Jump to content

User talk:Russavia/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Ambassadors

Please be careful, I don't think that "Ambassadors of the Soviet Union to..." is better than "Soviet ambassadors to..." as a category name, because then we will have to create the ridiculous category "Ambassadors of the Soviet Russia to..." for 1918-1922. Colchicum (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories Ambassadors of Soviet Russia to xxx aren't actually ridiculous, as there were diplomats of Soviet Russia to several countries, including Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bukharan People's Soviet Republic; and then there were Plenipotentiaries from Soviet Russia to several other countries. "Soviet Ambassadors" is actually quite ambiguous, believe it or not. --Russavia Dialogue 13:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, then it is up to you to integrate the existing "Soviet ambassadors" categories with the categories you create, and probably there should be some unifying category, otherwise the "Ambassadors of Soviet Russia" category wouldn't make much sense. Colchicum (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Adolph Joffe certainly falls under "Ambassadors of Soviet Russia to Germany", not "Ambassadors of the Soviet Union to Germany". Colchicum (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
He is indeed of "Soviet Russia" serving in 1918/1919. After I finish with my current project, I may do Germany next; this will help sort out USSR from RSFSR. --Russavia Dialogue 00:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The confusion of Soviet = USSR with Soviet = Soviet or Bolshevik Russia (I recall at least one treaty indicating "Bolshevik" Russia as signatory) should be avoided, as the USSR is clearly a successor state to Soviet/Bolshevist Russia and the USSR did not necessarily consider itself beholden to agreements entered into by its predecessor state. PetersV       TALK 03:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Putin

I remember you from the Criticism of Putin AfD, where you made one of the best points about criticism articles I can remember. This is why I'm talkpaging you: do you want to go about splitting the content into other articles? Sceptre (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I see that someone has takenn it back to AfD, so I have placed my opinion there, and I will think about creating Domestic policy of Vladimir Putin and/or associated articles, where information can be split out from the main article and expanded upon. This subject is also unusual in that we also have Putinism, which is just another WP:POVFORK criticism article. --Russavia Dialogue 07:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Koov?

See Greenpo. Looks like Koov, but I just wanted to be sure. The same interest in removing Kosovo from diplomatic templates. Let me know if you have an opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hard to tell with this one, as there are actually many constructive edits in amongst them. But like Koov, the edits are limited mainly to the templates and diplomatic missions, and the username is similar to User:Kinpo, which is one of his socks. I'd hazard a guess with almost certainty that it is Koov. --Russavia Dialogue 01:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

AE comment

I made a comment about you here. You are very welcome to respond. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Noted. --Russavia Dialogue 18:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Diplomatic missions of Russia

It has been about six months since Russavia's proposed new bold format was developed, using a table, smaller pictures, names of heads of missions and cross accreditations. We did not come to any consensus about using it - but it was a good opportunity to see how it would look. May I also add we were worn down by Russavia's persistence that his design stay, that we redo the taxonomy of the DMBC articles ("by sending state", "by receiving state"), and we allow all those articles of Russian missions (and missions to Russia) to exist, even if they just consist of the name of the ambassador and its address.

I am still not convinced that the design of Russavia's format is an improvement on the existing design, or that these articles are the right place to list heads of missions or accreditations. I have not seen any significant endorsement of his new format, nor anybody stating they wanted to make wholesale changes to all articles.

Please note what the Arbitration Committee states about MoS conflicts:

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that the Manual of Style is not binding, that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.

Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

As the first major contributor of this article I intend now to revert the article back to its original style, including any subsequent updates.

Please add your views in the talk page of Diplomatic missions of Russia.

Kransky (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yanda Airlines

Just a heads up, I've asked the deleter to re-open as I don't think it meets a speedy cruteria and there's no reason not to let the AfD run. I think I may have found evidence for the airline's existence beyond the code and would like time to look further into this. StarM 03:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Уважаемый Russavia!

