I noticed that your AlexNewArtBot archive pages for the Ireland WikiProject are truncated. Only the most recent archive is not truncated, no doubt because it is not as large (about 47 screens full) a file as the others. On opening the edit of a page, prior to #8, the following warning is displayed: Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included. Is it possible to shorten the pages so all archived results can be displayed on each page? TIA ww2censor (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, for the long delay. It looks like the archive pages exceed the allowed number of templates as we have two templates per entry: {{user}} and {{article}}. I have to subst all the templates in the archive. I will do it then I will have time Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, we need to be careful about linking to compromat.ru. As it is not a reliable source for information, it is also most likely that it is holding materials on the site in violation of copyright. As you see from the Russia-Ukraine relations article, one is able to use http://web.archive.org to go back and provide the original link on the original website (in this case Gazeta.ru), which does not violate the copyright of Gazeta.ru (you reverted me as I was in the process of looking for that particular one). It is the same as most other articles linked to on compromat.ru; if they can't be found on the original website, we can use archive.org in most instances to provide said information. What you think? --RussaviaDialogue07:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, but as you said on WP:RUSSIA talk, there is nothing wrong with people using such sites as a research tool to find the materials, there are usually other ways of getting information such as archive.org. Another thing I often do with articles that I know will become "restricted" article is to use WebCite and have it archived there, and provide that link within the refs. --RussaviaDialogue07:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Alex, I see you have created some graphs somewhere, can't remember where now, but could you possibly do one up for me if possible?
1992 - 99
1993 - 260
1994 - 393
1995 - 387
1996 - 389
1997 - 362
1998 - 338
1999 - 328
2000 - 296
2001 - 267
2002 - 235
2003 - 216
2004 - 199
2005 - 182
2006 - 184
2007 - 179
2008 - 175
2009 - 167
In a format such as http://www.favt.ru/imf/airl_1.gif would be enough. Of course the y axis is the year, and the x axis is the number of airlines registered in Russia in that given year.
In fact, if you are able to do this, it might be a good thing to add "1990 - 1" in order to show the rapid split up of Aeroflot, which of course was the only airline in 1990. If you can't do this, perhaps you can recommend someone to me? Cheers, --RussaviaDialogue00:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Shit, that was fast. Ask and you will receive eh. Thanks man, now with this visual, it will be easier for me to visualise the prose that I have in mind for the article. Beers and cheers, --RussaviaDialogue03:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You speedily deleted this redirect. I don't think it's that implausible a misnomer. There are a lot of references to it online (count the google hits), so people might want to look it up. Please could you restore it? Many thanks, — Alan✉15:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think the redirect is usable. In general I disagree with creation redirects in Latin letters mimicking some Cyrillic names, I think it pollutes Wikipedia space and does not serve any valid purpose. If you disagree, lets have some discussion in Wikipedia space Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alex! Sorry to disturb you... I've got a question about stresses on Russian Cyrillic words: I've seen that many Russian Cyrillic script (e.g. Lev Yashin/Лев Яшин, Roman Abramovich/Роман Абрамович, ...) contain stresses, also in Russian wiki. I was wondering if they're part of the name (so, for example, Abramovich was born Абрамо́вич and not Абрамович) or if they are only a kind of help for the pronounciation. Thank you and sorry again! --necronudist (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answer, Alex. Another little help: can you guess why here Cyrillic script of Soviet footballer Konstantin Krizhevsky's surname is written as Крижевский (Крыжевский)? --necronudist (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He probably used both Cyrillic spellings of his last name Крижевский (Krizhevsky) and Крыжевский (Kryzhevsky). The article then uses only Krizhevsky spelling, so it should be the main one. I have no idea why he has changed spelling of his last name. As a wild guess I could say that Krizhevsky sounds like a Polish last name while Kryzhevsky sounds more Russian. Maybe at a time it was safer not to emphasize his Polish background? It is just a hypothesis. Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alex (again) - this is the second time you stepped in to help resolve something with regards to an issue I have. (The first time was a few years ago) :) I may have lost my sanity if no one did what you did, or did something else. Despite how much of a problem I consider Deacon to be in his conduct and adminning, this isn't so substantive, and more than that, I'm not involved in this incident. I'll leave DR to someone who ends up involved in more substantive conflict with him (though I feel sorry for whoever that ends up being). Anyway...thanks again. