|
User talk:Alex Bakharev/Archive24Search results questionI noticed that your AlexNewArtBot archive pages for the Ireland WikiProject are truncated. Only the most recent archive is not truncated, no doubt because it is not as large (about 47 screens full) a file as the others. On opening the edit of a page, prior to #8, the following warning is displayed: Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included. Is it possible to shorten the pages so all archived results can be displayed on each page? TIA ww2censor (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
We need to be carefulAlex, we need to be careful about linking to compromat.ru. As it is not a reliable source for information, it is also most likely that it is holding materials on the site in violation of copyright. As you see from the Russia-Ukraine relations article, one is able to use http://web.archive.org to go back and provide the original link on the original website (in this case Gazeta.ru), which does not violate the copyright of Gazeta.ru (you reverted me as I was in the process of looking for that particular one). It is the same as most other articles linked to on compromat.ru; if they can't be found on the original website, we can use archive.org in most instances to provide said information. What you think? --Russavia Dialogue 07:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Graphs?Hey Alex, I see you have created some graphs somewhere, can't remember where now, but could you possibly do one up for me if possible?
In a format such as http://www.favt.ru/imf/airl_1.gif would be enough. Of course the y axis is the year, and the x axis is the number of airlines registered in Russia in that given year. If you could do that for me, I'd appreciate it, as I will need such a thing to illustrate an article I am working on at User:Russavia/Airlines. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 11:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of MockbaYou speedily deleted this redirect. I don't think it's that implausible a misnomer. There are a lot of references to it online (count the google hits), so people might want to look it up. Please could you restore it? Many thanks, — Alan✉ 15:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you delete this, please?User:Arcayne/Interlude: Textboxes. I created it two years ago to experiment with textboxes, and I've not edited it since then, but others have. I'd opt for speedy deletion, but I don't want someone at some future point say that I was trying to get rid of embarrassing content. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
stresses on Russian CyrillicHi Alex! Sorry to disturb you... I've got a question about stresses on Russian Cyrillic words: I've seen that many Russian Cyrillic script (e.g. Lev Yashin/Лев Яшин, Roman Abramovich/Роман Абрамович, ...) contain stresses, also in Russian wiki. I was wondering if they're part of the name (so, for example, Abramovich was born Абрамо́вич and not Абрамович) or if they are only a kind of help for the pronounciation. Thank you and sorry again! --necronudist (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC) ThanksAlex (again) - this is the second time you stepped in to help resolve something with regards to an issue I have. (The first time was a few years ago) :) I may have lost my sanity if no one did what you did, or did something else. Despite how much of a problem I consider Deacon to be in his conduct and adminning, this isn't so substantive, and more than that, I'm not involved in this incident. I'll leave DR to someone who ends up involved in more substantive conflict with him (though I feel sorry for whoever that ends up being). Anyway...thanks again. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Bug?Why does the content of the Category:German ambassadors to the Soviet Union read B Object id #110 D Object id #109 S Object id #111 ? Colchicum (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the bug is already fixed??? Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC) FYIYou were mentioned and thanked by Greg in his final remark (I just found about it today by accident). Read his post here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Spb MetroHi, Alex! A couple weeks ago the articles about the lines of Spb Metro were moved from their named titles to their numbered analogs (example), citing the fact that neither the city residents, nor the maps ever use the names; only the numbers are used. Is that a valid argument? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:28, February 14, 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009From the editor — A new leaf
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 05:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Re LithuaniaThis page was protected yesterday. Could you restore it to the last version before the IP 85.5's edits began? 2 reasons: it's on the main page today, and none of the IP's edits were consensual. A few useful changes would be lost in that restoration, but nothing essential. Regards, Novickas (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Yevgeny PrimakovI don't know if you have had any position on Primakov's given name or not. But your judgment is probably something I can live with. I placed some sources on the articles talk page that seem to indicate corroborate the story that Primakov's given name was Finkelshtein. I really don't have any dog in the fight as to whether his name is Finkelshtein or Obama or anything else. I just thought it was weird that there was no mention at all in the article of the question. Perhaps its completely irrelevant anyway. But I would appreciate it if you review the sources I placed on the talk page and offer your thoughts. They are indded old and possibly have been debunked in the intervening period. Thanks. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 01:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Orphaned non-free media (File:Tretyak.gif)
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Could you please take a look...at User_talk:Russavia#Stubs. Can you advise if you may be set up to be able to do this with your bot? Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 22:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC) IP in need of a block?This has been added multiple times by a single anonymous IP: [4]. The IP has been up top similar mischief on other articles. Should it get blocked?Faustian (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Unprotection requestHi, Alex. How are you? I hope everythings' alright. I'm currently dealing with my project which is on Terahertz spectroscopy. I realized that since my wiki-break, the articles Samad Behrangi and Timur are still protected. Is it possible for you to check these?, since both articles were protected by User:Nishkid64 after User:Khoikhoi's reverts (which were done without any notice in the talk/discussion pages) immediately indefinitely. Regards, E104421 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Blocking meCan you identify under which blocking policy did you blocked me ? As far the images are concerned one is lying here.[5]and other's lab. is still have no mention here [6].So what was the reason for the block.User:Yousaf465
I was inclined to reblock him but the State-sponsored_terrorism is currently locked, so the block will be a punishment unless he disrupts something else. I would certainly block him if the disruption continue Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
He's back adding conspiracy theories about the attacks on the SL cricketers. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC) With sources which you arn't ready to read!User:Yousaf465 (talk) Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Would it be okay to set up a new article feed so I can establish if there are enough editors to support a WikiProject and make it easier to approach them about it? It would temporarily need to report to a user subpage until the project had enough support to be founded. (Please respond to my talk page or leave a talkback notice; I seem to be unable to spell your name right, so it makes finding this back harder) - Mgm|(talk) 11:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Preob solgier.gifThanks for uploading or contributing to File:Preob solgier.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Your reply needYour reply needed at [9].User:Yousaf465 (talk)
What is your say on this [10].User:Yousaf465 (talk)
Anonymous Editor is backThanks for your previous block. It seems that the blocked editor has returned, albeit with a slightly different IP but the exact same edit that he kept adding earlier: [11]. Faustian (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC) The entire history of the page has been lost because of this. Can you repair damage? --Ghirla-трёп- 19:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 07:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Could you please take a look at this? A couple of editors has been trying to push the idea that the party is liberal relying on its website and disregarding core WP policies. Colchicum (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC) And apparently the trolls have framed a good editor into 3RR. Colchicum (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Frankly, if I were you I would block Gnomsovet (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. 95.52.114.233 (talk · contribs)) indefinitely outright. POV-pushing, edit-warring, violation of content policies, block evasion, trolling, and he is not particularly useful anyway as his English is hardly intelligible. Colchicum (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Alex
I am not supporting any particular version, just the edit warring should stop somehow. Try to negotiate a compromise solution using the article talk page or if you have some uncotroversial edits to make I could do it on your behalf use {{editprotect}} on the talk page to draw attention to the proposed edit. You might also want to follow the dispute resolution process Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks for quick response. Yes, besides having some uncontroversial edits to make, I also observe many important details/facts missing. I'm a member/officer of this organization http://nguyenthaihocfoundation.org/, which is closely related to those pages that I want to make contributions to. My name can be found on that foundation's executive panel page http://www.nguyenthaihocfoundation.org/m_bandieuhanh.php . Thanks --Trinhbaongoc (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Please do it on my behalf. Thanks much.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
He's violated 3RR. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
For example: Wikipedia is the product of thousands of editors' contributions. Everyone has brought something different to the table: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess, tidbits of information, or even just a willingness to help. Even the best of our articles should never be considered complete; each new editor may offer new insights about how to further enhance our content.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Anastasia MichaeliHi Alex. Re the St Petersbury University issue in this article, her bio on the party website states that she "holds a degree in electrical engineering and communications from the University of St. Petersburg".[12] When this was linked as written, it redirected to the State University - should this refer to a different one? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
On April 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sergey Degayev, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
HI
HIFireFoxUser2343 (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Australian week on ru.wp
Not sure whether you are interested, but on ru.wp we now have the Australian week which started today and continues till Apr 13. The idea is to write (mostly new) articles of Australian interest.--Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Laureates of State Prize of the Russian Federation
I have nominated Category:Laureates of State Prize of the Russian Federation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:State Prize of the Russian Federation laureates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Russavia Dialogue 03:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
: 6 April 2009
- Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
- News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
- WikiProject report: WikiProject China
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Source code in Wikipedia
Hi Alex, since you are obviously interested in programming, maybe you have an opinion about this: [26]. My feeling is that most of the source code in Wikipedia constitutes a gross WP:NOR violation, and I think this is a huge problem. But I'm unsure on how to proceed, other than trying to launch a discussion. Can you give me some advice on what to do? Offliner (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Put my reply there Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Miklukho-Maklai
Nicholai Miklukho-Maklai is listed at Russian Australians. I moved this article to Russians in Australia some time ago, but it was moved back. Given that Miklukho-Maklai was never "Australian", do you think his being listed as a Russian Australian is misleading? --Russavia Dialogue 22:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Also, looking at it, Mikhail Petrovich Lazarev is also listed in the infobox as a Russian Australian. This is also incorrect, innit?--Russavia Dialogue 22:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, out of four people in the infobox only Kostya Tszyu is an unquestionable Russian Australian. Lazarev and Miklukho-Maklai were never Australians and Sidney Myer was a Belarusian Jew (although from the Russian Empire, but I guess neither Belarusians nor Poles would agree that he was Russian). Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I'll raise this on the talk page in the next couple of days. --Russavia Dialogue 22:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, out of four people in the infobox only Kostya Tszyu is an unquestionable Russian Australian. Lazarev and Miklukho-Maklai were never Australians and Sidney Myer was a Belarusian Jew (although from the Russian Empire, but I guess neither Belarusians nor Poles would agree that he was Russian). Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi, Alex. Thanks for the welcome for 166.217.251.170 - as you can see, I've since registered.
