User talk:Alex Bakharev/Archive6

3RR

This is a post on my talkpage, I crosspost here to make sure you read it.

After a short wikibreak, I am furious to learn that I had been blocked from editing on the issue of removing warnings from my talkpage, 3RR, and lack of communication. Listed below is a concise and brief explanation.

1. Removing warnings:

A. One is perfectly entitled to remove such warnings from his/her talkpage. An admin support my claim.[[1]] Another user removed my warning from his talkpage.[[2]]. To add to that the warnings is justified. An admin support my case. [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] support from another user. Read the full length discussion on User:Bishonen talkpage under the heading User:RevolverOcelotX.

B. Even if I am not allowed to remove such warnings, the warning clearly isn't justified. According to the history of List of Chinese Americans and Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China articles, you would see Bonafide.hustla and RevolverOcelotX had both made 3 reverts in the past 24 hours 2 days ago. However, when the initial warning was placed by RevolverOcelotX I made only 1 edit to the article, making the warning totally irrelevant. He placed the warning on the ground that I BROKEN the 3RR on my user talk page after the final warning. As evident in the above discussion, an admin states that 3RR does not apply to a user's personal talkpage. The accusation is groundless.

2. 3RR Again, the 3RR clearly states that a block should only occur if I have made MORE than 3 reverts in the last 24 hrs for an article. I did not unless you count my personal talkpage, but we already established the 3RR does not apply to personal talkpages. See A. and B. above for further details.

3. Lack of communication

A. A series of POV pushing by RevolverOcelotX occured when he first arrived at wikipedia, when I revert his edits as an effort to preserve NPOV (never violating 3RR), he started to engage himself in edit warring with me and many other users [[6]] While I have also posted relevant reasons for reverts in both edit summary and relevant talkpages, he failed to do so. When I attempted to communicate in order to end edit warring, he angrily responded and continue to make POV edits specifically in Taiwanese-Chinese relation. [[7]]

4. Conduct of User:RevolverOcelotX

A. Ever since this user's initial arrival, he has been on a crusade to distort information about Taiwan, China articles. see [[8]].

B. His behavior is similar to User:PoolGuy (who has received an indef. block for bootless wikilawyering and disruption) and often commits wikilawyering. He is in the process of wasting the community's patience. [[9]]

C. This user went as far as harassing admin to support my case in order to prove his point. [[10]]

D. This user even edit the naming convention: Chinese in order to justify his edits. [[11]]

Conclusion: It is obvious that this particular user is a vexatious litigant and the fact that the block on me is not justified. Thanks and I hope someone will restore this unfair treatment.--Bonafide.hustla 23:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block of Bonafide.hustla

Hi, Alex. I saw your block notice on Bonafide.hustla's talkpage and meant to review the block, but I simply didn't have time to dig into his contribs to find the violation. I don't mean to bitch at you, but it would be great if you'd mention specifics in block notices, especially in the case of 3RR, because those really are a bit of a business to find. Anyway, now that BH has protested the block--retroactively--I suppose I really ought to take a look. Could you tell me what page it was about, please? Bishonen | talk 23:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Moshkov.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Moshkov.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.

Please go to the image 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 '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 fair use images 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. —Bkell (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lazar Kaganovich edit war

Thank you for temp-blocking User:Rastishka from editing. The whole thing is becoming completely ridiculous.

Year Vandalism

"Looks like a content dispute to me. Japanese years are named after the Emperors and we do not know who will be the Emperor in e.g. 2037. Warn him not to disrupt. List is empty)"

Interesting. That didn't occur to me. Thanks

Major Achivements

Here comes the Spiderman!

(Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman)

I have threatened to climb the Reichstag, dressed up as and did so, became bollocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, and then had it become an official policy on Wikipedia (and to be an official decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW)). Is Absolutley fantasitic!. This is so great!

"In extreme cases editors may be tempted to climb the Reichstag building dressed as Spiderman in order to promote their cause. This is absolutely forbidden and can result in an indefinite block from editing Wikipedia."

File:ReichstagClimb.jpg

You may not do this.
Nor on Tower bridge either.

This single event is a great example of all the good qualities of our beloved Wikipedia! Horay!

Next stop: The Kremlin!