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Alex, I cannot leave this as resolved after all, given that someone has expressed an intention of pursuing dispute resolution here. While my thanks went to this [1], I'm upset by your comment on the talk page which referred to my tag as a personal attack [2]. I disagree. Could you please explain this? Since when has the community, or even ArbCom for that matter, ruled it a personal attack to call a spade a spade (or to call someone's ill-considered action as their ill-considered action)? The evidence appears in the thread itself; other than myself, Giano, SirFozzie, Georgewilliamherbert and Orderinchaos could not find the preventative effect of Deacon's block, or that the block was enforced in compliance with site norms. No one but Deacon felt the block was justified and preventative. As such, I fail to see how my tag qualifies as a personal attack and I therefore request you retract that unambiguous claim. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Alex! A couple weeks ago the articles about the lines of Spb Metro were moved from their named titles to their numbered analogs (example), citing the fact that neither the city residents, nor the maps ever use the names; only the numbers are used. Is that a valid argument? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:28, February 14, 2009 (UTC)
When I lived in SPb, we use the names rather than the numbers. IMHO then the numbering was not introduced then. Then I visited SPb a few months ago the official announcements used the numbers rather than the names. Станция Технологический Институт; переход на линию один, rather than Станция Технологический Институт; переход на Кировско-Выборгскую линию. For me the literal names are much better than the numbers, but I would rather see an opinion from a present SPb resident on the matter. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Saint Petersburg since childhood, and as long as I remember myself we always used numbers (and sometimes colors), I doubt many people even know what literal names are. stassats (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
This page was protected yesterday. Could you restore it to the last version before the IP 85.5's edits began? 2 reasons: it's on the main page today, and none of the IP's edits were consensual. A few useful changes would be lost in that restoration, but nothing essential. Regards, Novickas (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you have had any position on Primakov's given name or not. But your judgment is probably something I can live with. I placed some sources on the articles talk page that seem to indicate corroborate the story that Primakov's given name was Finkelshtein. I really don't have any dog in the fight as to whether his name is Finkelshtein or Obama or anything else. I just thought it was weird that there was no mention at all in the article of the question. Perhaps its completely irrelevant anyway. But I would appreciate it if you review the sources I placed on the talk page and offer your thoughts. They are indded old and possibly have been debunked in the intervening period. Thanks. TastyPoutinetalk (if you dare)01:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Tretyak.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has been added multiple times by a single anonymous IP: [4]. The IP has been up top similar mischief on other articles. Should it get blocked?Faustian (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Alex. How are you? I hope everythings' alright. I'm currently dealing with my project which is on Terahertz spectroscopy. I realized that since my wiki-break, the articles Samad Behrangi and Timur are still protected. Is it possible for you to check these?, since both articles were protected by User:Nishkid64 after User:Khoikhoi's reverts (which were done without any notice in the talk/discussion pages) immediately indefinitely. Regards, E104421 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you identify under which blocking policy did you blocked me ? As far the images are concerned one is lying here.[5]and other's lab. is still have no mention here [6].So what was the reason for the block.User:Yousaf465
Would it be okay to set up a new article feed so I can establish if there are enough editors to support a WikiProject and make it easier to approach them about it? It would temporarily need to report to a user subpage until the project had enough support to be founded. (Please respond to my talk page or leave a talkback notice; I seem to be unable to spell your name right, so it makes finding this back harder) - Mgm|(talk)11:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to use the feed primarily to keep an eye on articles that belong to a project that does not yet exists, but I also want to use it to contact the people who create the articles in that category and make them aware of my project plans so I can see whether they'd be interested in joining. They may not be, but if they don't know about my plans in the first place it would be impossible to determine. Since I consider people creating good articles in a field the most likely to join a project, I figured I'd hit two birds with one stone. - Mgm|(talk)12:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Do you have a preferred location for the reports page and how do you fill out {{Subst:User:AlexNewArtBot/NewFeed|FeedName|Portal Name}} for a feed that doesn't yet have a related project or portal? - Mgm|(talk)12:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Preob solgier.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Atleast you replied.That is fair enough on your part.Other editor were not even interested in discussing it.Anyway,but Pakistan is not involved in Sri lankan 's war with LTTE.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