Lenin's words, naturally, have been perverted in order to justify one thing here, another thing there – as is true of Marx and Engels, who have been proposed as responsible for everything from Pol Pot (in the anti-capitalist reading) to an intellectual defense of Henry Ford (!) and liberal Western capitalism (in the reading of Kojeve). Hence, it only beehooves an ideological skeptic to question the accounts of American and post-Soviet historians, especially since many of them altogether omit the fact that Lenin's Red Terror order was not even circulated until Stalin's term at the helm.
I'm not generally an overzealous editor, but waiting period is annoying. :)
Best, 166.217.251.170 (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC) (This is me – PasswordUsername (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC).)
- Thanks for registering, good luck! Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Gaft Voland.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Gaft Voland.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
: 13 April 2009
- License update: Licensing vote begins
- News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
- Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 15:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
unilateral decision on Goy
I am not at all in agreement with you on your reversion of my edit on goy.
A yiddish/english speaker myself, I consider it highly relevant and important to note that young influential yiddish/english speakers are using it deliberately in their English writing targeted towards goyim. I specifically brought a reference from a printed newspaper to make that point. I further fail to see why you are using reversion to make your opinion heard.
WRT blogs: they are not banned as references, read the rules properly and you will see that a blog is just considered self-published. To quote a relevant and insightful passage from a popular and influential writer who happens to have a blog is allowed so long as it is not used to justify original research. To revert it just like that because of the two reasons you state seems to me absurd and rude.
I will wait and see if your reply changes my mind before I revert your revert. Tulli (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well your opinion and my opinion differ. Find a reliable source that finds this usage notable and go ahead. Otherwise your observation is just a original research that should not be used on wiki Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
You do not need to find usage notable, certainly not for information within a page! Wiki does not give you the right to place your opinion before mine and since you have offered no reasonable suggestions to compromise and I stand by my opinion...
Tulli (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Advise is needed
Dear Alex,
I need in your advise again. I am currently involved in the very long dispute about couple sentences in the World War II article. The present version of the article still contains the sentences in the form that seem to be biased and incorrect. I am intended to initiate a mediation process, or use another appropriate way to resolve the issue. The disputable statements are in the article now, and I have absolutely now idea when the dispute will be resolved.
In connection to that, my question is: is it normal to introduce the appropriate tags into the section that will inform the reader that the section contains non-neutral statements that are the subject of the ongoing dispute?
Thank you in advance,
Best regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, putting tags if a valid editorial discussion takes place is a normal and very good practice. I guess everybody knows this. I will look what is going on later Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have looked on the article and its talk page and I feel that I do not have enough knowledges to interfere into your disputes with Mosedschurte. But bearing in mind that you have quite an active discussion I think you have all the rights to stick {{POV section}} until the issue is resolved Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, Alex. I'll do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactly!
Re: [27]. This is why I am supportive of Talk:Gdansk/Vote, for example. It doesn't matter what POV does a tiny group of nationalists thinks a given names supports, what matters is that neutral historians use various names and we should make it easy for a reader to find what he is looking for and tie it with other pieces of his knowledge. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Removal of sourced content from Dmitry Medvedev
Please watch the situation. BBC, Kommersant, SPb Times and others as "opposition deflamatory comments (berezovsky & al)?" Sure. I got tired of the censorship attempts. Something should be done about that notorious edit-warrior. In my opinion, he is compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. Colchicum (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the biography part should concentrate only on generally accepted, 100% sure facts. Controversial statements and criticism by opposition groups such as that should be moved to a separate criticism section. In a similar manner, we don't base the biography sections of Western leaders on the claims of their arch-enemies and notorious opposition critics. Offliner (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not about your opinion, and you are wrong. Independent sources are preferable to self-published crap from Kremlin.ru, not the other way round. If numerous independent third-party publications agree on some facts, this should not be hidden. For the purpose of Wikipedia such facts are 100% sure. If the BBC, Kommersant and SPb Times are arch-enemies of the Russian leaders, I am sorry, but this cannot be helped. If you argued that some part of this should be transferred to Vladimir Putin, I would agree, but outright deletion of reliably sourced material is a no-no. Colchicum (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I moved the opposition rant to a new criticism section. Offliner (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- It would be better if you discussed things instead of repeating your challenged edits in the first place. Separate criticism sections is a bad idea akin to POV-forks, in my opinion. In what sense is the information about where Medvedev worked from 1991 to 1996 criticism? Get real. It is an essential part of his biography. Colchicum (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Where he worked is - of course - not criticism. And I have left the workplace information to where it was. What however is criticism is this fine rant based solely on Yuri Felshtinsky's book:
- It would be better if you discussed things instead of repeating your challenged edits in the first place. Separate criticism sections is a bad idea akin to POV-forks, in my opinion. In what sense is the information about where Medvedev worked from 1991 to 1996 criticism? Get real. It is an essential part of his biography. Colchicum (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I moved the opposition rant to a new criticism section. Offliner (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not about your opinion, and you are wrong. Independent sources are preferable to self-published crap from Kremlin.ru, not the other way round. If numerous independent third-party publications agree on some facts, this should not be hidden. For the purpose of Wikipedia such facts are 100% sure. If the BBC, Kommersant and SPb Times are arch-enemies of the Russian leaders, I am sorry, but this cannot be helped. If you argued that some part of this should be transferred to Vladimir Putin, I would agree, but outright deletion of reliably sourced material is a no-no. Colchicum (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- According to the research of critics of Putin's administration, Yuri Felshtinsky and Vladimir Pribylovsky, the International Relations Committee (IRC), where Medvedev worked as a legal expert from 1991 to 1996 was involved in numerous business activities including gambling. The connection with gambling business was established through a municipal enterprise called Neva Chance.[10] Neva Chance became a co-owner of the city gambling establishments with an authorized capital usually of 51%. The mayor's office contributed its share not in money, but "by relinquishing the right to collect rent for the facilities that the casinos occupied."[10] The authors concluded that Medvedev "was one of the first people [...] in Russia as a whole, who figured out how the government could "join" a joint stock company without breaking existing laws: not by contributing land or real estate, but by contributing rents on land and real estate."[10]
- That book is not a mainstream, high-class, reliable source that should be used to source the biography. Read this review[28] for example:
- As with much else about Putin's Russia, this work makes little distinction between analysis and polemics. Felshtinsky is an associate of Boris Berezovsky, the self-exiled tycoon waging a ferocious propaganda war on the Kremlin from London. Some of the book's accusations lack the sourcing that could reasonably be expected of a historian or a journalist. (Chapter One, for instance, has no footnotes.)Offliner (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- This accounts for only a part of the material you initially deleted. What about the rest? What about the other articles where you practiced similar things? As to the book (that particular paragraph was surely written by Pribylovsky and not Felshtinsky, and the former is not an associate of Berezovsky in any meaningful sense), it is possibly not good enough for a Wikipedia biography when the facts are not backed by additional sources, but at least in that part it is fairly accurate, believe it or not. SPb is a small city. And there are other sources, see references here. Colchicum (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- As with much else about Putin's Russia, this work makes little distinction between analysis and polemics. Felshtinsky is an associate of Boris Berezovsky, the self-exiled tycoon waging a ferocious propaganda war on the Kremlin from London. Some of the book's accusations lack the sourcing that could reasonably be expected of a historian or a journalist. (Chapter One, for instance, has no footnotes.)Offliner (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I will think what to do about the phrase. The information that he was initially selected out of all candidates by Putin himself is inherently a speculation (although quite plausible) until the archives will be open. The information that he was officially endorsed by United Russia is an unquestionable fact. Maybe we should put that Medvedev candidacy had strong personal support of Putin? It seems to be unquestionable fact. I do not like the idea of moving all the negative info/opinions into a separate criticism section and would rather see them in the chronological flow of events. I will try to see what can be done in a few hours Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Russian influence operations in Estonia