Означает ли открытие Вами возможности редактирования страницы http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin для меня, то что Вы все-таки ознакомились с контентом сайта Putin.ru и поняли, что он может заинтересовать посетителей WIKI? Или все-таки, Вы придерживаетесь другого мнения о приоритетах читателей? Интересно где же Вы обнаружили спам? А еще интереснее причина Вашего особого мнения? И особенно на фоне картинки "ПРИВЕТ МЕДВЕД"!!! Может Вы из ЕР? Ну так и мы оттуда! Хотелось бы обсудить!

С Уважением, Putinru! Putinru (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Stars

Превед, Russavia. Could you please make a picture of USSR Hero star similar to File:Hero of the Russian Federation medal.png? --Rave (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ravva, what you doing in this neck of the woods? :) I actually found that file on the Chechen MVD website, but they don't have the USSR Hero one. I will ask Zscout, and he may be able to make it from this one, or something. I'll let you know in due course ok. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 16:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

tamakwa michael greene

the shorter version would be approproate a this point. David Greene —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.179.90 (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ambassador of Russia to Austria

Updated DYK query On March 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ambassador of Russia to Austria, 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.

Royalbroil 01:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking for articles from French media

I am working on an article on enwiki at the moment, and have come across 3 French sources which I am trying to acquire so that I can use them on the article. There are 2 Le Monde articles at lemonde.fr [1] + [2]. Unfortunately their archive is paid access only, so ideally I would like to find someone who may have access to lemonde.fr archives who can supply me with these articles. The other article is from Paris Match No 724 du 23.02.63 (that's 1963), on Vachislav Michelovitch Zaitsev (Vyacheslav Zaitsev/Slava Zaitsev) -- this article is especially important as it was the Soviet designers first review in non-Soviet press. Any help/suggestions on sourcing these articles is appreciated. Please make contact with me at en:User:Russavia, but I will check this thread for any responses. Thanks, --Russavia (d) 1 avril 2009 à 12:46 (CEST)

I will take care of that. I will send them by e-mail. Poppy (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for providing the Le Monde articles. I see there is information in them that I will definitely be able to use in the article, so thank you for that. If you are unable to help with the Paris Match article, might you be able to give some advice on how I could go about sourcing it, as it is not available in any of our libraries in Australia. --Russavia Dialogue 07:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Kremlin project

Kremlin Wall Necropolis has just been updated. Any suggestions for a DYK? I really like Khruschov's fear of fruit flies hovering above Ilyich. NVO (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You have done an excellent job with the expansion. Well done. As for DYK suggestion, I do find your suggestion absolutely hilarious (I can picture it clearly in my head) and would make for a great DYK hook suggestion. Also, I think this is at FA standard already, and with a little copy-editing it would be easy to attain; if you feel the same way in this regard and want to take it to WP:FAR, let me know and I will help to copy-edit it before you do that. --Russavia Dialogue 14:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome! :)

Не желаешь поучаствовать? :) Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