Thankyou! Dfrg.msc 08:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comfort women

user: dollarfifty is at it again on this page. Can you help?--Blog Mav Rick 23:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rastishka

He's at it again on Lazar Kaganovich. Maybe we need some kind of mediation. Help please? TheQuandry 03:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Unblock

Heh, well, ususally I don't block like that but when you redirect an article toward "Nigger"... I'll consider an unblock pending his response... :-) Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 04:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking 202.21.158.12

Firstly, thanks for unblocking my IP. However, it is a school IP and thus it is not possible to work from another IP. ZhongHan 06:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irpen

Your summary at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irpen misinforms the community. You wrote about Russian architecture "There is no discussion on the talk page, no suggestions on improving the article". In fact there was (and still is) a discussion and solution has been proposed. (Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irpen#Comment_to_the_summary_by_Alex_Bakharev_and_others). I suugest you to reformulate your summary.--AndriyK 08:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think my summary is adequate. I fail to see any meaningful discussion and proposals to improve the article on the talk page at least in the last few months (even if consider your proposal [12] to divide and remove made in November in 2005 as made in the good faith). abakharev 09:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Alex! Unfortunatelly, I have to disagree with you. You wrote "there is no discussion", but there was one. You may consider the discussion "not meaningful", but "no discussion" and "miningless discussion" is not the same. "No discussion" is a solid fact that can be checked by inspecting the page history. "Meaningless discussion" is your judgement and other people may disagree with you.

Even if one of the parties consider the dispute "miningless" it does not mean that there is no dispute at all and such a judgement does not justify the tag removal.

I think, your summary has to be slightly corrected. Thanks.--Mbuk 06:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between edit warring and discussion. Inserting tags and arguing about an inherited right for the tag insertion is different from the discussions on the substance of the article. abakharev 07:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, there was a discussion about the subject of the article [13]. And a further step of DR has been proposed [14].

The edit warring and arguments about the tag insertion were provoked by those who were removing the tag contrary to the policy.

Please correct your statement "There is no discussion on the talk page".--Mbuk 19:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chechnya

You must be very busy now. But can I draw your attention to the fact that in Chechnya User:Ewen Le Gloan-Korenyuk has again deleted the pro-Russian links, although; having read your comment to him, I added "Kadyrov site" to the free Ru one. [15]

I thought I had once seen this guy's name (who must be living in France or Switzerland according to google) on French Wiki, but strangely enough he is (now?) absent there. But he does have accounts on both Norwegian Wikis, as recent as the English one. On bokmal, apart from Chechnya external links, he corrected two misprints and changed one number 14 into "fourteen". [16] On nynorsk, he only did Chechnya external links, already got reverted, but that did not bother him: [17] I do not want to get in an edit war with this guy, but surely he cannot delete these links so that the pro-separatist side is overrepresented, while there is also Chechen Republic of Ichkeria to put all that stuff.--Pan Gerwazy 01:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i responded on my talk page...

... but there is no evidence of my violating 3RR on homophobia. i am happy to open this up to other admins (or even arbcom, but i think they would reject a rfar because it is too small potatos) for examination because i am certain that you are mistaken about your judgement regarding this. r b-j 15:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Battle of the Lower Dnieper/Lviv]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Thanks You Rule!

Thank you so much for the article for Vsevolod Solovyov I did not have the info or the time to flesh the article out and I found that Vsevolod Solovyov was redirecting to his "brother" Vladimir. Hey what do you know abou Nikolia Lossky? LoveMonkey 18:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chechnya (again)

I like what you did with the external links there. After reverting Elk Salmon's rename of Pro-Umarov to Al Qaeda, I was thanked by User:Ldingley on my talk page. I suppose he does not know I am of Masurian descent. ;>) Yes, I must really do something about my name on en:wikipedia. Pan Gerwazy is a crusader name, which was alright to use in newsgroups (anyone who understands Dutch, French or German can google my earlier presence there and find out who I am) but on Wikipedia it sounds like Napoleon, Bonaparte (sic) or Robespierre.

However, Ldingley's intervention did inspire me. Why should Prague watchdog be listed under "Pro-Umarov" sites. I agree that these guys are one-sided, but choosing sides is not their avowed policy. On the other hand, the yahoo group is "moderated". But moderated by whom? Look at the comments of a/the moderator here: [18]

Yes, he affirms he does not know anything about law, but still he thinks he has the right to condemn French judges. On the basis of this (+99% of the news articles quoted are anti-Russia - I know this because I often go there for a quick English version of long Russian articles - my Russian is a bit rusty), I would be inclined to say Prague Watchdog and this yahoo group belong in the same category - move the yahoo group to Pro-Umarov, I would say. Do you agree? --Pan Gerwazy 20:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headline text

Hi there I was in the process of a hijab and sound page. While their may be some debate, I intetended to cover all bases eventually and as such I put it in a seperate file.