I was wondering, what is your opinion of this: Russian influence operations in Estonia? First, the title is wrong: it should be "Alleged..." as there is no proof for any such activities. Second, no similar articles exist in Wikipedia: there is no American influence operations in Europe or American influence operations in (name your country). I asked for Russavia's opinion on the page[29], and I think he put it well: it is a mish-mash of WP:POVFORK, WP:OR/WP:SYN and WP:NOTADVOCATE. If the material has a place in Wikipedia at all, it should be in Estonia-Russia relations. I'm going to redirect the page to there, but I wanted a third opinion first. What do you think? Offliner (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Cut&paste moves to POV titles
What do you think of this? And of the ridiculous censorship campaign here? Colchicum (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- And, on an unrelated matter, what do you think of this? This is the most dirty Wikipedia trick I have ever seen, but as there seem to be some pro-HIGW cabal here, I think it is hopeless even to try to make this more NPOV and on-topic. Colchicum (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Cut-n-paste moves are bad things, you did absolutely right by reverting it. If it will be repeated I would give offliner a warning. I am not sure what the correct name of the article but surely, it ought not include the word conspiracy per the sake of WP:NPOV. If needed I can consolidate article history. I am not sure what trick was played with the Current_sea_level_rise. I am avoiding global warming related articles as my views on the matter are not mainstream. I have reasons to believe that the threat of GW is significantly overstated by the mainstream sources. Wiki on the other hand should reflect the mainstream with giving brief introduction in alternative views. Still I will interfere as an admin if the rules were abused Alex Bakharev (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, basically I think it is extremely unfair to keep statements like "Current sea level rise is occurring as a result of human-induced global warming" (few weeks ago even "in part" wasn't there), while it is only a single POV (maybe mainstream POV, but certainly not the only significant one) and it is absolutely irrelevant there, as warming would have exactly the same effect on sea level whether it is human-induced or not. Therefore this can hardly be construed as anything other than a political statement which, I believe, should have no place there. What is even more worrying is that such dubious claims are defended with inline comments like <Do not remove this statement, even if you disagree with it. It has been conclusively proven that the current global warming episode cannot be explained without taking human input into account, and that this is causing sea level to rise. > WTF? This goes against every Wikipedia policy I know. Whenever I come across a GW-related article (and in some entirely unrelated articles as well, see e.g. [30], [31]) I see such things, but this one angered me in particular. Anyway, never mind, you could hardly do anything about it. As the team defending this approach is large and include several dedicated admins, it looks hopeless. Colchicum (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I guess nobody is bound by whatever inline comments are made. On the other hand if the issue was intensively discussed and this is the consensus obtained, I would hate to interfere without producing first-class sources supporting my point of view Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- The reason for the cut-and-paste move was that Biophys had made this[32] edit to prevent people from moving the article back by normal means. Biophys edit was discussed here: [33] and here: [34]. Offliner (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I thought it was my fixing of the double redirect that prevented offliner from normal movement. Honestly, I have done it in the good faith. Regarding Biophys I hope it was done in good faith as it is actually a blockable offence. I will drop him a note Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I guess Theories of the Russian apartment bombings would be fair enough. Would you agree?Biophys (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with Biophys Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I thought it was my fixing of the double redirect that prevented offliner from normal movement. Honestly, I have done it in the good faith. Regarding Biophys I hope it was done in good faith as it is actually a blockable offence. I will drop him a note Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Valery Ivanov
Valery Ivanov would you please undelete this article, so long as it isn't a BLP violation. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 11:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Osoaviakhim-1
|
|
On 19 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Osoaviakhim-1, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Royalbroil 15:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
{{vacation3}}
: 20 April 2009
- Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
- Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
- News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
- Dispatches: Valued pictures
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 17:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Bot appears to have logged out
User:AlexNewArtBot appears to have logged itself out. I have blocked the associated IP address. Thanks, Nakon 02:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
AlexNewArtBot list sizes
Hello, some of the various lists maintained by User:AlexNewArtBot are exceeding the template transclude size limit because of their length. These lists seem to be making up the majority of the 3,500 pages in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Would it be possible for you to modify your bot to generate lists with fewer items (by spreading these items across more lists)? Thanks in advance! --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. After I return from vacations I would fix the issues Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Bonk&alexeev.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bonk&alexeev.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Checas in Barcelona
As a russian you should be more open to admit the barbaries everyone knows did russian army in spain (1936-39). Trying to obscure this truth is comic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim FOR sure (talk • contribs) 03:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Images without sources
All images, even public domain ones, need a source.--Rockfang (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
: 27 April 2009
- Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
- News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
- WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
New football articles
Hi, I have been using the results from your bot for some time to search out articles related to South American football and improve them. At WP:FOOTY we have decided to have a crackdown on unsourced BLPs (unfortunately we have thousands of them). I was wondering whether it would be possible for your bot to filter the new article results to add anything unsourced to a new WP:Football/Unsourced articles page. Please let me know if this is possible whenever you get a chance. Kind regards King of the North East 21:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Question
Hi Alex, I hope your holiday is going well. I need to ask a question, do you speak any Ukrainian? I'm dealing with a genre troll from the Ukraine and there is a language barrier preventing any headway. His current (for a short period of time) IP address is here. Any help is much appreciated, and no worries if you are unable to render assistance. Thanks in advance, ScarianCall me Pat! 22:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Leopold the cat.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Leopold the cat.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Alex,
this IP has been doing the same disruptive edits again. I noticed you blocked this IP previously, may be needed again. --Martintg (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Just saw your vacation banner. Disregard this notice. Martintg (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
New Australian articles
The bot does not seem to be active at present.--Grahame (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Moshkov.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Moshkov.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
NewArtBot
When can we expect the bot to be up and running again? - Mgm|(talk) 10:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I am getting the distinct impression
...that the Russian portal's new article annoucements page has fallen into disuse! Has it been superseded by another page somewhere? -- Y not? 16:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/New article announcements Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- exactly... the page has got all of 2 edits in 2009... ok, I'll take that as a yes. -- Y not? 12:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, User:AlexNewArtBot/RussiaSearchResult is shown on the page and the bot works reasonably well, so no manual interference is required Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- exactly... the page has got all of 2 edits in 2009... ok, I'll take that as a yes. -- Y not? 12:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Dead Bot
Hi, Alex, your bot is dead and everybody's freaking out. Drawn Some (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Sorochintsy_stamp.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Sorochintsy_stamp.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
: 11 May 2009
- News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
- Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
banned Freind of Nangparbat
Is there a way for your bot to pick up category creations? Strider11 (talk · contribs) - Easy to spot, eg Teckgeek (talk · contribs) likes creating cats and lots of articles, eg User:AlexNewArtBot/PakistanSearchResult a lot of his new accounts show up there. Having a cat detector would make his socks more obvious `YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Troublesome anon
This anonymous user user [35] might need to be blocked. This has happened twice: [36]. Could you help?Faustian (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have given him a warning Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks!Faustian (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Biophys' accusations
Hi, Alex. There's been some trouble going on with Biophys: note the blatant attack on me he's done here, where he takes the trouble to attack me at Nishkid64's user talk in the course of Offliner's completely unrelated complaint against his edit warring at Russian apartment bombings (where, in fact, I've never even participated).