CPRF

I've answered on my talk, I'll perhaps elaborate on my post in the article during the next weekend, when I'll have some time again. Generally speaking, suddenly appearing to revert in articles you've never edited before but that are currently being edited by someone you're having another dispute at the moment, well, might not be a good idea, at least in the cruel Wiki world. The problem is that besides being bad-faithed creatures, some say Wikipedians are thin-skinned and peevish, persistently wanting to find a way to retaliate ;-). Take care, --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Responded on your talk here. --Russavia Dialogue 13:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was User:Offliner has consulted WP:EL and has acted in accordance with this guideline. He also raised the issue of external links on the Computer science project talk page and has the support of one of the members of that project. Wholesale reversions of content, particularly when using only rvv as an edit summary, is not an assumption of good faith, and dare I say it that an editor is following Offliners edits, and acting in a tedious way towards other editors. I don't have a background in computer science, but I understand that Offliner may, so my revertion on a couple of articles of another editor is due to my assuming good faith on Offliner's part, in that he checked the external links and made a judgement based upon WP:EL in removing them. After having reviewed the links before I touched the article/s, I can only agree with Offliner's assessment. Now stop bothering me with nonsense and go and create some content, because frankly, discussing this further is like getting flogged with a warm lettuce. --Russavia Dialogue 07:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It was brought to my attention that you requested several users (D. and M.) not to leave any messages at your talk page. Please also do not leave any messages at my talk page. Thank you for understanding.Biophys (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I will continue to post on your talk page when policies and the like require it. I told Digwuren and Martintg to stay off my talk page because they were stalking and harrassing, and that was recognised by others at the AE, and an admin warned them against on their own talk pages. --Russavia Dialogue 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Making baseless accusations is a violation of WP:NPA. Please withdraw the accusation, cease from reiterating them, and your apology will be gratefully accepted. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 06:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Also very, very, very, very interesting is how 3 editors, 2 of which have posted above, all of a sudden have such an interest in Huffman coding. It's obvious Digwuren is following Offliner's edits, so who was Biophys and Vecrumba following? Don't answer, we already know the answer that. Discussion closed. --Russavia Dialogue 07:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Since you're smearing my integrity, with reference to your so-called archived discussion:
Having been voted an honorary math and physics major at Cooper Union--one of the top engineering colleges in the U.S.--(while graduating with a major in engineering) and having managed a project creating a product used by all the major NY banks to connect to the Federal Reserve via communications compressed by Huffman coding, I do like to poke around scientific topics, also including to see what non-history editing Biophys has been doing. Up until your popping up rather unexpectedly, it's been a pleasant diversion.
   Don't flatter yourself and I expect you to retract your accusations of bad faith stalking. You're the perfect example of an editor who smears all editors they don't agree with accusations of what they do themselves, plus you're on the self-aggrandizing ego trip that there are editors that slavishly follow your every move as opposed to considering there are simpler and more benign explanations for editors showing up on a particular article. That, my dear Russavia, makes you a conspiracy theorist.
   And yours and Offliner's mathematical backgrounds would be? As you say, don't bother, case closed. PetersV       TALK 02:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
college graduate = выпускник ПТУ. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"Russian scare" in Pacific in late 1800s

Hi there, you might be interested in creating this article. In the 1880s & 1890s Australian colonies & New Zealand armed themselves against what was later called the "Russian scares" : fears of Russia controlling their sealanes and even invading. My personal theory is that this fear was built up by British arms suppliers rather than any political facts, but you seem in a position to write a balanced article if you're interested - we don't hear much from the Russian point of view on this. regards. Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rod, I am currently working on User:Russavia/Australia–Russia relations, and the relations between Australia and the Russian Empire were indeed basically based around the paranoia surrounding innocent visits by Russian ships to the colonial shores. It would be nice if I could find something concerning Russian visits out West, but as usual Australian history is all east-coast centric ;) Some of the sources I am using, such as http://www.elena.id.au have some great information on that subject. But the "Russian scare" is indeed worthy of its own article, but to be honest, I don't know when I would have a chance to get around to writing it myself, but if others were to create it, I can be called upon to provide information from the Russian perspective (sources) if required. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 09:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Newsbank

Quite a lot you have there! I will take a look and see if I can get a hold of them, and email them to you if I can. bibliomaniac15 18:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've sent you an email so you have my email address for ease if they helps any. BTW, advertising you have access to Newsbank, could be a dangerous exploit for yourself, as you have just found out. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 19:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Heh...It's all right. It may be tedious, but at least when you have a black belt in Google-fu it is quite simple. bibliomaniac15 19:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Source code written by editors

Could you take a look: [3]. This seems like a huge problem in Wikipedia. Offliner (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Georgian protest