Imyaslavie

Дорогой Алекс. Я ищу материалы (а также добровольцев) для работы над статьёй ru:Схимонах Иларион. Не могли бы помочь? - Vald 10:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your recent edits

Please reread WP:NPA:

“

Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on third parties on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse.

”

The article talk page is reserved to discuss the article. Flooding it with unrelated stuff makes it difficult to read and follow the discussion. Please explain your view, if you disagree with me. Thanks.--Mbuk 13:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RPA. It says:

“

This guideline is disputed.

”

Conclusions: a) it is a guideline (not policy), b) it is disputed. My $ 0,02. Thanks. --Tēlex 13:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess the question is Irpen's comments on AndriyK's editorial patterns on Talk:Ukrainization. The significant part of the talk is devoted to discussions about the tags inserted by the user. Many editors suspect that the tags were not inserted in the good faith. In this case a brief factual analysis of the AndriyK's editorial pattern is IMHO appropriate and relevant to the article. Such a discussion obviously should not include attacks on the personal qualities of the user, swear words, etc. - but only facts about his edits to the moment. Such an analysis is not in my humble opinion a Personal attack but rather an attempt to figure out what to do with the tags introduced by the user. abakharev 13:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, according to WP:RPA:

“

The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly.

”

Mbuk, I advise you to beware. Only remove posts when there is communitly consensus for doing so. When you are being reverted by many users this is clearly not the case, and people may believe that you are one of these "malefactors". --Tēlex 13:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last but not least is that my entry was not at all a personal attack. To dismiss the valid criticism as personal attack is an old tactic. Alex acted properly by reverting the inapropriate blanking of the talk page. --Irpen 06:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing other admins' blocks

Hi there, I notice that you unblocked User:Lysy, whom I blocked for revert warring. I just wanted to let you know that this isn't recommended, see the relevant section of the blocking policy. At a minimum, you should have notified me. The matter is, however, now moot. Stifle (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links in Chechnya article

Thanks. I will have a close look. By the way, I am sure I am a Westerner (whatever that means when Romanians on Wikipedia now consider themselves Westerners) but I have never been in Chechnya. Kislovodsk, yes, in 2002 - one year before that tragedy. (I suppose you did not really google for it - but if you did, one guy in be.politics thought it was in Chechnya and I did not correct him) I suppose, by the way, some people may actually think it means it disqualifies me as partial.

All of this pales of course in comparison to the threat of Ghirla leaving. I actually thought he had a point. And again I am partial, living in Belgium. His alignment ensured that the text about the church in Leuven/Louvain was close to its picture. IN the other version, that was not the case. Stupid, really.--Pan Gerwazy 23:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonafide.hustla's block again

Hi Alex. Bonafide.hustla made a request of me, which I'm hereby passing on to you. I'd really appreciate if you could see your way to obliging him. I think his request is reasonable, and the block really seems to have hurt his feelings. Bishonen | talk 23:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you so much, Alex. Putting a note in the block log like that was really clever!

Bishonen | talk 01:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC). Thanks a lot, Alex. I appreciate it.--Bonafide.hustla 06:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Boris Sobinov, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Kiev tram, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your blocking of AOL IPs

It is inappropriate to block AOL IPs for long periods such as a week. They change very quickly from user to user and you cannot predict who will be affected by such blocks. As a result, I urge you to shorten your AOL blocks to somewhere between 15 minutes and a few hours. 02:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My blocks only affect unregistered users (because of the new features of the blocking software). Spend a few seconds and get yoursef an account. abakharev 03:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, etc.