Though he is currently blocked for his edit warring, little has been changed: he is now accusing me of being of working for the Russian services here (this edit particularly; of course, it's all a plot now by the SVR) – apparently Biophys isn't learning from anything in the past. My understanding is that he's been either warned or blocked for this, as you'd be aware. I think he should at least be warned for this.
Thanks, PasswordUsername (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Просьба
Просьба помочь со статьёй о русском языке. Она номинирована в хорошие, однако обнаружились некоторые недостатки, которые необходимо срочно устранить. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 16:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
AssociationFootballSearchResult
Hi, I find the your bot results very useful for searching out articles in need of improvement but the most recent entry in the archives is on 11.24 on May 2 on Archive 28, and the oldest entry on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/New articles is on May 12. I was just wondering what has happened to the 10 days inbetween? King of the North East 00:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Vacation, announced on top of trhis talk page. - Altenmann >t 01:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
NewArtBot
Bot seems to have stopped again.--Grahame (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I hope you are reading the posts at User talk:AlexNewArtBot. It would be nice if you could reply to the requests that a special run of the bot be made to find articles created while you were on holiday.-gadfium 08:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is a good idea, I would try to do it this weekend (I need to make some development for this) Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I had hoped it would be a simple matter of changing a single parameter or variable in the code.-gadfium 04:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is a good idea, I would try to do it this weekend (I need to make some development for this) Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
: 18 May 2009
- From the editor: Writers needed
- Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
- Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
- News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Roobit and false sock accusations
In January this year we had a discussion about user Roobit (talk · contribs), see User talk:Alex Bakharev/Archive23#Nazi crimes in Estonia. I stated, that the sock accusations were unfounded, as the real sockmaster, Bloomfield (talk · contribs) was trivial to identify. You answered "I do not know what to do about it. Roobit was blocked by Moreschi for soapboxing and POV-pushing not for sockpuppeting." I was not going to ask you to unblock Roobit. I was however going to ask you to remove the protection from his talk page. The issue has come up again here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Salonen. I am now asking you to remove the block, so that these false sock accusations can be discuseed at a central place. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. - Roobit may have been guity of soapboxing, but I do not think he has been "pushing" anything into article space after the WP:DIG arbcom. Looking at his edit history, the only thing he has been trying to push anywhere, is one soapish statement at the talk page Talk:Estonia–Russia relations. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have unprotected his user page, so he could negotiate his unblocking conditions and/or do other encyclopedia-building activities. I would not hesitate to reprotect the talk page if it is abused Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
On importance of proper typography
Hi,
you might want to re-punctuate your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Salonen. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:Newmelbournecathedral.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Newmelbournecathedral.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Koval.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Koval.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Mosedschurte
Alex, there is an ugly attack on Mosedschurte going on: 1, 2, 3. Could you please take a look? Colchicum (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Answered on AN/I Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
: 25 May 2009
- License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
- News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
BLP
Watch Valeriya Novodvorskaya please. Colchicum (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have put the article on my watch list. I do not think that pointing out Novodvorskaya's own remarks supporting apartheid or putting Russians in Estonia and Latvia next to parashas constitutes violation of BLP. Especially as the second remark was a subject of a criminal case against her. Still the facts should be put in neutral manners (e.g. the information that the court found nothing illegal in her articles should be mentioned Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- So, do you think that Wikipedians are entitled to interpret the quote ("Apartheid is a normal thing") from a primary source in their own way as "Novodvorskaya openly supported apatheid", even though no reliable secondary source draws this interpretation and she later explicitely refuted it herself ("Я никогда не оправдывала апартеид")? In my opinion, this is a gross violation of WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:V, bordering on fraud. Even worse, as the familiar team (Offliner, Beatle Fab Four, PasswordUsername, Russavia, socks of Jacob Peters) is edit-warring over their version, which as they know is a no-no in Wikipedia. I understand why you may be unwilling to step in, but an admission that their version is legitimate would nevertheless be an unreasonable stretch of our policies. Check it against the sources:
- In her articles, Novodvorskaya openly supported apartheid in South Africa,[4][5][6]
- ^ Ames, Mark (11 September 2007). "The Economist: The World's Sleaziest Magazine". The eXile. Retrieved 2009-01-31. (Archive at WebCite Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Page 6, Page 7)
- ^ Williams, Leslie (2003). Daniel O'Connell, the British Press, and the Irish Famine. Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 101, 152–153. ISBN 0754605531. Retrieved 2009-02-04.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Ó Gráda, Cormac (1995). "Introduction". The great Irish famine. Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 0521557879.
- ^ "Ne otdadim nashe pravo nalevo!" by Valeriya Novodvorskaya. // "Noziy Vzglyad", N46 28 Aug 1993
- ^ ECHO of Moscow
- ^ Court accusation on Novodvorskaya's case
- The first source is her own article which doesn't support this claim without many additional assumptions. "Apartheid is a normal thing" is not the same as "I wholeheartedly support apartheid". The second source makes no mention of apartheid. The third source makes no mention of apartheid and is merely an accusation not confirmed by any court. This is fraud, plain and simple.
Colchicum (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think editing of the article to make formulations more exact and agreeable would benefit the article and would stick. Removing obviously correct information because it is against the narrative is a wrong thing. As well painting Novodovorskaya like she is a straight A major of a Politically Correct Studies is a wrong thing else. BTW, who are Peters socks? They probably should be blocked Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Boris Berezovsky - ?
Hi, Alex. You reverted my edits to Boris Berezovsky with the summary "UNDO, I do not like the term Jewish Civil Engineer, also the edit removes referenced info about his conversion." If you check the reference, there is nothing about Berezovsky converting to Orthodox Christianity in the supposed source, as I'd indicated in my edit summary and you can see for yourself. What's wrong with describing Berezovsky's father as a "Jewish civil engineer"? It's common practice on Wikipedia to describe the ethnic origins of the subject – hence I chose not to delete any references to Berezovksy's ethnicity as Jewish, and I thought that describing Berezovsky as born into a Jewish family would be a more tactful way of going about it than having something like "Berezovsky is a Jew" (somehow, it seems misplaced) somewhere in the lede or the beginning of the biography, since as far as I know it's not a particularly important part of his public life as a figure of controversy.
Please revert.