I couldn't find an article for this yet, so I created 2009 Opposition protests in Georgia. What do you think? It will definitely be notable event, regardless of whether Saakashvili is overthrown or not. Let's hope for the best. Offliner (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, it will obviously go ahead, but whether it will be notable or not is yet to be seen. As to the result, if any, the Georgian opposition is just as hostile towards Russia, so it's more of a case of the enemy of the enemy is my enemy. --Russavia Dialogue 06:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Still, anything is better than Saakashvili ;) Offliner (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Well possibly, there's some figures in Georgia who are even more hardline than Misha. But the good thing is that Georgians have finally woken up to what Misha is all about. --Russavia Dialogue 06:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It is somewhat refreshing that relatively educated Russians have finally understood that whoever comes to the government in Tbilisi, Georgia will not succumb to Russian rule or "Finlandization". It is not even the case of the enemy of the enemy is my enemy, but just of having pleasure of observing some unrest in the hostile country.--KoberTalk 07:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It's got nothing to with Russians being happy to observe unrest in Georgia, although they wouldn't be unhappy if Misha is ousted. Georgia may not succumb to Russian rule, but it will have to realise that it has lost Abkhazia and South Ossetia forever, because of the actions of a Georgian president who had US interests at heart, rather than that of his own people. Good luck with getting rid of the man who has done more harm than good for his own compatriots, hopefully the next leader is better than him. --Russavia Dialogue 07:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of KrisWorld

(I'm breaking my own rule and replying here, since it's not really the sort of comment one expects a reply to.) I was completely mystified by your comment, since I was sure that I never created this article. In fact, I created the article as a redirect to Singapore Airlines. Rumpelandrew was effectively the creator of this page, as the user who created the first non-redirect revision of the article, and I have left an appropriate notice on their talk page. Brian Jason Drake 11:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No prob, I use WP:TWINKLE and other tools, and one thing it does when creating AfDs is that it notifies the first editor automatically. But thanks for advising Rumpelandrew too. --Russavia Dialogue 12:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Falsification of history

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was boredom from having to listen to Vecrumba's POV-pushing on my talk page.

That colleague of ours has been most productive of late, hasn't he? I think it's a fairly useless template in its present form. Quite simply, it implies that the whole field of "historic falsifications" mainly revolves around the subjects of Holocaust and the Soviet historiography. Making it more comprehensive would help, but I very much doubt that this is it's author's goal. Óðinn (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Denial of Holocaust atrocities and denial of Soviet atrocities do have parallels, for example, denying people being ripped out of their homes and taken away in cattle trains to their deaths. Whether you're taken to a camp and gassed by one homicidal maniac or your body is tossed off onto the frozen tundra becuase you died of starvation and hypothermia before your cattle train made it to your GULAG camp, you're still dead at the hands of a homicidal maniac. PetersV       TALK 02:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
And whitewashing of the Nazi collaborators in Latvia is somehow better? I don't see that mentioned by the template in question. Óðinn (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Who has whitewashed anything? The collaboration of Latvian SD units in the Holocaust have been fully acknowledged. Ezergailis' research and book on the Holocaust in Latvia (supported by a grant from the United States Holocaust Museum) paints that picture in all its tragic detail.
   What the Russian government trumpets about the Latvians parading every year to glorify the convicted-at-Nuremberg Latvian SS is a plain and simple lie. The Waffen SS units were formed in 1943, were in fact illegally conscripted (or given choices to "volunteer" for duty which included choices known to have an even shorter life expectancy than duty in the Waffen SS), did not pledge any allegiance to the Reich except for the first 300 forced to do so, and fought on the Eastern Front. If the Waffen SS were the "colllaborators" that Russia paints them to be, then how did it come that (at that point former) Latvian Waffen SS were posted as guards by the Allies (rather odd, weren't the Soviets Allies?) at Nuremburg?
   The template simply mentions propaganda and the need for an open mind. My family's experience of the Nazis in Latvia includes my father-in-law (a teen at the time) finding their family's best friend, Jewish, decapitated--that after running over fields strewn with corpses to try to get to her to warn her. That you're reading an utterly reprehensible agenda of whitewashing Nazi crimes into the template is you, the template is merely your excuse to make your accusations. Don't presume to tar me with whatever brush you have handy for whatever "whitewashing" you think I'm part of. PetersV       TALK 15:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Please feel free to transplant to your talk or mine if you wish to discuss further. PetersV       TALK 15:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
With shit like Template:Notpropaganda POV's which go against your POV not being welcome, the Soviet POV is not able to be given equal weight, which is explicitly against the Latvian arbcoms. And what I find incredulous with your comments on the TfD, is that whilst the blatant POV-pushing by several parties, yourself included, is now in the open for everyone to see, and is obvious by the number of uninvolved editors who say delete that rubbish against the POV-warriors fighting to keep it, if one took time to even find out, they might find out that my view actually mirror theirs in some way; what I don't like is the violent POV-pushing by "the amigos", and the apparent fact they are here to advocate. --Russavia Dialogue 15:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for verifying your agenda. The Soviet so-called "POV" (and let's be clear, much of that "version" of history is fabrication) deserves mention, not "equal weight" as it does not have facts to support it. And thank you also for confirming your methods, namely accuse others of the tactics you employ yourself. PetersV       TALK 03:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC) And to your "we might find we have more in common" (my paraphrase) that would be welcome, but the explitives and pigeon-holing of editors simply because of nationality and the constant accusations that it's all just about POV, not the facts, has to cease. PetersV       TALK 04:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

