukrainian article and did another copyedit... I'm wondering tho, whether or not you might have access to census data that would indicate even the approximate population of the city today. Also, I was hoping that perhaps you might know whether or not there are other-language versions of the article that should be linked to from the English and Ukrainian articles. (You might also, for example, consider translating the article into an equivalent Russian article, to link to... ) Tomer^talk 10:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination

Hey, condolensces on your admin nom. Too bad it didn't go well, and especially with so much interference.

My bureaucrat nomination also failed, and there was a ton of interference with that one too. It was particularly upsetting for me, since it appeared that the interferer had succeeded in sinking my candidacy. Eventually I came to the conclusion that it would have failed anyway, and that the guy was just wasting his time, which seems to be true in your case as well.

Anyway, I wanted to say that I sympathize, and I predict you'll make a great admin the not-too-distant future. Just use edit summaries more, refrain from saying things that appear insulting (even to people that deserve it), and avoid edit wars like the plague, and I'm sure you'll have no problem in another couple of months.

One final tip: I'd use words like "vandalism" and "troll" very sparingly. If a person is probably a troll or does something which is arguably vandalism, it's a part of assuming good faith to refrain from any labelling.

All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) (bounties) 14:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirlandajo's 3RR block

I just noticed the discussion in which you referred to my actions as "incompetent and/or stupid." You claimed that I blocked Ghirlandajo for "four times restoring Disputed tag." This is false. Ghirlandajo's reinsertion of the tags had absolutely nothing to do with the 3RR violations:

In reversion #1, reversion #2 and reversion #3, Ghirlandajo removed a paragraph. In reversion #4, he removed three paragraphs.

Again, the tags were completely irrelevant to the violation and the block. In the future, perhaps you might offer fellow Wikipedians an opportunity to explain their reasoning before you hurl such insults as "incompetent" and "stupid." —David Levy 18:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the personal attack. I have not researched the topic well enough, and saw the other set of four reversions by Ghirlandajo that had only disputed tag restored. In the set you presented the fourth edit by Ghirlandajo looks completely different from the other three. It does not look to me as a violation of the 3RR, but rather like a content dispute. I am also not sure if you give Ghirlandajo an opportunity to explain his edits before applying your blocking action. Additionally I still consider edits that remove a dispute tag set by an opposite party of a conflict to be a form vandalism and their reversion not to be covered by the 3RR. If you want to get an objective opinion about smartness and/or competence of you blocking action you better ask a better expert in the Wiki-law than me 03:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In the set you presented the fourth edit by Ghirlandajo looks completely different from the other three.

The 3RR is violated when a user reverts a page (or part of a page) to an earlier version four times within a 24-hour period (excluding reversions of simple vandalism). It makes no difference whether the same reversion is performed four times or four different reversions are performed.

It does not look to me as a violation of the 3RR, but rather like a content dispute.

3RR violations usually result from content disputes, so I don't understand the above statement.

I am also not sure if you give Ghirlandajo an opportunity to explain his edits before applying your blocking action.

Before I became involved, Ghirlandajo responded to the 3RR violation report by nonchalantly denying all wrongdoing and insulting another editor.

Beyond that, what was there to explain? Ghirlandajo violated the 3RR, and he did so a short time after he reported someone else's 3RR violation. (I blocked that user at exactly the same time.) There is no excuse.

As I've explained, however, had Ghirlandajo contacted me via e-mail or his talk page, apologizing for his infraction and promising to edit responsibly, I would have unblocked him immediately. Instead, he decided to evade his block via an anonymous IP address, performing the following disruptive edits to the 3RR report page: 1, 2, 3 4

Ghirlandajo later acknowledged via e-mail that he had violated the 3RR, but continues to claim that because he's a "seasoned veteran" and "one of top 100 most active Wikipedians ever," he should be exempt from the rules that lesser editors are expected to follow.

Additionally I still consider edits that remove a dispute tag set by an opposite party of a conflict to be a form vandalism and their reversion not to be covered by the 3RR.

Had Ghirlandajo merely reinserted the dispute tags (without simultaneously removing content), I would not have blocked him. —David Levy 06:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, your interpretation of the 3RR is probably a correct one and mine is not, you have the complete right to name me incompetent and, probably, stupid. Still usually 3RR rule refers to reversions to the same version. E.g. the standard report Original Version/1R/2R/3R/4R is completely useless for the case of reversions to different versions, that might be a reason of my mix up. It seems that my ignorance was shared by Ghirlandajo, despite all his experience, so it was probably a good idea to warn him that his edits of the article looked like a violation of your interpretation of 3RR and should be stopped. He appeared to have believe a good faith that he was not in breach of the 3RR. It is really difficult to judge the basis of his believes without seen the versions he supposedly reverted to. The edits of Ghirlandajo does not look very logical to me - why simultaneously add dispute tags and blank the disputed paragraphs, but maybe there is a valid explanation for this. abakharev 12:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still usually 3RR rule refers to reversions to the same version.