Thanks, PasswordUsername (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
: 1 June 2009
- From the editor: Browsing the archives
- Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
- Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
- News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Ukraine web-page update
Alex, I do not know who is doing the update part of the Ukraine web-page, but the sport section needs to be updated ;) In opinion it would be better to say that Shakhtar and Dynamo are the main contenders for the national top title in the recent decade, instead to keep the track what team is the current champion. More general definition rather than go into specifics. The Soviet championship as well as the Cup of Winners' Cups are the competitions that were discontinued therefore the number of the titles for them can remain. Another thing is the fact that Shakhtar obtained the UEFA Cup which I believe is worth of mentioning. Anyway... some thought for food or something like :) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Aleksander, can you make the changes yourself? I am not following Ukrainian football that closely. Or is it protected or something? Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
correction needed
Hi, in your RFC statement for paid editing, you say "I am not sure if it ever happen but I once offered something that looked like one". I think you mean "I am not sure if it ever happen but I was once offered something that looked like one". i.e. you were offered a bribe, rather than you offering the bribe. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! It was a bad typo Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Evdoquía Timofeivna Dubinina
Hi I see you added "Dubinina" to "Evdoquia Timofeievna" in the article Volodia Dubinin. Since you are Russian (right?) and it's the first time I ever see Dubinina after Evdoquia Timofeievna's name (even though I read Улица младшего сына in its Spanish version), I would appreciate it a lot if you could explain to me more about the usage of lastnames in your country/language. Is she Dubinina because she married Nikifor Semionovich Dubinin? Or is it just a coincidence in this case? I thank you beforehand for your answers. I loved the book, by the way.--Universal001 (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, Dubinina is just a feminine form of Dubinin last name, thus, if she married Dubinin her last name should be Dubinina. That is all Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have just checked and indeed the last name of Evdokiya was Dubinina (there was a small probability that she did not changed the last name then marry) From Lev Kassil [37] Иногда на улицу эту в сопровождении керченских пионеров приходят Евдокия Тимофеевна Дубининас Валей. Пионеры часто навещают их. Они долго смотрят на портрет Володи, перечитывают простое, мужественное письмо, которое написал домой, узнав о гибели сына, Никифор Семенович.Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your answers, Alex!--Universal001 (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Problem with an user
Hello... There is a problem with an user called Rastrojo. He continuosly seems to vandalize Leonese language article, without any collaboration on it. There are several users that told him to stop but he continues disturbing the work on tis article. Like you can see he almost writes anything more in the English Wikipedia. Can it be vandalism? Really we're tired about that fact. Thank you. Bilgelik (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, see an example [38] --Bilgelik (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure I am the right person to moderate your dispute as I am not an expert in Leonese language or Spanish internal politics. The dispute on Leonese language appears to be a content dispute and Rastrojo is reasonably involved in the discussions on the talk page. Please follow WP:DR for this case. I am not an expert in the matter but some of Rastorjo's changes appear to make sense: using modern names of provinces, using the official spelling for the city, etc. And just the name of an institute is not a valid reference: we need the exact reference of a particular publication for verification (see WP:V or WP:RS) Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
: 15 June 2009
- Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
- News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
- Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 10:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Спам-лист
Привет. Можно ли исключить сайт biarmia.narod.ru из спам-листа. Если честно не знаю предысторию как сайт туда попал, возможно как и в русской его авторы раскручивали (в русской в свою очередь не забанили). Сайт является качественным источником картографической и исторической информации по Кольскому полуострову. Хотел добавить ссылку на источник в статью Semiostrovskiy Reid, но не получилось. Авторы сайта больше рассылкой не занимаются, а сайт удостоен нескольких премий в области. --Insider (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
AE report
Hi Alex. I apologize for my comments in the past. We had quite a few disagreements, but you know me well. Right now I am debated at AE as you probably aware. How do you think, what would be most appropriate sanctions? Could you please comment there? Unlike with Piotrus, no one can tell that you are on my side. I believe that an overall topic ban would be unreasonable, as I contributed a lot of content in this area. What do you think? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please never mind. I decided to retire. Too much stress and too many problems that I create for others and myself.Biophys (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, Biophys. Apologies are accepted, please also take my apologies for the 'slap to the face remark", it was over the top.
- Regarding the arbcom I am sceptical about its abilities to help and I am quite nervous about its ability to harm. Arbcom is good when we talking about administrative rights abuse or great incivility or complicated spamming, etc. It is not that effective about disputes that are mostly about content. Usually arbcom just bans a couple of editors from each side. IMHO it would not solve the conflict but we will lose four prolific editors. All sides hope that the arbcom would only ban editors from the opposing side. I am afraid that in that case the balance of fire-power would drastically change and the neutrality of articles would deteriorate. I will try to put some statement on the arbcom request page when I have time .
- I do not want you to retire although some rest from the controversial themes might be good for you. I am semi-retired now myself. This is not a protest from a particular wiki-event and mostly because I am quite busy in the real life. Still I am enjoying wikiediting much less than in the past and it partially caused by many interesting editors driven away from wiki Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Then I would rather stay around and do some editing. But I will be more cooperative, especialy with the editing restriction. I agree with your comment about loosing good content editors. To keep more editors running, I am personally planning not to file complaints about any editors except such as Jacob Peters (and you possibly noticed that I did not report even socks of Jacob until he became enormously disruptive). And I know that you are also generally supportive of content editors, at least until they become a real problem for others.Biophys (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I do not want you to retire although some rest from the controversial themes might be good for you. I am semi-retired now myself. This is not a protest from a particular wiki-event and mostly because I am quite busy in the real life. Still I am enjoying wikiediting much less than in the past and it partially caused by many interesting editors driven away from wiki Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
: 22 June 2009
- Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
- News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Questions about my block
Hello. At 00:41, 22 June 2009, you blocked me for 48 hours with the rationale, "Violation of the three-revert rule: on Human rights in the United States". I have some questions about this block per your comments here.
My first question would concern your neutrality in this area, or rather your conflict of interest. You are an outspoken advocate of the two editors who reverted me - Biophys and Mosedchurte. In the past, you have given them both awards on your user page. You have also defended Mosedchurte's behavior in regards to the dispute on Human rights in the United States. Please recall approximately a month ago when Mosedchurte was blocked for previously edit warring on this same article. You were contacted on your user page by User:Colchicum and asked to comment on ANI. You wrote this glowing appraisal in his defense:
I have my own experience with Mossedchurte. He is a brilliant editor with wealth of knowledge and good writing skills. Still his communicative skills somehow fails him and often small genuine editorial disagreements tend to blow into conflicts requiring some sort of mediation. Still it is possible to deal with him and his brilliant contributions more than compensate the additional efforts on solving the editorial conflicts. This is my opinion on Mossed, someone else's opinions might be different. Still one thing is clear, he is a very valuable asset to Wikipedia and we cannot apply a long ban to him based on a short AN/I discussion...[39]
You then tried to close the discussion. Fast forward a month later. Mosedchurte files a 3RR report against me on 22 June. According to the header at WP:AN3, "When reporting a user here, inform them of this on their talk page. Be aware that the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption."
Although you are semi-retired, and rarely, if ever, find your way to WP:AN3, you were able to find the report and block me. I was not, however, able to find the report, because I was never notified of the report at any time and had no idea it existed, and could not, therefore, compose a reply. Perhaps if I had someone like say, User:Colchicum or Mosedchurte, or perhaps even Biophys, contacting me by e-mail that would help. I also notice that since the year 2009 began, this is only your second time commenting on AN3; The first involved your friend Biophys in February.[40]
I don't see how you considered the behavior of Mosedchurte or Biophys, both of whom were deliberately restoring plagiarized, copyrighted material into the article. And you never considered the behavior of Biophys, whose only edit was to tag-team for Mosedchurte, again, restoring the plagiarized, copyright violating material back in, even though I had commented extensively about it on the discussion page and explained why it had to be removed. I have looked at Mosedchurte's report and it appears to have a multitude of errors with the wrong dates and diffs given. Is it safe to assume that you did not look at the report or the actions of the other editors here? "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users," yet I was the one punished. Who was doing more damage with their reverts, the editor removing plagiarism and copyright violations, or the editors adding them into the article?
This is the substance of the revert made by Biophys. Please compare it with the original material from the book. The version Biophys (and Mosedchurte) restored consisted of 43 words, 28 of which were in the form of exact phrases taken from the book without quotation marks or author attribution. This is defined as plagiarism and copyright violation. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Viridtas, I am in Fiji at the moment and mostly offline. I would answer after Monday, when I will be back hame. I think I am fairly objective in regards with Mosseschurte and Biophys and certainly not in the same cabal as those two. Recently ther was an Arbcom named Piotrus 2 there we were on the opposing sides with Biophys, so if anything I suppose to be his enemy. I have very little common editing with Mossedschurte, although I admire his redoning of Joseph Stalin and a few other Soviet Union - related staff. I was trying to moderate his dispute with Paul Siebert over the Molotov-Ribentrop pact and well aware about some of his strong and weak editing habits Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I can verify that Alex is not of the pro-EE/Baltic whatever they/I are called these days. A calmer outlook will assist all in the end, I wouldn't want Viriditas' positive contributions to get lost in one of those "missing the forest for the trees" things. That said, I sometimes get the feeling that the forest is getting lost for the trees in some of the arguments over content at H.r. in the U.S. For what it's worth. PētersV TALK 02:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Alex, although we were not friends, let's be friends in the future. I enjoyed reading this comment by Viriditas.Biophys (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I was just informed of the existence of this blunderbuss attack from Viriditas. I'm not exactly stunned. Viriditas is now on extensive and intense WP:Wikihounding campaign against several editors, which is the discussion of an RfCU on Virididtas here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas. Honestly, if I could just get it to stop, regardless of any methods taken (I don't need a block of him/her), I would be happy, as you can read in the rather long, painful RfCU. For the record, contrary to some of the outrageous allegations, I have actually had fairly few dealings with Alex Bakharev (hope you're having fun in Fiji) except the few instances he outlined above. The inclusion of this editor and allusions of conspiracies and the like are not new for Viriditas, as is made clear in the RfCU. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Although I initially supported majority of Viriditas' edits his recent campaign against plagiarism doesn't seem reasonable for me. This campaign creates an impression that Viriditas doesn't want some materials to be included into the article and uses plagiarism as a pretext. In that sense, Mosedschurte's behaviour looks more constructive. It is worth noting, however, that Viriditas' behaviour on the "Humans rights in the US" page resembles closely the behaviour of Mosedschurte on other pages. By refusal to get a point Viriditas eventually prevented Mosedschurte from editing the article (exactly what Mosedschurte have done with me on some Eastern Europe pages). Nevertheless, Mosedschurte seems to be prone to collaboration, and, according to him, he doesn't want Viriditas to be blocked. (That resembles my own attitude towards Mosedschurte). Therefore, the collision "Viriditas vs Mosedschurte" resembles that of Mosedschurte vs Paul Siebert.