... or three. NVO (talk)

and I'll offer to wash it down with some kvass. PetersV       TALK 20:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Vecrumba, but don't you have some Russian Standard I could wash it down with instead? I'm still waiting for my new supply to arrive from Moscow, and I'm all out. --Russavia Dialogue 20:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually there's quite a good selection at our local Russian supermarket (where I shop regularly). I'll have to check which ones they carry next time. :-) PetersV       TALK 01:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's quite likely Russ and it's surely Avia

Just posted Osoaviakhim-1. Comments/fixes/DYK suggestions ? NVO (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

SOwar and Emma Nicholson

How's it going? I was wondering, do you think it might be a good idea to take 2008 South Ossetia war to some formal feedback/peer review process? Usually it's hard to get too many improvement suggestions on the article talk page, so this could be useful in getting some more. I already know a lot of things that should be done, but I think it could useful to try to get as many suggestions as possible.

BTW, did you see that Emma Nicholson shit at 2009 Moldova civil unrest? WP:UNDUE is probably the one of the hardest and most complicated guidelines to follow in Wikipedia. But I think giving just one member of the OSCE team 30x more space than everything else in the report seems like a classic example of undue weight to me. BBC's report about the protest didn't mention Emma Nicholson at all: [4]. Offliner (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

About the SOwar article, it is probably best to raise that on the article talk page. But yes, with the same people putting forward the same arguments, it isn't going to go anywhere, so getting outside opinion may be a good avenue to take. On the Moldova article, yes, her opinion on that article within the background section is undue, because it's one person's opinion. If anything her opinion can be put into the election article, in an undue manner. I'd suggest getting Socor's opinion - even he says the elections were free and fair. To understand her being pissed, look at her biography, "Freedom House", enough said I think. --Russavia Dialogue 19:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems impossible to remove Nicholson's rant from the article. The only possible solution is to add more material on the positive aspects, which just makes the article bloated. It's really amazing who just one observer (one of the 280 observers,) who obviously can assest the situation only in her observation area (near Transnitria,) is given so much space in relation to everything else. Offliner (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It's also interesting to note, that whoever inserted Nicholson's craziness forgot to mention that she also said "but we couldn't find any proof." Sometimes I really wonder what is going on in Wikipedia. Also note this: Petros Efthymiou, head of the delegation of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and Special Co-ordinator of the OSCE short-term observers, said that he was delighted at the progress of democracy im Moldova. "These elections were very good and they gave me great confidence in the future of this country. Why were Nicholson's commented included, but not Efthymiou's? Offliner (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It's per the weasel policy. Or would you prefer that the article say "OSCE reported that the election was generally fair and balanced, but didn't present any proof."?
I'm hoping you now understand why mentioning non-existing stuff on Wikipedia is problematic. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Offy, on the article, simply reduce her per opinion as per WP:UNDUE. We don't need long rants in articles. There is nothing in what she says that can't adequately be summarised in a short sentence. --Russavia Dialogue 14:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Medvedev's article