I have blocked four editors (and warned a fifth), most of whom I consider to be productive. The problem is that despite a long history of edit warring at that article, and warnings about edit warring before, and a prior protection of that article, all of the editors in question, including Irpen, continued that sterile edit war. It's just 24 hours to cool off and take the time to think about the edit warring a bit before it gets too far. The first revert I cited was a content addition (which wasn't what I was citing) along with reverting the tag again in the same edit. The fact that the same people continued edit warring but used different tags does not change the fact of the unporductive edit war. I don't quite see a reason to reverse the block, as talk page discussion tempered with continuing reverting is not all that helpful. Dmcdevit·t 05:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grafikm reverted twice today (which is considerably different than three times in seven days), and the self-revert is true, but it's only because (as the edit history shows) he meant to revert AndriyK and continue the edit war, but Telex reverted AndriyK first, so he accidentally reverted Telex. It was still participating in an edit war. No one is entitled to revert, two per day or otherwise. The fact is that his unproductive edit warring today has reignited the conflict unnecessarily. Dmcdevit·t 05:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ake a look at [19] if you didn't read it. rpen was edit warring at this very article in October 2005, and has been very frequently ever since. Months of it, mostly with AndriyK. To me, it looks like you are trying to tag a specific revert number to a specific time frame, when it seems like the sensible thing to do is look at the situation, especially as it has developed over time, and conclude that this will continue unabated over time if the participants are allowed to continue edit warring like nothing is wrong. Of course, I don't object to you bringing the matter up on ANI (perhaos an {{unblock}} will do the job quicker), but I'm not sure how much longer I'll be awake. Dmcdevit·t 06:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with Roitr again!

Can you please help to fight the long-term vandal Roitr again? Now he created numerous new sockpuppets. Latest info you can find here: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr but be careful! Now he continously vandalizes that page and removes entries, so please refer to the last reliable version. This page obviously needs semi-protection to prevent it from vandalism.--Nixer 08:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done abakharev 09:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much!--Nixer 11:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Lazar Kaganovich

Done. Thanks for your help! TheQuandry 01:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

Thanks for semi-protecting the various Super Sentai articles that needed it. jgp (T|C) 14:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: 161.38.223.245

You blocked this IP indefinitely. Are you sure it isn't shared? Canderous Ordo 22:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for noting this, I only meant 24 h block, hit a wrong button. Unblocked abakharev 23:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your article, Fyodor Pirotsky, was selected for DYK!

On July 13, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fyodor Pirotsky, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 02:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 24.192.44.141

24.192.44.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked until 13 August by you [20] because of an "attempt to make a contact with a fourteen year old."[21] The evidence given in Wikipedia Abuse Reports consisted of User:Karrmann's complaint in the Administrators' Noticeboard [22] and the anonymous user's comment in Karrmann's user page.[23]

I've looked at the anon user's edit & at Karrmann's complaint, as well as the block notice, and I was wondering if everything really added up on this one, in hindsight. There seems to be a misapprehension on Karrmann's part about what Anon intended with his comment. I'm not seeing anything in Anon's comment to support Karrmann's assertion that Anon is a "predater" (sic). On that basis, I was wondering if a block of this duration makes sense in retrospect, and I was hoping I could persuade you to give it a second look. As an aside, I have no connection to either of these users. I just happened to see the abuse report and had a hard time understanding what abuse needed reported to the anon user's ISP. Thanks for your time & consideration, and feel free to contact me via my talk page if you'd like to chat about this. --Ssbohio 05:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking warning

You just left a warning on my talk page not to blank articles. Funny thing is that I did not blank any articles. Mind explaining what you thought you were trying to warn me about? Looking at your contribution history I don't see you undoing any edits I did to any articles, so it's not that you saw an edit and placed the wrong warning tag there. Did you enter the wrong IP address? 172.144.114.109 07:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Rybakov Vospominanie.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Rybakov Vospominanie.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 00:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a couple of sentences describibg the book to the Anatoly Rybakov article and restored the image. abakharev 01:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK?

Did you know? was updated. On 15 July, 2006, a fact from the article Yanis Kanidis, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request your attention to the GoldToeMarionette case

GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) had a WP:RFCU inappropriately completed on their account by Jayjg (talk · contribs) and Hall Monitor (talk · contribs) blocked the account after it was identified as a multiple account despite their being no violation of Wikipedia policy by GoldToeMarionette. These users did not respond to requests to undo the action.