Look at this mirror, Mosedschurte, maybe you will learn something.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)- The only problem with your assessment Paul, is that it isn't accurate. The diffs show that before I discovered the plagiarism, I supported the material by trying to fix it and add author attribution. This fix was reverted by Mosedschurte with no edit summary describing his revert. I then took a closer look at the material, discovered it was plagiarized wholesale from a book, and removed it. I also expressed concerns that it didn't belong in the lead per WP:LEAD. At no time did I ever express any disagreement or dispute with the content, so I don't know where you are getting that idea from. I also expressed concerns that by removing the attribution, Mosedschurte was asserting the opinion of the author as fact, rather than asserting facts about opinions per NPOV. When I discovered the content was plagiarized, I discussed it on the talk page. I brought up the problem of the placement of this content in the lead section and its status as copyvio/plagiarism on the content noticeboard. The replying editor agreed that material that isn't in the body shouldn't be in the lead. On the content noticeboard discussion, I added a copy of a newer, recently paraphrased version of the original plagiarized material that had replaced the original version. I believe Mosedschurte was the author. I asked if this newer revision was still plagiarized (and by Turabian 2007 definitions of inadvertent plagiarism it is). Although the responding editor did not comment on the original plagiarized material, they did say that the newer, paraphrased version was not plagiarized. More importantly, this new paraphrased version had been added to the article after my initial complaint, so the content noticeboard did not weigh in with an opinion regarding the original material, or at least it was ambiguous if they did. I asked a second time for clarification and still did not receive an answer. Because I could not get a straight answer about the material, I filed an incident report on the copyright cleanup board. They responded that that material was problematic, improperly paraphrased, and did not meet Wikipedia's standards for free content. They also stated that the material was an opinion, not fact, and needed to be properly attributed as such. Further, they recommended that the next time I run into this problem, that I try to fix it before removing it. However, they were unaware that this is exactly what I did before I was reverted by Mosedschurte. Because I have posted the diffs for these claims so many times now, I have left them out of this response. If anyone requires a particular diff for a certain claim, please say so and I'll provide them. Viriditas (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Except one important fact: It was found 'NOT TO BE PLAGAIRISM.[41] Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge this sentient, undisputed fact by repeating this pronouncement ad nauseum does not change this fact, nor does it act as a justification for breaking the 3RR rule, for which you gained a short ban, much less your latest campaign of wp:wikihounding, harassment and personal attacks on numerous talk pages, ANI's, Neutrality Noticeboard complaints, Copyright Noticeboard complaints and Sockpuppet accusations that have now spanned a period of over one month. As it stands, your continuous claim that a user is a plaigarist in the face of User:Binksternet's statement that he is not is a personal attack of the first order. Moreover, though I have yet to see where my contributions were questioned on this basis, you have decided to make this accusation against me as well: [42]. Your entire history is completely documented here: [43] Please stop the madness. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have no desire to engage in any discussion with you, Yachtsman1, because you are consistently distorting the facts. The material in question is defined as plagiarism by every known definition and was found to be plagiarism. Binksternet's opinion about the material did not directly address it, and his response was unclear and ambiguous. From what I can tell, he was not referring to the original plagiarized version, but to the latter paraphrased version which replaced it. This has been explained to you several times but you keep ignoring it, preferring to push your POV. The copyright cleanup project also found the material unsuitable for Wikipedia and their response placed it on the same level as plagiarized content. I am currently pursuing this with their project so we will await their final opinion on the matter. Contrary to the false appearance you are trying to portray here, there is no debate on this point. The material was inadvertently plagiarized from a book and meets the definition of plagiarism. The fact that latter versions which replaced it were paraphrased appropriately appears to be the opinion of Binksternet. I attempted to have him clarify this point unambiguously, but he did not, but the copyright cleanup project was clear on the issue. You are free to take it up with them. Lastly, the removal of copyright infringement is not applicable to 3RR. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Except one important fact: It was found 'NOT TO BE PLAGAIRISM.[41] Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge this sentient, undisputed fact by repeating this pronouncement ad nauseum does not change this fact, nor does it act as a justification for breaking the 3RR rule, for which you gained a short ban, much less your latest campaign of wp:wikihounding, harassment and personal attacks on numerous talk pages, ANI's, Neutrality Noticeboard complaints, Copyright Noticeboard complaints and Sockpuppet accusations that have now spanned a period of over one month. As it stands, your continuous claim that a user is a plaigarist in the face of User:Binksternet's statement that he is not is a personal attack of the first order. Moreover, though I have yet to see where my contributions were questioned on this basis, you have decided to make this accusation against me as well: [42]. Your entire history is completely documented here: [43] Please stop the madness. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- The only problem with your assessment Paul, is that it isn't accurate. The diffs show that before I discovered the plagiarism, I supported the material by trying to fix it and add author attribution. This fix was reverted by Mosedschurte with no edit summary describing his revert. I then took a closer look at the material, discovered it was plagiarized wholesale from a book, and removed it. I also expressed concerns that it didn't belong in the lead per WP:LEAD. At no time did I ever express any disagreement or dispute with the content, so I don't know where you are getting that idea from. I also expressed concerns that by removing the attribution, Mosedschurte was asserting the opinion of the author as fact, rather than asserting facts about opinions per NPOV. When I discovered the content was plagiarized, I discussed it on the talk page. I brought up the problem of the placement of this content in the lead section and its status as copyvio/plagiarism on the content noticeboard. The replying editor agreed that material that isn't in the body shouldn't be in the lead. On the content noticeboard discussion, I added a copy of a newer, recently paraphrased version of the original plagiarized material that had replaced the original version. I believe Mosedschurte was the author. I asked if this newer revision was still plagiarized (and by Turabian 2007 definitions of inadvertent plagiarism it is). Although the responding editor did not comment on the original plagiarized material, they did say that the newer, paraphrased version was not plagiarized. More importantly, this new paraphrased version had been added to the article after my initial complaint, so the content noticeboard did not weigh in with an opinion regarding the original material, or at least it was ambiguous if they did. I asked a second time for clarification and still did not receive an answer. Because I could not get a straight answer about the material, I filed an incident report on the copyright cleanup board. They responded that that material was problematic, improperly paraphrased, and did not meet Wikipedia's standards for free content. They also stated that the material was an opinion, not fact, and needed to be properly attributed as such. Further, they recommended that the next time I run into this problem, that I try to fix it before removing it. However, they were unaware that this is exactly what I did before I was reverted by Mosedschurte. Because I have posted the diffs for these claims so many times now, I have left them out of this response. If anyone requires a particular diff for a certain claim, please say so and I'll provide them. Viriditas (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Although I initially supported majority of Viriditas' edits his recent campaign against plagiarism doesn't seem reasonable for me. This campaign creates an impression that Viriditas doesn't want some materials to be included into the article and uses plagiarism as a pretext. In that sense, Mosedschurte's behaviour looks more constructive. It is worth noting, however, that Viriditas' behaviour on the "Humans rights in the US" page resembles closely the behaviour of Mosedschurte on other pages. By refusal to get a point Viriditas eventually prevented Mosedschurte from editing the article (exactly what Mosedschurte have done with me on some Eastern Europe pages). Nevertheless, Mosedschurte seems to be prone to collaboration, and, according to him, he doesn't want Viriditas to be blocked. (That resembles my own attitude towards Mosedschurte). Therefore, the collision "Viriditas vs Mosedschurte" resembles that of Mosedschurte vs Paul Siebert.