Are you familiar with the Dmitry Medvedev's article? Have you noticed how a huge section of his biography is based on the claims of Felshtinsky & Co.? In my opinion, biography sections should be based only on generally accepted, 100% sure facts. If controversies exist, they should be briefly mentioned and then perhaps discussed in a separate criticism chapter. I think putting such a huge rant by notorious opposition critics in the biography section is a violation of WP:NPOV. In a similar fashion we wouldn't base the biography of a leading Western politician on the views of his worst critics. You probably have more knowledge of WP:BLP articles than me - what do you think? Offliner (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The latest nuttery

What do you think of this: Russian influence operations in Estonia? Why are there no similar articles in Wikipedia, such as American influence operations in Europe or American influence operations in (name your country)? The reason: such articles would be inherently based on pure speculation by political columnists. Wikipedia is not a political journal. Everyone tries to influence other countries - it's called international politics. I think this fine piece of political journalism should be taken to AfD; it has no place in Wikipedia. Offliner (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes Offy, the article is a piece of rubbish, but you know what, I really don't care what the rabid pov-pushers do anymore, for I didn't sign up for WP to deal with the rabid Res Publica nationalist crowd, and those who are still fighting a long-finished Cold War in their minds. I would be redirecting this particular piece of rubbish to Estonia-Russia relations as it is a mish-mash of WP:POVFORK, WP:OR/WP:SYN and of course WP:NOTADVOCATE and if it is reversed, take it to AfD straight away. Of course, you need to get more interest beyond the usual suspects to get shit like this removed from what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. On a general level, just remember WP:DIGWUREN and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes; read them and familiarise yourself with them, for when they go back to Arbcom, such things are only go to show their treatment of WP as a battleground, the Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) article is the latest prime example of this (and so soon after the falsification of material in Putinjugend which you verified as being false -- (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban kazak is valid there). So you know what, I say let them write their little pieces of crap all over WP; in fact, we should be encouraging such behaviour. as it will simply be digging their own holes. You may have seen the discussion which took place in which editors were talking about myself cultivating a cult of Putin on Commons, and that creation of articles such as Koni (dog) make them sick. I don't care what they think in this regard, because only a fool can say that uploading of materials to Commons is cultivating a cult, and only a fool would say that creation of content is a bad thing. As User:Ezhiki wrote once, people will see the rubbish they write for what it is, and I believe that people will see them for who we already know they really are. So getting back to it, yes, redirect or AfD it. I've got it on my watchlist, so I will catch whatever course of action is taken. --Russavia Dialogue 18:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please help pass on a message

Russavia, I would politely like to ask for your assistance. I noticed on the article Alexander Reshideovich Dyukov, that Beatle Fab Four appears to have been marking almost all his edits, whether substantive or not, as "minor". A glance at his user contributions showed that he does this consistently. I tried to point out to him on his talk page that this is not good wiki etiquette, but he reacted by simply erasing my comment from his talk page. He has, of course, every right to erase comments from his WP:User talk page, even though this is not usually encouraged. I don't think he'll listen to an anti-Semitic, Russophobic, etc., etc. Baltic cabal fascist (or whatever else one would choose to call me) like me, even on a technical matter. But he might just get the message from you—a fellow editor whom I think he may respect—that removing sourced statements from an article for any reason does not constitute a WP:Minor edit. Note that my purpose is not to question the intent, quality, or content of his edits; I merely want him to stop misusing the "minor edit" checkbox. If you don't have the time or inclination to intervene in this matter, I'll understand. Sincerely, Zalktis (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: I also look forward to you starting an article on the Medvedev Doctrine. —Zalktis (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Zalktis, I will mention this on his talk page, no problem at all. But please don't think that editors will think that your are an anti-Semitic, Russophobic, etc, etc Baltic cabal fascist, we'll assume good faith with it. And I will get around to Medvedev Doctrine/Foreign policy of Dmitry Medvedev one of these days. You are welcome to work with me on it if you so wish. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 16:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! —Zalktis (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Request