Thanks for your previous block. It seems that the blocked editor has returned, albeit with a slightly different IP but the exact same edit that he kept adding earlier: [11]. Faustian (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please take a look at this? A couple of editors has been trying to push the idea that the party is liberal relying on its website and disregarding core WP policies. Colchicum (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC) And apparently the trolls have framed a good editor into 3RR. Colchicum (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Frankly, if I were you I would block Gnomsovet (talk·contribs) (a.k.a. 95.52.114.233 (talk·contribs)) indefinitely outright. POV-pushing, edit-warring, violation of content policies, block evasion, trolling, and he is not particularly useful anyway as his English is hardly intelligible. Colchicum (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmda, not good at all, but I am not sure how I can help. I absolutely agree that LDPR is not liberal in any meaning of this, quite ambiguous term. Miacek has violated 3RR and was blocked for 24h while the Gnomsovet was blocked indefinitely, that is quite a severe punishment for the first 3RR and obviously balances Miacek's block. If the edit warring continue I would protect the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid both of them were unintentionally blocked forever instead of 24h (such things sometimes happen to William M. Connoley). Colchicum (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the IP-sock and semiprotected the article. Gnomsovet looks like a sockpuppet of an experienced user but I do not who is that user Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is probably active on Russian Wikipedia, and this is his automatically created global account. With his level of English I don't think he could be a regular contributor here. Colchicum (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for the hint. He is quite active in ru-wikipedia although started editing only since end of January 2009. He is certainly not an SPA there Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if in a few hours William would not talk back I would shorten block of Miacek to original 24h. I am not sure what to do with Gnomsovet Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Bao Ngoc Trinh. I like to edit the page "Yen Bai Munity" to truely reflect the history of Vietnam. However, I am prevented from doing so. Please let me know the reason.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not supporting any particular version, just the edit warring should stop somehow. Try to negotiate a compromise solution using the article talk page or if you have some uncotroversial edits to make I could do it on your behalf use {{editprotect}} on the talk page to draw attention to the proposed edit. You might also want to follow the dispute resolution processAlex Bakharev (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the information that you have a conflict of interests regarding this page is not a good thing. It can make you feel against the neutral point of view that is a core policy on wiki. You can still make edits to the page but please make sure they are neutral and factual, also please avoid controversies Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, when looking at the article of President Bush on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush, I found White House press releases along with other so-called "conflict materials" cited. I do not understand nor agree that someone use just one or two books to define neutral point of view and to alter the history of a nation. I don't think the Wikipedia's policy allows that kind of practice and justification.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YellowMonkey, not just VNQDD, I also use the history of Vietnam. Can you read Vietnamese so can share with you the materials and documents regarding that matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinhbaongoc (talk • contribs) 04:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly can use VNQDD press-releases but not to state something like a fact but as an attributed opinion: According to VNQD .... We also can use VNQD documents for the non-contraversial info about VNQD itself: VNQD chairman is ..., he is elected for ... years by ... etc. WP:RS and WP:ATT forbid other usage of political press-releases Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your suggestions. I believe we should apply the policy wisely to preserve the quality of Wikipedia. Something to share with you here. VNQDD was secretly formed (1927) and operated underground; it didn't have that kind of luxury that political parties enjoying in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Press release is beyond imagination in its time. Only three years after the formation, VNQDD was crushed; and it is the reason why there exists a limited source about the party. Luckily, two of its co-founders wrote 02 documents based on their knowledge, memoir of their surviving comrades and families, French government documents, etc. The documents were adopted and taught under the Republic of Vietnam regime.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, I think YellowMonkey is unreasonable. I'd like to challenge his unprofessional manner and dictatorship attitude in front of the authority of Wikipedia community. --Trinhbaongoc (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example: Wikipedia is the product of thousands of editors' contributions. Everyone has brought something different to the table: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess, tidbits of information, or even just a willingness to help. Even the best of our articles should never be considered complete; each new editor may offer new insights about how to further enhance our content.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you haven't read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV for now. Party founders' documents/party publication are definitely not a WP:RS, you should find any third party source before make any edit (I suggest you try Google Books). Furthermore, YellowMonkey is reasonable in this situation, he revert your edits because thay are violate WP:NPOV.