That's because most violators are simply ignoring the rule (not attempting to circumvent it, as Ghirlandajo apparently was).

E.g. the standard report Original Version/1R/2R/3R/4R is completely useless for the case of reversions to different versions, that might be a reason of my mix up.

In appropriate cases, "Previous version reverted to" may be changed to "Previous versions reverted to."

It seems that my ignorance was shared by Ghirlandajo, despite all his experience, so it was probably a good idea to warn him that his edits of the article looked like a violation of your interpretation of 3RR and should be stopped. He appeared to have believe a good faith that he was not in breach of the 3RR.

Ghirlandajo was well aware of the fact that revert warring is a bad thing (even if no "rule" is being violated). Keep in mind that "three reverts per page per 24-hour period" is an absolute limit that should rarely be reached; it isn't an entitlement. Ghirlandajo had just been involved in another revert war, in which he used up all three reversions and reported another editor's 3RR violation. Clearly, I wasn't dealing with an isolated incident.

If Ghirlandajo thought that the removal of different disputed paragraphs in the fourth edit was a means of technically not violating the letter of the three-revert rule, he was attempting to game the system, which is not a good faith act. In other words, he realized that he was violating the spirit of the rule, but believed that he had discovered a loophole in the wording. Even if he had been correct (which he was not), that type of behavior would have warranted a block.

The edits of Ghirlandajo does not look very logical to me - why simultaneously add dispute tags and blank the disputed paragraphs, but maybe there is a valid explanation for this.

As I mentioned, Ghirlandajo later acknowledged via e-mail that he had violated the 3RR. His explanation is that his "experience" and "contributions" have earned him the right to override any edits made by so-called "nationalist trolls," without being subject to the rules that other editors are expected to follow. —David Levy 18:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I do not have the whole information relevant for the case. Currently, I do not have the time and energy to investigate the case further. My sincere apologize to David and whoever else may feel offended by my reckless comments. Still I, personally, feel there were ways to stop the revert war without causing so much controversy, although it is much easy to criticise people using the benefit of a hindsight, then to act oneself in a real times scale. abakharev 21:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear...

That you lost the RfA, it is a shame that other users do not believe that you have the talents to be an effective admin. - but I confide that you would do well, despite not being able to reach consensus the first time. If you'd wish to become an admin. at a later date I'd be more than happy to nominate you for promotion. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that as well. You clearly deserve to be an admin. In between the troll and puppet shows there was also fair criticism (edit summaries, for one, or a tiny number offensive statements) and if you take its advice and go on the way you do, the small difference of support of your percentages and of that required to become an admin can be leapt next time. Cheers, Sciurinæ 21:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). You put a great effort into it, it was me who mixed up everything. Lets move on and make together our Wikipedia an even greater place abakharev 09:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, there is some interesting development in Russian Wikipedia, we grew nicely in December:

• 23 декабря, пятница — В Русской Википедии 50 тысяч статей.
• 4 декабря, воскресенье — В Русской Википедии 40 тысяч статей.

Please, come to see [Ru:Newpages] and feel free to help. Thank you. -- Vald 21:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Could you take a moment to view the nomination for my List of notable brain tumor patients? It's up for featured list status and has gotten only one vote in three days. The list includes a Russian, btw: cosmonaut Anatoli Levchenko. Best wishes, Durova 17:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Just to let you know that a dispute has arisen over how I closed your request for adminship. I think it's fair that we're not using your name in vain. Please visit the discussion and add your thoughts. -- Francs2000 22:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Vyborg

Hello, Alex. I would welcome a third opinion. --Ghirla | talk 11:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

Thank you very much for the help you gave me on Ëzhiki's talk page! It was exactly what I needed. Take a look at my userpage, if you like. The results are in the first paragraph. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 02:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Doll★Licca-chan

I've checked all of the naming convention articles and none of them say anything about not being able to use non-ASCII characters in titles. That's one of the reasons Wikipedia moved to using UTF-8: so special, non-ASCII characters could be used if needed. There was already a redirect in place for the title without the ★, but the correct title has the ★ in it. I will be moving the page back to where it was. --nihon 05:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the RFA

It must be galling to lose under such questionable circumstances. I still think you'd make a gread admin; drop me a line when you're nominated again, so I can add my $0.02 to the discussion. -Colin Kimbrell 14:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Thank you for your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I have closed the debate as no consensus. Please note that this does not preclude further discussion of eventual disposition of the article, including keeping, merging, redirection, or a further nomination for deletion. Again, thank you for your comments. -- Jonel | Speak 03:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]