You know how you, every now and then, post a request on my talk page about something I could really care less about, yet I still make an effort to find something? How about we switch sides this time and I ask you to look at this AfD. Is there anything you can do?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:56, April 15, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know what you mean, however, in this instance I have to agree with the nomination. There is no direct diplomatic representation, there is no direct transport ties (although I believe Cargolux does fly to Sydney and Melbourne, but not directly to Luxembourg), there's no state visits, etc. There is basically very little bilateral interaction between the two countries. I can't wait for Australia-Russia relations to be nominated. But the Luxembourg is unlike Madagascar-Russia relations in which there have been state visits (numerous during the 70s and 80s), many treaties, past transport ties, the usual communist-scare rubbish, etc, etc. I just can't find anything on Australia-Luxembourg relations which makes them notable. --Russavia Dialogue 21:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, didn't expect much. Thanks anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:37, April 15, 2009 (UTC)
I'll keep looking of course, and if I can find anything I'll bring it up at the AfD. --Russavia Dialogue 21:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You should have more faith about Australia-Russia relations, at least the one you're working on. PetersV       TALK 23:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Vecrumba, I usually prefer people not to touch articles I am working on within my userspace, unless I specifically ask them to look at something (as I did with Ezhiki), or if I specifically say that people are welcome to edit it. As the article is still underdevelopment by myself, and sections are being worked on by myself, i.e. collating of information, etc, I prefer people not to edit like you did, and particularly when it has inserted editorial emotions into the article such as what you did. Whitlam did not act as Minister of Foreign Affairs, he was acting as Prime Minister of Australia, which entitles him to direct the DFAT to do this or that. He did not make the announcement in Moscow, he didn't travel to Moscow until Jan 1975, and "that the Baltics would never be free again" was never uttered by him (this is your editorial POV). I am an editor who sticks to facts as published and won't insert my own editorial into articles. Please don't edit this article under development. You are welcome to mention something on the talk page of the userspace article, but editing directly, I'd rather you didn't given the edits you made. --Russavia Dialogue 06:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please follow WP:Merge

Repeated deletions of entire article as you just did, without even debating anything at article talk page, are inacceptable. If you think the content was duplicated, please follow WP:Merge policy. Thanks,Biophys (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a debating society. Wikipedia does not allow for duplicate content in forks such as what has been done. Just how many articles do you plan on creating with exactly the same content? It's getting beyond a joke. The forking has been out of process, and as it is duplicating content, it is enough to simply merge the content. If it's done again, the whole lot will be put up for deletion. --Russavia Dialogue 17:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Photos of Russian consulates in Japan

Russian embassy in Warsaw

Finally I managed to upload them :)

File:Rusemb warsaw main building.jpg
File:Rusemb warsaw consular section.jpg
File:Rusemb warsaw consular section 2.jpg
File:Rus high school warsaw.jpg

Masti (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

India–Malta relations

Would you mind looking this one over again, as I have updated the article and greatly expanded it. Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 02:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Defense of Brest Fortress