- I was just informed of the existence of this blunderbuss attack from Viriditas. I'm not exactly stunned. Viriditas is now on extensive and intense WP:Wikihounding campaign against several editors, which is the discussion of an RfCU on Virididtas here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas. Honestly, if I could just get it to stop, regardless of any methods taken (I don't need a block of him/her), I would be happy, as you can read in the rather long, painful RfCU. For the record, contrary to some of the outrageous allegations, I have actually had fairly few dealings with Alex Bakharev (hope you're having fun in Fiji) except the few instances he outlined above. The inclusion of this editor and allusions of conspiracies and the like are not new for Viriditas, as is made clear in the RfCU. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I am as in shock: [[44]].
You had previously banned User:Viriditas for edit-warring, and the moment the editor was off the ban, she went right back to work with four substantial edits in less than 24 hours on the above-article. I now have claims that materials are plaigarized when the work is directly attributed to the source via a cite: [[45]]. I have avoided re-adding this material at present as I myself would like to avoid an edit war, even though the claims of plaigarism are transparent and patently absurd.
The editor in question's block log in terms of edit warring is a rather long one: [[46]]. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Don't think the criticism is fully justified, because both Viriditas' opponents, Yachtsman1 and, in particular, Mosedschurte are not too prone to productive collaboration. Therefore, the recent Viriditas' behaviour can be partially explained by that fact. I believe Alex is aware of that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
HanzoHattori
Hey Alex, can you look at Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); it would appear that this is HanzoHattori - looking at the first edits and other edits would indicate this is the case. Could you take a look at it. --Russavia Dialogue 04:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Mjr Edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might be the same as User:Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji as well. He edits the same articles, etc. See [47] for example. Offliner (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Muscovite99 is back?
Looks like Muscovite99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back. Could you please take a look at Phanar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He makes the usual edits in Putinism and also edits Russian orthodox church, Herman Simm, etc. He also edits Bulgarian Exarchate, which was also edited by Muscovite99 as Special:Contributions/213.221.0.102. The Phanar account was created only a few days after Muscovite99 got his last block. Offliner (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- All such matters should be reported to uninvolved administrators or filed to SPI in order to provide impartial investigation.Biophys (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Reported Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muscovite99. Offliner (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
RFC: socionics
I'm sure you know something about it. Here's an opportunity to stand up for Eastern science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Socionics Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
: 29 June 2009
- News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
- Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
{{vacation3}}
AlexNewArtBot question
A question specific to User:AlexNewArtBot/SwimmingSearchResult, though possibly relevant to others: Is there any reason why articles with the word "swimming" in the article name are not being included in the search result. E.g. article in the recently created Swimming at the 2006 Central American and Caribbean Games series of articles (see Hooperswim's contributions. I guess it is because the word "swimming" does not occur in the text of these particular articles, however may I suggest this feature be added to your bot. Regards, Yboy83 (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
HanzoHattori
I know you've been tracking HanzoHattori in the past, so I thought I'd keep you in the loop.
- 00:39, 1 July 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 94.246.128.0/19 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 year (Abusing multiple accounts: HanzoHattori.) (unblock | change block)
- 00:38, 1 July 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Cheshire-cat-smiled (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (HanzoHattori) (unblock | change block)
- 00:36, 1 July 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Mjr Edit (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (HanzoHattori) (unblock | change block)
- 00:36, 1 July 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 94.246.139.202 (talk) with an expiry time of 2 years (account creation blocked) (banned user HanzoHattori) (unblock | change block)
- 00:24, 1 July 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 94.246.154.130 (talk) with an expiry time of 2 years (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Abusing multiple accounts: HanzoHattori.) (unblock | change block)
- 00:23, 1 July 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 94.246.154.130 (talk) (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of 1 year (Abusing multiple accounts: HanzoHattori.) (unblock | change block)
- 00:22, 1 July 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts: HanzoHattori.) (unblock | change block)
By the way, the notice at the top of your talk page says "from 6 July 2009 until 12 May 2009". Best, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Alex, I'd appreciate your thoughts on unbanning Hanzo. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Здравствуйте! По поводу Вашей правки [48], хочу обратить вниание, звание Маршала Российской Федерации, в соответствии с законом, является высшим для всех видов Вооружённых Сил. По этому поводу была большая дискуссия в Русской Википедии [49]. Там, давольно долго, шалил вандал, постоянно вносивший информацию о Адмирале флота Российской Федерации и т.п. С уважением, Сергей Корнилов (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
AlexNewArtBot Part 2
You started vacation July 6 but ended May 12? ;]
I've tried setting up the bot for Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality but can't seem to figure out the rules details. Could you help? See User:AlexNewArtBot#Miscellaneous at the very bottom where I added Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. The related page is User:AlexNewArtBot/SexologySearchResult. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Giving this a nudge since I see you're active but apparently have missed this section. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 20:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
File:EuropeCupInMoscow.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:EuropeCupInMoscow.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 15:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Danger Will Robinson
Alex: Can you please amend this edit history to eliminate the edit of July 7, 2009? [50] Sometimes, kids don't think, and this is one of those times. The contributor listed the name of a Federal Judge's "favorite niece". I left a message for the contributor to avoid ever doing so again. Thanks. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Done Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was flabergasted when I saw it.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
: 6 July 2009
- News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Unprotect after Talk Page Discussion
Hello Alex, Your Proection on Roland Perry page has expired. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roland_Perry&diff=300705077&oldid=300703749 However indefinite protection remains. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roland_Perry&diff=next&oldid=300705077
As per Dispute Resolution Talk:Roland_Perry notes, would like to add content having re-editing in NPOV style. Could you please Unprotect Roland_Perry.
Haruspex101 (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Alex, am having terrible trouble with YellowMonkey user on Roland Perry page.
Please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roland_Perry&diff=prev&oldid=301968775
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roland_Perry&diff=301969104&oldid=301968775
Dispute obviously requires independent intervention for resolution. I am a novice user. YellowMonkey is a highly experienced user. Some help to bridge the technical-skill divide is required and would be greatly appreciated.
Haruspex101 (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
Have tried to engage other experienced users, to no avail so far as to the substantive issues of Roland Perry content -- including content that is still posted on various Wikipedia pages that maligns Roland Perry, some of which I have already identified in my previous posts (see my contribution History) that should be removed immediately:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VirtualSteve&diff=301762516&oldid=301758057
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Roland_Perry
Haruspex101 (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
Alex, could you please advise me if you are able to help. And if you are not, who might be able to help me. Haruspex101 (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
Hello Alex, have managed to connect with experienced bio of living person editors to develop the Roland Perry page content in a balanced way:
Alex, as an experienced Administrator who has placed Protection on the Roland Perry page on two occasions this year -- can you please assist me with removing content that is yet still posted on various Wikipedia pages that maligns Roland Perry; and how I can effectively advocate for this. It is not obvious to a novice user how to go about this and surely content which continues to malign the living author Roland Perry exposes Wikipedia to all sorts of challenges. Haruspex101 (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
Encyclopedias, lectures and prose
Hi, regarding 1993 constitutional crisis again, I am not planning to revert any more to the previous version that Biophys also used. However, I think the issue is not limited to having fluent prose in articles. When I first started editing, the article looked like someone's lecture material, i.e. having emotional language and reflected someone's (author's) personal stance.
So, yes, if an article is written by one author, and does not have references for each and every phrase it likely gets a better sentence structure, too. But the problem is that Wikipedia does not work that way. It is not so crucial to have 'good prose', we rather need to have things verified and as objective as possible. The main quality issue of the Wikipedia article on 1993 Russian constitutional crisis still remains lack of proper verification as this thing was not emphasised at the time when most of the text was written (around 2004). All in all, I do hope 172 will now refrain from reverting to obsolete versions in various articles, as he has also been told not to do e.g. here. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Викиреальность
Дорогой Алекс !