Other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Comments on RFCU itself [24]

Other Admins contacted [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

Hall Monitor was emailed with no reply

GoldToeMarionette posted on the account's User and Talk Pages seeking assistance until the talk page was protected. User:GoldToeMarionette User_talk:GoldToeMarionette

GoldToeMarionette notified article contributors that illustrative examples were subject to an AfD. The account strictly followed the WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming guideline. The AfD was without controversy. GoldToeMarionette did not participate in the vote. HereToCleanup removed the posts following the AfD in accord with the widely accepted Wikipedia Guideline Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming that states "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete." [30]

Since GoldToeMarionette was strictly following Wikipedia Policy, there should not have been a Check User completed by Jayjg. Hall Monitor only blocked the account because it was labeled as a sockpuppet by Jayjg's completed Check User. Absent policy violation it should not have been processed in RFCU or been blocked. I am asking for your help to confirm that policy was not violated, administrative action should not have been taken, and request that the administrative action be reversed by unblocking GoldToeMarionette and unprotecting the talk page. Thank you for your time with this request. WhiteAnkletMarionette 00:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the actions by Hallmonitor to be correct. If you are disagree you are welcome to start WP:RFC or any other WP:DR actions abakharev 00:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WangFeiHung Ban Request

Alex, this user, and a sock puppet he allegedly controls continues to add non-NPOV statements on the Anson Chan articles, alleging that the British colonial administrations committed brutalities and atrocities in Hong Kong.

He has repeated added his Communist comments on the Anson Chan page despite numerous warnings from me and others who care about this, and calls those who disagrees with his commentaries anti-Chinese and Nazis. I am begging with you to please ban this user, or at least approve a page protection for the Anson Chan page. I hope I will hear from you soon. Thanks for your attention to this matter. --Arbiteroftruth 02:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

–––––––
Dear Alex, I wish to clarify some confusions you have about the British administration in Hong Kong.

Yes, indeed, the British government was not elected, but never, ever did it exercised any dictatorial powers (although theoretically, it can rightly do so). The only time the British administration did exercised any form of rights restriction was during the 1960's leftist protests. The leftists at the time, allegedly mobilised by the Maoist government in China at the time, attempted to violently overthrow the British administration and install a communist regime.

Many Hong Kong people were content with the British administration, and don't care so much about politics. Interests in politics only increased in recent years because Hong Kong people wanted to get rid of a bad leader (he eventually resigned).

WangFeiHung clearly sides with the leftist crowd. These people have wreaked havoc in Hong Kong before, and wished to foist upon the Hong Kong people a Communist government, and yet, WangFeiHung dares to even say that the British Administration dictates and brutalizes the Hong Kong people! Surely, Wikipedia has not turned into a Maoist cafe of opinions!

Although the outcome what not the one I desired, and that I am not in agreement with the decision, I will respect it and I wish to thank you for your attention to this matter. However, I wish you will change your mind on this matter. WFH's edits are extremely POV and this cannot be allowed if Wikipedia is to have even an iota of reputation for impartiality. Arbiteroftruth 05:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

–––––––
Alex, leftist are people too, I understand, but everyone who thinks is a human on this planet, no matter how extreme their beliefs are. I mean, dictators are people too, by this definition. I can personally attest to the fact that WangFeiHung's beliefs on this matter is a purely leftist belief, and in Hong Kong, they are as close to "The Earth is flat, and Isreal caused it" as you can get. Hong Kong people, who suffered from leftist protests and Communist regimes before, do not like leftist ideologies. --Arbiteroftruth 05:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

–––––––
I will adhere to your advice on this matter. If things get serious (blatant vandalism arises), I will officially request that he be banned. However, he does allegedly have a sockpuppet (user:Wangfeihung). What should we do about that? --Arbiteroftruth 06:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

–––––––
Thanks for the ban, Alex. O BTW, Alex, I am thinking about getting an adminship in the future. Given the contribs I have made as of now, do you think I have what it takes? If not, how should I improve? --Arbiteroftruth 07:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

–––––––
Thanks for the advice! --Arbiteroftruth 15:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your article, Vadim Delaunay, was selected for DYK!

On July 16, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vadim Delaunay, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 05:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA thanks

Hello Alex Bakharev/Archive6, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grand master ka 06:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicle of Current events

Hi Alex, I think I redid all of the links to this page, but if I search the en Wikipedia on "Chronicle of Current Events" nothing shows up. Do I also need to index the new name or something? Jbhood 08:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be proud of yourself

An editor has been blocked indefinitely without a reason, and yet you diligently block his attempts to discuss his position. Be proud of yourself!--151.47.90.90 10:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support!

Good evening, Alex Bakharev. Thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of (67/0/0)! Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have suggestions or requests - either of an admin nature or otherwise! :)

Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) 01:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Alex, are you serious in suspecting User:Mywayyy/88.218.*.* is actually me? I've just been reporting him and rolling him back all these days. I mean, I might be a little bit schizophrenic, but not schizophrenic enough to lead a persistent revert war against myself. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, sorry abakharev 08:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks, no problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]