I am sorry that the thread on AN is such an annoyance, I hope you and Biophys can patch things up. Here's something I hope you'll find more pleasant: some time ago I created an article on the Defense of Brest Fortress, but I am still surprised there is no ru interwiki. Can you check if there is indeed no such article on ru Wikipedia? Perhaps you would have some materials (photos...?) that could be used to improve this article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a dedicated article on ruwiki on this battle, but it is a subsection at ru:Брестская_крепость#Оборона Брестской крепости в 1941 году. I have added that as an interwiki link, as I think it is alright to link like that? Who knows eh? About photos, as it was after 22 June 1941, any photos from the battle would not be PD. The image used on ruwiki may be able to be used under some fair use. The only photo that I know of relating to the battle is this -- File:Dmitry Medvedev in Belarus 22 June 2008-4.jpg -- of Medvedev and Batka at the Brest Memorial, and perhaps a couple of others from commons:Category:Dmitry Medvedev in Belarus. Apart from those, I am totally clueless as to other photos that we may be able to use. It's these types of issues that make me even more inclined to approach the Russian Archives to get materials licenced under a free licence, this may be something I will try to work with the wikimedia-ru chapter on in future. --Russavia Dialogue 21:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Interwiki to subsections should be only temporary, perhaps you could stub a separate article on ru wiki? I know there is a museum at the Fortress; hopefully one day some Wikipedian will photograph the exhibits. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
So long as they are ok on a temporary basis that's cool with me. I've got a few articles I wanna get finished first before I worry about other things, when I've done those, I will have a look at perhaps just getting at least a start-class article done, with the basics. I'll ask a few others about photos too. --Russavia Dialogue 06:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I crossed out my response at the talk page. Sorry for being excessively confrontational. You are welcome at my talk page if you want to discuss anything.Biophys (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A question

I think there is a strong bias cast over you and I don't know why. My previous question seems to be still pertinent to this persistent sockpuppetry accusation by him[5] Can you give me a hint? Thanks.--Caspian blue 22:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your question is a looooong and frankly it is a complete headf**k (I am getting one now even thinking about it). In September last year I was blocked attempted outing of Biophys after I placed a COI notice on his talk page; I still dispute that it was outting, but due to the bullshit that was going on at the time in relation to User:Miyokan it was construed as harrassment, rightly or wrongly. Anyway, I copped it on the chin and moved on. Since then, well, you can look at *to be fair I won't post it directly, but can be found in my userspace by using Special:PrefixIndex* that there has been a long sustained harrassment and wikihounding campaign by numerous editors. It isn't complete by any stretch of the imagination, so it could be quite unclear. I can say that in the last month there hasn't been any stalking by those editors, mainly due to myself pretty much restricting myself to researching and writing at User:Russavia/Slava Zaitsev and User:Russavia/Australia–Russia relations, in addition to small bits and pieces on other articles on my watchlist. But as to why? The answer is simple. I try to follow the advice given to me at User_talk:Ezhiki/2009#Can_you_provide_some_assistance_here_please as much as possible, and is partly why I am working on content in my userspace as of late. Of course, I am totally aware of discussions going on at places like User_talk:Digwuren#Are_you_able_to_help_with_this.3F (this is REALLY telling!!), User_talk:Digwuren#AE (funnily enough Biophys against raises the issue there too), User_talk:Colchicum/Archive#Trollfest (and again Biophys raises the issue), User_talk:Colchicum/Archive#Civility (and again). I realise that we are an encyclopaedia (apparently) and editors who are here to advocate do not like it, and I think it's great they don't like it. They hate the fact that I upload images to Commons; they hate the fact that I've created content that they don't like; they hate the fact that I will try to make articles NPOV, thereby getting rid of the rabid POV in many articles. And for all of this, I am a target, pure and simple. They can claim that I have caused all this, but that is a load of horseshit, because it has been like that in this area of editing for a looooong time. There is Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions which can be looked at. It isn't enough to simply look at the accusations of sharing my account/sockpuppetry/etc, but one has to look at conversations (such as those I have linked to above) in their entireity in order to understand what is happening. Even then it may not be completely clear. Hope this helps answer your question, if not, feel free to email me. --Russavia Dialogue 00:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ahmm.. what can I say...given the ANI thread, I truly think that the thick bias against you would not be gone for a while. You would better disengage in contacting with him...Best regards.--Caspian blue 04:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Russavia/Archive_10&oldid=1089989185"