Пожалуйста, скажите, принадлежит ли вам учётная запись Алекс Бахарев в проекте «Викиреальность». Если это не Вы, мы заблокируем учётную запись бессрочно. -- Observer from Wiki (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Нет, запись мне не принадлежит, если можно, заблокируйте импостера Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Editing survey
Hi Alex. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University in the United States. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic current events articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at 2008 South Ossetia war that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below. An explanation of my project is included with the survey.
Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=kLMxj8dkk_2bls7yCBmNV7bg_3d_3d
Thanks and best regards,
Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
New Article bot help
I've tried setting up the bot for Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality but can't seem to figure out the rules details. Could you help? See User:AlexNewArtBot#Miscellaneous at the very bottom where I added Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. The related page is User:AlexNewArtBot/SexologySearchResult. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 06:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Notification of arbcom discussion
Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
: 27 July 2009
- From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
- Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
- Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
- Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
- News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
- Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 07:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia elections & the future of the foundation
Hello Alex,
I admired your candidacy last year, and wish you had run for the Board again this year! I hope you will ask questions that matter to you; we have good data now to confirm that growth has been stagnant for over two years. And I would appreciate your contributions to m:Suggestions and proposals. Cheers, +sj+ 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Bonaparte redivivus
Remember User:Bonaparte? Meet Over Bruce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Edits like [51], [52], [53], [54], [55] pretty much talk by themselves.Xasha (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it appears to be him. I have blocked the account Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
: 3 August 2009
- News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
- Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
AlexNewArtBot
Thought you'd be interested to see this - it's a simple article about a fish - seems to be generating a lot of false positives. Hope that's useful for future enhancements. If not, ignore! --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- They are mostly logfiles of the bot that are used only by people tuning up the bot rules. They will disappear in a day or two. There are only three hits in the search results: Fishes (duh!), Waterbodies (it might be marginally usable for people interesting in lakes,ponds and rivers to check the fish article), References (for the new articles that use inline references - I am not sure of the utility of the feed, but your article certainly uses the reference). No inclusion into a search result looks like a clear false positive to me Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
New Article bot help again
I've tried setting up the bot for Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality but can't seem to figure out the rules details. Could you help? See User:AlexNewArtBot#Miscellaneous at the very bottom where I added Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. The related page is User:AlexNewArtBot/SexologySearchResult. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 06:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Take care of the vandal
Hello, i have seen that there is a anonymous user who is determined to corrupt the articles: Russians and Russian diaspora. He always changes the Statististics and writes worng data. this user also has the nerves to give false sources: they do deal with demography but have nothing to do with his changes. in other words his changes are not established and false. I ask you to monitor his activity and those articles. thank you very much, 77.127.174.140 (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC).
- It is not a vandalism but a content dispute. Usually we do not know the statistics of migrants by their ethnic heritage but by the country of origin. Many migrants from Russia to USA, Australia, etc are not ethnically Russians but Russian Jews, Russian Germans, Russian Ukrainians, etc. Israel is obviously an extreme example of such problem. The majority of immigrants from Russia there are presumably Russian Jews but there are many Russian Russians (family members, converts to Judaisms, etc.) as well as people of mixed ethnicity. It is very difficult to get separate statistics on ethnical composition of emigrants from Russia and I am not sure we need to separate those groups. One of the solution would be to keep the demographic data per country of origin but give footnotes that many (in the case of Israel, probably most) of those are not ethnical Russians. Other suggestions could be discussed on the talk page Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Izhorsky Zavod
Hi, Alex. There is a discussion of renaming the Izhorsky Zavod article. Your input is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Help needed
Hi Alex, I hope you are fine. Your help is needed in the article Safīd Mountain Range which has been moved to Spin Ghar by Ketabtoon (talk · contribs). The Encyclopaedia Britannica also uses the title Safīd Mountain Range which is derived from the Persian name "Safed Koh" (5,250 Google-hits). "Spin Ghar" is not common in English and has only 2,930 hits. In past few weeks, Ketabtoon has had a few controversial edits, resembling those of banned users NisarKand (talk · contribs) and Khampalak (talk · contribs). This one, for example, is totally contraproductive. I think that a checkuser-file would be helpful. Thank you. Tajik (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
: 10 August 2009
- Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
- News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
2008 genocide of Georgians in South Ossetia
No one disputes the ethnic cleansing, but can you please tell me why we need this article? Is the article Humanitarian impact of the 2008 South Ossetia war too big or something? All of this material is already present there and in 2008 South Ossetia war. How is this article a valid fork? Should we fork Genocide of South Ossetians by Georgian forces as well?
Also there's a nice guideline called WP:POVFORK, which says "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts."
Forking the war crimes conducted by ony the other side into a separate article (while conveniently dropping the bigger context and crimes by the other side) seems to be prime example of this. Or do you disagree? Offliner (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- People flying from the war are indeed humanitarian impact of the war, people forced out or prevented from returning well after seizing of the hostilities are not directly related to the humanitarian impact of the war. Also expanding scope of the article beyond 2008 explaining how ethnically mixed territory of pre 1991 became divided between almost pure Ossetian and almost pure Georgian enclaves in 2008 is important and does not fit the Humanitarian impact article Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- That is correct Alex, but there is a difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing. And of course, it needs to be looked at from the other side as well, as per my comments in the current AfD, Georgian genocide (if that is what WP is calling it now) of South Ossetians would also be worthy of an article, given events in 1920, 1991-1991 and 2008, and Georgia for Georgians doctrine/policies. I think what Offliner is saying is that such topics would best be dealt with in an article on the war itself, rather than be splitting out into articles, especially those with such POV/devisive names as the one currently under discussion, where it is being used as mere propaganda in the sense that it is setting out to prove that there was genocide, much the same as the Communist genocide article. --Russavia Dialogue 07:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, I had a thought, or rather a brain fart, couldn't we move 2008 South Ossetia war to Attempted Georgian genocide of South Ossetians, after all, it was started by the tie eater sending in troops to get rid of the Ossetian people; more than enough sources to show that is the case, eh? ;) --Russavia Dialogue 07:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Question
I'm not sure how your bot User:AlexNewArtBot works but it appears to not have made a search run in about five days. Is the bot not working now or are there normally gaps like this?Singingdaisies (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- It should work now Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. :-) I really appriciate everything you are doing with this bot. Just to let you know, I think this bot run may be missing some articles. It looks like it passed over all articles created on August 10 and 11. For example, this article I created on August 11, Beverly Bower, was not picked up.Singingdaisies (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
: 17 August 2009
- From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
- Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
- News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 00:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Look at what the vandal did to that article. It needs an urgent admin involvement. --KoberTalk 04:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest, name Sukhumi seems to be much more widespread in English than Aqwa. Or do you mean Apusuwara moving the article to Aqwa? It might be a good faith move (assuming it is Abkhazian name). Anyway the article should not be moved without an WP:RFM. I have moveprotected it Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
: 24 August 2009
- News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
- Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Fakta fra verden erroneously tagged as COI
Your bot erroneously tagged the article Fakta fra verden, that I created, as COI. I'm not the creator of this series, which should be fairly obvious, as he's Norwegian and I'm Finnish. I have only met the creator once in my life, very briefly, at a public presentation he did of this comic, and he doesn't know who I am. I have concluded the reason your bot tagged the article as COI is because I included the name "Jippi Comics" in the external links, part of which matches my username. This is sheer coincidence. My username comes from my initials, and this "Jippi Comics" name undoubtedly comes from the Norwegian word for "Yippee". JIP | Talk 20:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it was a false positive. Bot was alarmed that your nickname is close to the "Jippi Comics" in the external links. Sometimes false positives happen, I am sorry. I have removed the entry from the search results of the bot and I have modified the bot code so to make repeating of the problem less likely Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:VeronikaDolina.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:VeronikaDolina.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi! there is a problem with your photo, I have uploaded from en-wiki to commons. It would be apreciate if you say some word... Regards Electron (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Your vacation
Your vacation ended before it started. Did you make some sort of typo in your vacation announcement? JIP | Talk 18:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Herald.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
