Talk:Boris Stomakhin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

NPOV

Here is translation of his piece of writing which is quintessential phrase of all his politic ideas:

"Kill, Kill, Kill! To flood all Russia with blood, to not give a quarter to anyone, to try to make at least one atomic explosion on the territory of Russian Federation -- this is like the programm of radical Resistance should be, and russian's, and chechen's, and anyone's! Let the russians, according to their deserts, reap as they has sown".

"Russians should be killed, and only killed, for there is no one among them who is normal, intelligent, or who can be talked with and for understanding of whom we could rely. Harsh collective responsibility of all russians should be introduced, of all loyal Russian citizens for the actions of the government elected by them -- for the genocide, executions, ordeals, trade with corpses... From that moment there sould be no division of killers on combatant and non-combatant, wilful or forced".

You may find all the articles of Stomakhin in Russian at [1].

What you cite is propaganda. It is enought to summarize the content of his article in a single sentence. Besides, you are distorting the meaning of the article by citing a few selected pieces without the context. Biophys 17:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I request that you support your statement about propaganda with verifiable arguments. These citations present my translation of some passages of Stomakhin's articles. They are taken from the website of Stomkahin's Revolutionary Contact Association and were signed by him personally. http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm Vlad fedorov 07:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to NPOV

It's certainly not a propaganda. Mr. Stomakhin was convicted for these passages in his articles and their public dissemination which could be ascertained from your own links to official conviction of Stomakhin. These phrases and not the whole articles were the pinpoint of the prosecution.

Consider your own case of propaganda and cronyism, you wrote that "Human rights activists Svetlana Gannushkina... and a number of other independent human rights activists.." without naming these other activists. Which amounts to unsupported statement. I just not touching the issues of Svetlana Gannushkina independence which is supported by foreign grants from unidentified persons.

You also wrote that Stomakhin was sentenced just because he compared Putin with Saddam Hussein, or because he claimed that Russia as totalitarian state should be destroyed, which is lies that could be evidenced by just reading the official court sentence which is supported with specific evidence. He was proved guilty to "igniting religious and national hatred, promoting violent change of constitutional regime, defamatory statements, promoting violent change of territorial integrity of Russian Federation, extremist propaganda and terrorist activities". He called to destroy not only Russia, but Russians as a nation, and not because Russia is a totalitarian state, but because "Russians are bloody cannibals, orges".

You should either prove the evidence to be unreliable - which amounts to public vindication of Russian Federation, or prove the court was biased - which amounts to conviction of Russian Federation court in commiting a crime.

Even further, your text contains too many grammatical mistakes. Just for example, "Human rights activists Svetlana Gannushkina, Valeria Novodvorskaya believes...". Two individuals believe and only one believes. Learn Simple Present (aka Present Indefinite).

I'm in no way distorting the meaning of Stomakhin's articles - your assertion is not supported with arguments - you just deleted the whole section from this article. Moreover, Russian version of Wikipedia contains these same citations of Stomakhin. Why you consider the English version should lack these ones? Considering your other articles about politics in Russia in English Wikipedia, I consider you to be unobjective and biased contributor.

These words are the facts, the rest is your (Biophys') political personal opinion which should not distort the encyclopedia and its users. If you want more objective citation, please make one, if you want to translate the whole his article - please make one.

But do not try to mess with the work at encyclopedia's content. It's not your personal home page, where you could moderate others with your political beliefs. Encyclopedic content should be verifiable - these conditions are met, I provided the link to all of Stomakhins articles.

Please be advised of the main key policies of Wikipedia:

• Respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia. (See Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Dispute resolution.)

• Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views on a subject, factually and objectively, in an order which is agreeable to a common consensus. (This too is a Foundation issue that applies to all Wikimedia Foundation projects.)

Do not forget about arbitration option in Wikipedia.

213.184.225.28 14:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you register as a user please? Thank you for correcting my language mistakes. I will try to improve the content according to your recommendations. I still belive that Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda. So, this text should be deleted from Russian Wikipedia as well. I do my best to follow all Wikipedia rules. I did not simply deleted your text. I replaced it by a summary from one sentence. No bias here. Biophys 16:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I still haven't got any argument of yours in order to support you labelling Stomakhin's citations as propaganda. You are not allowed to judge by your opinion the character of information sources. You are not allowed to make original research in living person biography, and therefore you are not allowed to disregard Stomakhin citations which are signed and published by him. Vlad fedorov 09:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer

Sure, I would register as a user in short. I would like to mention just one thing. I am not against making a summary, but... The summary must correctly state the reality. And the reality is that Mr. Stomakhin wasn't politically prosecuted as one may get from your already made summary, the court sentence contains already summary of Mr. Stomakhin's activities.

Mr. Stomakhin called for the destruction of Russia, not because it was perceived by him as totalitarian state.

Mrs. Novodvorskaya and Mr. Gannushkina are not independent human rights activists, at least because none of them have ever raised questions of russian soldiers tortures, ordeals by Chechen rebels and videotapes of their murders. They have never advocated criminal prosecution of their murderers nor they ever called Chechen rebels to stop these atrocities. I think that murder is a violation of human rights. Therefore, these individuals couldn't be called even human rights activists for their activity was always biased according to their political (ultra-liberal) beliefs.

The organization headed by Mr. Stomakhin is called Revolutionary Contact Association and its address is web.

Wikipedia policies

1. This court sentence does not say that Stomakhin was convicted for actually doing any violent or terrorist activities. If you think it does, could you please insert the corresponding portion of Russian text here?

Answer to first point

First of all, the legal definition of terrorism according to the legislation of the United States of America and the United Kingdom is not within just violent actions. Propaganda of terrorism and financial support to terrorism are also part of terrorist activities. Although Stomakhin never took part in violent activities as such, he nevertheless was (a) financing (sponsoring) terrorist activities and (b) was promoting terrorism.

According to Russian criminal law the word "extremist" equals to "terrorism" - see the definition of extremism at www.garant.ru and www.consultant.ru.

1. "а также совершил публичные призывы к осуществлению экстремистской деятельности, совершаемые с использованием средств массовой информации"

2. "тем самым призывая содействовать экстремистской деятельности в виде ее финансирования на благотворительной основе."

3. "Однако, реализованная и развивающаяся преступная деятельность Стомахияа Б.В. была пресечена правоохранительными органами путем привлечения его 26 апреля 2004 года к уголовной ответственности, что не позволило Стомахину Б.В., при наличии у него стойкого умысла, целенаправленности расширения и активизации экстремистской деятельности, вовлечь в нее новых членов, достичь желаемых противоправных целей."

4. "Таким образом Стомахин Б.В. являясь членом РКО, осознанно действуя в интересах данного объединения, планировал и призывал совершать действия, запрещенные Федеральным Законом № 114-ФЗ от 25.07.2002 года "О противодействии экстремистской деятельности" и являющиеся экстремистскими, а именно: насильственное изменение основ конституционного строя и нарушения целостности Российской Федерации; подрыв безопасности Российской Федерации; осуществление террористической деятельности; возбуждение расовой, национальной или религиозной розни, а также социальной розни, связанной с насилием и призывами к насилию; унижение национального достоинства; осуществление массовых беспорядков, хулиганских действий и актов вандализма по мотивам идеологической, политической, расовой, национальной или религиозной ненависти либо вражды, а равно по мотивам ненависти либо вражды в отношении какой-либо социальной группы; пропаганда исключительности, превосходства либо неполноценности граждан по признаку их отношения к религии, социальной, расовой, национальной, религиозной или языковой принадлежности (часть 1 статьи 1 Закона); Стомахин Б.В. публично призывал к осуществлению экстремистской деятельности и совершению конкретных экстремистских действий (часть З статьи 1 Закона); призывал к финансированию (предоставлению финансовых средств) экстремистской деятельности, ее содействию конкретными действиями иным образом (часть 4 статьи 1 Закона), обращался к гражданам и организациям лично и через издаваемый им бюллетень "Радикальная политика", обладающий в соответствии с Законом всеми признаками экстремистских материалов, как документы и иная информация на иных носителях, предназначенные для обнародования и призывающие к осуществлению экстремисткой деятельности, обосновывающие и оправдывающие необходимость осуществления такой деятельности, обосновывающие и оправдывающие национальное и (или) расовое превосходство и оправдывающие практику совершения военных и иных преступлений, направленных на полное или частичное уничтожение какой-либо этнической, социальной, расовой, национальной или религиозной группы (статья 1 Закона), распространял лично бюллетень и через неустановленных следствием лиц в общественных местах городе Москвы, при проведении массовых мероприятий, в местах наибольшего скопления народа." Vlad fedorov 07:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So, I was right. This court sentence does not say that Stomakhin was convicted for actually doing any violent or terrorist activities. Biophys 20:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

== You are wrong legally and factually. I never wrote that Stomahin commited "violent terrorist activities". I cited the court sentence where Stomakhin was convicted of planning and calling to terrorist activities.

Таким образом Стомахин Б.В. являясь членом РКО, осознанно действуя в интересах данного объединения, планировал и призывал совершать действия, запрещенные Федеральным Законом № 114-ФЗ от 25.07.2002 года "О противодействии экстремистской деятельности" и являющиеся экстремистскими, а именно: насильственное изменение основ конституционного строя и нарушения целостности Российской Федерации; подрыв безопасности Российской Федерации; осуществление террористической деятельности

I repeat, propaganda of terrorism and financial support to terrorism are also part of terrorist activities according to laws of Russian Federation, of the United States, and of the United Kingdom. Wikipedia's legal agent is located in St.Petesburg in the US. Wikipedia is legally located in the US. You may need to contact Wikipedia administration and (or) their legal agent.

You have no idea about laws of UK or US. A person like Stomakhin would never be convicted. People here are really free to say absolutely anything, and some of them are making extremely outrageous claims every day. It is enough just to listen some "rap" songs which really promote hate and violence. What Stomakhin said is nothing compared to that. Biophys 23:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? I am a graduate of Sommerville College of the University of Oxford, Law Faculty. Would you mind presenting yourself? I would first write a complain about you deleting the passages of Stomakhin's articles where he calls to kill all Russians and which are widely disscussed, cited and covered in Russian internet and periodicals. You also abuse this article with links that are not relevant. You have no any reliable and verifiable evidence (according to Wikipedia standards) to claim that prosecution planned to render Stomakhin uncapable (that is a legal English term for insane). You should also write in your links that Human Rights Network is situated in Norway and not in Russia. These organizations use information sourced to them by opposition (Stomakhin's collegues). You should allow me to write pieces of Stomakhin's articles and you should write only verifiable information.

Biased or malicious content

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association.

Reliable sources. Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims. Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below). Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?

We are not suppose to prove anything in Wikipedia because that would be "original research". We suppose only cite sources, and that is exactly what I did. This source [2] is good according to all Wikipedia criteria. This is a union of respectable human rights protection organizations that are aready mentioned and cited in many Wikipedia articles. Most important, the information I cited is not derogatory or negative for the living person. To the contrary, I have no objections to write about him in the most favorable light. If you have any good sources that something else about proecution and Stomakhin, you are welcome to cite them.Biophys 05:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are supposed to cite Reliable Sources. The assertions in Links you cited are not supported by anything. These are just hearsays. You haven't identified yourself with any contacts, therefore your cfalification is unreliable too. I will write again extracts from Stomakhin's articles, translate court sentence and cite opposite opinions to your soucers. If you would delete them again I would write a complain to Cabal Mediation. Vlad fedorov 06:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to appeal to your degree and authority, you must tell your name. Otherwise, your qualification is as good as mine. But this really does not matter. You even did not sign your post. I described my qualification in my personal Wikipedia page. Biophys 05:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You haven't identified yourself with any contacts or names, therefore your qualification is as reliable as mine. Vlad fedorov 06:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. We are all equal here. It does not matter if someone claims that he is an expert.Biophys 06:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not a place for outrageous claims, especially with respect to living people.Biophys 23:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please give me an example of my outrageous claim.Vlad fedorov 12:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You should also give your full attention to the Legal Disclaimer of the Wikipedia itself at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer. You may find many interesting legal issues which are relevant to your statements.

I would like to cite the following main points:

Wikipedia contains articles on many legal topics; however no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained in an article touching on legal matters is true, correct or precise. Law varies from place to place and it evolves over time — sometimes quite quickly. Even if a statement made about the law is accurate, it may only be accurate in the jurisdiction of the person posting the information; as well, the law may have changed, been modified or overturned by subsequent development since the entry was made on Wikipedia. Neither the individual contributors, system operators, developers, or sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information or disinformation presented on this web site.

It means that you are solely responsible for your statements that contradict the laws of the jurisdiction relevant. In our case it is the laws of Russian Federation. I repeat again that the crime of terrorism is defined in Russian laws as a crime of extremism. Although semantically these are two different words, legally they are the synonims.

The crime of slander is ironically one and the same both in Russian Federation and the United States.

I have looked through some articles by Stomakhin. He is only a normal "liberal" who likes strong statements - by US standards, not even a "libertarian" or "anarchist". I have seen on US TV a lot of people whose political views were much more extreme than views of Stomakhin. All these people are free and promote their views relentlessly. Biophys 23:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How about Ann Coulter who often makes very wild statements on purpose - just to provoke other people's strong and angry reaction? In Russia, she would probably be in prison long time ago. Biophys 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC) She said about Muslim countries: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." (sonds like Stomakhin but maybe from another side). She is a famous women, not a prisoner. Biophys 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Laughing out loud. By wild statements you mean Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones statements of Mrs. Coulter ? Let us compare "Kill!Kill!Kill!" by Stomakhin and any "wild" citation by Mrs Coulter .Vlad fedorov 12:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It just means no one sued these people. You could be the first one. A problem is that you delete Stmakhin's writings and at the same time you cite information from any sources which are in opposition to Russian government. That is called bias, actually. If you will persist, I would write a complain. Vlad fedorov 05:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

==

2. Wikipedia policies say that unreliable and negative information about living persons is unacceptable. In that regard, this "revolutionary union" does not qualify as a reliable source. This is a marginal (you say "extremist") group. They can write and claim at their web site whatever they want. Therefore, I deleted this citation. However, it is probably O'K to cite the official court sentence if you want. You should only translate it precisely. Biophys 18:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Update as of December 18, 2006 20:50

The article definitly looks much more better now. Thank you for doing that job.

Minor suggestion. Stomakhin's organization is called Revolutionary Contact Association.

You tend to cite only pro-Stomakhin's sources (his supporters), such as grani.ru site which belongs to Berezovsky. I would add his opponents opinions. The information given about double case dismissal due to lack of evidence is wrong. The case was dismissed only once, and second time it was just postponed due to Stomakhin's escape from psychiatric expertise, but not dismissed. The source of wrong information is the well-known correspondent of Grani.ru - Vladimir Abarinov, notorious for his USA worshiping, and who, by the way, is not a person competent in legal affairs. All the official prosecution documents, including conviction, give the details for the whole process of Stomakhin's prosecution.

Psichushka as a link for the Moscow Serbsky Institute is not appropriate link definitely. The fact it was used for some time in past in order to suppress political opponents is not relevant nowdays for the Stomakhin's case.

As to the term "extremist" - the source of this term is the official court sentence. I just cited specific portion of the court decision as an official document. I would translate that portion of court sentence and include in the article later. I also cited that specific large bulk of the court sentence on russian in point 4, as you have requested. You may also just use search button in the internet explorer in order to find that passage in the court sentence.

Thank you for your job, once again.

Vlad fedorov 19:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Moscow Serbsky Institute

If you insist, I can also make an article about Moscow Serbsky Institute, about people who work there, prisoners, Budanov, their expertise of poisoned Chechen children, and so on. See this: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

I think that is enought for an article. Biophys 22:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you consider it enought please read the following:

Use of categories. Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced. For example, Category:Criminals should only be added when the notable crime has been described in the article and sources given, and the person has either been convicted or has pleaded guilty.

You link to Psichushka category is not relevant, because Serbsky expertise never rendered Stomakhin uncapable. You just try to abuse majority opinion by stressing irrelevant facts. I will write compalin about it to the moderator.

This is highly relevant because they were going to put Stomakhin to Psichushka as this source says (not me!). Based on your response, I should write the article about Serbsky Institute. I am not talking about any new categories. Biophys 06:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The source you cite is not signed with any person, the source of information told in the articles is not identified, therefore it could not be verified. They were never going to put Stomakhin to Psichushka - this statement contradicts to the official court sentence and to the conclusions of the official psychiatric expertise held by Moscow Serbsky Institute. I am amazed by your bias. You state that my translated Stomakhin's citations is a propaganda, and at the same time you post unverifiable sources and hearsay into the Encylopedia's articles. Vlad fedorov 07:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Source says: this is article by Yanina Savenko. Biophys 17:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The official phsychiatric expertise was held and it found Stomakhin capable, therefore suggestions of Yanina Savenko are not supported by real facts.Vlad fedorov 19:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Alex Bacharev

Dear Alexey thank you very much for your assistance as an administrator of English Wikipedia. Vlad fedorov 06:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Types of vandalism Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:

Sneaky vandalism Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos, hiding vandalism e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one, or reverting legitimate edits to hinder the improvement process.

Information about prosecution trying to render Stomakhin mentally ill, although officially ordered expertise proved him capable

Redirect vandalism Redirecting articles or talk pages to offensive articles or images. One example is the autofellatio redirect vandal. Some vandals will try to redirect pages to nonsense titles they create this way. This variation is usually performed by vandals whose accounts are too new to move pages. It is also often done on pages that are protected from moves.

Using a link to Psikhushka for Moscow Serbsky Institute

Link vandalism Rewriting links within an article so that they appear the same, but point to something completely different or ridiculous (e.g. France).

Using a link to Psikhushka for Moscow Serbsky Institute

Vlad fedorov 16:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, because Psikhushka is a Wikipedia article where Serbsky Institute has been described. However, I will try to resolve your concern by creating a Wikipedia article about Serbsky Institute as soon as I can.Biophys 22:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many articles where Serbsky Institute is described. You have maliciously chosen to create an article to conform to your opinion.Vlad fedorov 05:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Done by your request.Biophys 00:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Why this citation is inappropriate

Let's assume that RKO website is a reliable source (which is not). Then, the selected citation has been selected to demonstrate that Stomakhin is a facist who wants to exterminate all Russians. However this is not true, which is clear after reading his other alleged writings on RKO web site. He only means that military resistance to Russian occupation is legimate (including sabotage or what we call terrorism), because Russians are conducting genocide in Chechnya. He believes that it is as legimate as the resistance against Nazi occupation was. That is what he means. No more, no less. He is strongly anti-Russian (you could call him a Russophob), because he wants to protect an ethnic minority (Chechens and others) from an oppression of the kind he believes Nazi did with respect to Jews. So, he is actually an anti-facist, not the facist. Everything is turned upside-down in this article. Biophys 18:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Biophys, You constantly cite too much of slogans that you personally support. At the same time you always summarize what I cite, even the words of Stomakhin. Do you consider yourself objective ? I will revert everything you do trying to cover your biased POV. Vlad fedorov 06:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

I made a few changes and left this citation of Stomakhin as it was in the article by Maksim Sokolov. There is no need to talk several times about killing Russians, because this is already present in the cited passage. I still belive this article violates living person policies, but this version might be some kind of a compromise. Biophys 20:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask you not to summarize citations of Stomakhin. Because you try to distort, and make his opinions less radical by summarizing which is called vandalism actually. Vlad fedorov 06:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. In the List of memoirs of political prisoners, I found Adolf Hitler. Biophys 21:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not an argument for listing of Stomakhin as a political prosoner. In no way. Vlad fedorov 06:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If to look to Wikipedia definition of political prisoner, it includes Vietnamise non-combatant members of the military National Liberation Front. Since Stomakhin was not convicted for any violent actions, he certainly belong to political prisoners. Biophys 21:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Biophys, you clearly need to look this definition with more attention. Because Stomakhin was sued by the people, and not by the government. And he was sentenced for inciting religious and enthnic violence and calls for violent change of constitutional regime. These charges are not political ones. Try to meditate at this, and may the Buddha enlighten your ignorance. Vlad fedorov 06:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It does not really matter what the official court sentence says. Many famous political prisoners and prisoners of conciense were convicted based on bogus charges. If the international human right protection organisations recognize a person as someone who was prosecuted for exercising his free speech right, then he can be described in Wikipedia as such person. Biophys 17:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You haven't answered my point about "political" prosecution. As long as no one disputes that fact and it is evident that allegations of Human Rights Organizations are false. Stomakhin wasn't prosecuted by the government. Indeed, it is the government that refused to prosecute Stomakhin at first criminal case against him. If other sources say that Stomakhin is not such person, and as no one defends their allegations in the courts, than there are other opinions which should be presented in this article, and which you can't deny and delete.Vlad fedorov 09:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Kill! Killl! Kill!" is not for Wikipedia. But if all other editors think otherwise, I can live with that. Biophys 21:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You may think whatever you want. But that article is not your personal page. You may write this in articles for Adolph Hitler and the likes. Vlad fedorov 06:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think my citation is biased, you are very welcome to include any other passages from the official court sentence (because I regard RKO web cite as unrelibale source - according to Wikipedia criteria). There is also one important principle. If I included some important information or citation supported by a source (which is more reliable than the marginal web RKO site), you can not simply delete my text. Alex Bakharev and others, can you confirm that this is the rule? Otherwise, I am wasting my time here. Biophys 16:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should look into page history to identify who's simply deliting which text, right? You may invite anyone including Alex Bakharev, as it is you. Vlad fedorov 09:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I also do not have to "identify" any organizations that are described in Wikipedia, such as ARTICLE 19 or others. Biophys 16:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)