--Amore Mio (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amore Mio, Not just reading, we need understand it clearly. Do you know why the policy said should instead of must? And that is the reason why Alex has made the above suggestions--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alex. Re the St Petersbury University issue in this article, her bio on the party website states that she "holds a degree in electrical engineering and communications from the University of St. Petersburg".[12] When this was linked as written, it redirected to the State University - should this refer to a different one? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ5709:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing the above rule set. I see what my mistake was. Kind Regards 05:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure it was the problem leading to no results at all, the bot should just ignore invalid definition and go ahead. Lets see what would happen tomorrow Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not aimed at smearing him. It is an important part of his Biography, and it is directly supported by the cited, reliable sources. You should better discuss this on the article talk page. Offliner (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, discussions with POV-pushers are fruitless, I have a job much better than that. There are no sources which would cite this as a relevant fact of his biography (and for a good rason -- it is not), there are only passing mentions and editorializing comments, which are not exactly reliable sources. The reliability of a source depends on whether it is on the subject. A newspaper article about the Litvinenko poisoning is a questionable source as to Felshtinsky's biography. In any case, descriptions like "anti-Kremlin oligarch Berezovsky" have no place in articles about persons other than Berezovsky himself. Colchicum (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Felshtynsky's books are used as references to many article and all those references are linked to Felshtynsky article. Thus, one of the purposes for the article is to comment on the validity of the references. The fact that Felshtynsky has a conflict of interests in the matters that involved Berezovsky is important and I think should not be obscured. The New York Times and International Herald Times in the articles related to Litvinienko felt that they should warn the readers about those conflicts of interests and so do we. The third reference (to the Herald) is devoted to bio of Felshtynsky and they apparently thought that inclusion of the info of Berezovsky sponsored Felshtynsky's book to be warranted. I think the info should be in the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just reinserted the info into the article after being removed with a claim of WP:BLP to go along with the removal. It is sourced, it is neutrally worded, so there is no BLP concerns. It appears that BLP is being used incorrectly to prevent the insertion of material into articles that people don't want to see here on WP. I've also removed it from the lead in the process as well. --RussaviaDialogue05:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to have a navigation bar at the top of the pages for the search results, log and rules for ease of navigation? =- Mgm|(talk)11:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the results are updated daily but the heading ===March 1=== stood on the top for quite a while. The reason for such behavior is the algorithm of insertion new content. The bot inserts the new results on top of the first line that starts with a star, ignoring everything above it. This gives users freedom to do almost whatever they want with the top and the bottom of the search results. The drawback is that if you put a heading on top of that line it would stay there forever (or unless somebody manually moves it) Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, could you possibly help me to find the Ukaz number and text of the ukaz for the following Heros? [13]. Apparently they were awarded on 5 September 2008, but it's not on Kremlin.ru website or their ukaz database. And they aren't yet present on warheroes.ru. Any help appreciated, cheers --RussaviaDialogue10:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Russavia, I have completely failed to find this Ukas. Maybe it is still confidential? Assuming an FSB man or similar they could make it secret. But since Анашкин Герой России? etc. yield many ghits I guess we could safely assume the people were indeed awarded with the title Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not confidential. I've got a public media source for it.
Yeah, not only did they receive it, we even have a photo of him being awarded -- File:Dmitry Medvedev 1 October 2008-4.jpg -- all i can find thus far is plenty of information that he received it, along with others (including 1 posthumously) in relation to the South Ossetian campaign, but can't find the Ukaz number or text -- it's my understanding that Ukaz are made public knowledge by default. I wish they would put all of this information on the site, otherwise one has to rely on those paid-for databases, which is a shame. Thanks for looking anyways. --RussaviaDialogue11:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the text of the ukaz from Interfax - За мужество и героизм, проявленные при выполнении воинского долга в Северо-Кавказском регионе - that's standard Ukaz text, now to find the actual Ukaz number, which looks like it will be a little harder to find. However, aren't all such things supposed to be placed in Rossiyskaya Gazeta? What do you know about that? If anything. --RussaviaDialogue19:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alex. I've created a feed to check for new articles mentioning Brett Stewart (see here if you want the background). Apart from initially creating a name that had a space in it (now fixed), does it look ok? Also, I've asked on the talk page about asterisks in search rules. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user Historicist has left messagaes on 6 different user pages asking for help and no one has lectured him. Sense when does canvassing cover notice boards. I asked for help because I felt ganged up on by Historicist and Jayjg. If you were neutral you lecture him about canvassing as well. annoynmous03:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most of his bad edits are of today. Maybe he had a bad day or got drunk or whatever. If he continues after two week ban it does not take much time to block him permanently. As a subject of his threat I could not fairly evaluate the outlined edit but usually we give users freedom to steam a little bit after the block. This blue religious calligraphy on his page might be a sign he is coming to his senses Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's up to you I guess. If the user is just a vandal, I'd be saying that you're dealing with one whose not very bright. Did you notice with this edit, he is using the flag of the Chechen Republic government? --RussaviaDialogue13:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just now I realised that somebody could think that I have shorten the block because I became afraid of vanadal's silly "war" and death threats. In my career of an admin I have got a number of threats. None of them were credible enough to contact police or other authorities. Obviously they do not modify my behaviour. I just do not like to indef users with history of good contributions at the first time. His edits go back to 2006 so I doubt he is a sock puppet Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't figure out how to get this bot working for WP:BARD, but it would be very useful. Could you set it up for our project? If you have any questions, just ask. Wrad (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how this is done, but I suspect an admin does this. There seems to be agreement on the talk page, including by the article's author, to delete it: [15]. Could you help with this?Faustian (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
В пятницу некий участник с ником из японских иероглифов провел массовую замену интервиков в разных языковых проектах на статью Oscillation, в русском Колебания. И тут обнаружилось, что интервики в японской совершенно не соответсвуют этим статьямю Все они ведут на статью Vibration,а русских интервиков два, ведущих как на статьи Вибрация и Виброизоляция. Просьба посмотреть у себя и если есть участники, знающие японский и участвующие в японской вике, чтобы они рассмотрели эту ситуацию. Сегодня я посмотрел на японскую вику, изменений в той статье пока нет.--Torin (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
вот тут заметка о всероссийской олимпиаде студентов по английскому языку, в ходе которой они должны выкладывать свои отчёта в Википедии. Олимпиада пройдёт 26-27 марта в Тольятти. У нас на форуме было высказано предположение, что они могут воспользоваться английским разделом. Так что предупреди других админов о такой возможности. --Torin (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Единственное, что один из админов отправил письмо в адрес пресс-центра Тольяттинского госунивера, с предупреждением о недопустимости подобной акции. Но вот когда я вчера уходил с работы сообразил простую вещь: новички могут закачивать фотографии через 3-4 дня после регистрации. Если это так, то организаторы жёстко обломаются.--Torin (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Я нашел список оргкомитета олимпиады [16] и отправил первым пяти людям просьбу связаться со мной. На самом деле, если прибавится русских редакторов в enwiki - это здорово, если прибавится статей про российские вузы - это замечательно. Однако если прибавятся статьи про команды и про студентов, то будет много CSD A8 и небольшой скандал. Надеюсь, кто-то со мной свяжется Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Тут немного не так. На сайте указано, что это олимпиада школьников, а в Тольятти пройдёт олимпиада студентов. Уровень немного другой. Единственное, что члены оргкомитетов могут пересекаться.--Torin (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On Isabella Grinevskaya is there some universal policy all instances of Constantinopal must be Istanbul? This article is centered a century ago when it was quasi-universally called Constantinopal, so I'd rather it stuck Constantinopal possibly with a small clarification. Smkolins (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Alex, thanks for helping with the ref formatting on the Putin article. Can you take a look at ref 265, 267, 269 of the article as it stands as I write this [17]. I have tried to fix them so that they appear as they should within the bibliography, but I can't understand if I have screwed up, and how to fix it. Would you mind taking a look at it please. Cheers --RussaviaDialogue20:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind re-opening this AfD? I was in the process of making a comment on why it shouldn't be closed yet since there was an unresolved question of possible existence. It's not a hoax and therefore not really a speedy or snow -- other than nom asking for it. I'll let Russavia know I'm asking for it, I don't think there's any problem with letting this run. StarM03:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
commented here. I really don't think there's any problem in letting the discussion run when the only person sure about any outcome was the nominator. Others were unsure and curious for sources. If you both want, I'll take it to DRV, but I really think the simplest would be to undelete and relist the AfD to let it run and let sources be found. It's bedtime here, I'll be back in the morning, EST or tomorrow evening. Hope we can solve this simply. I'll watchlist here so we don't have to have this in three places. StarM05:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Okudzhava-chasovye.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, can you please look at Special:Contributions/217.26.6.12. Please note this in which the IP editor removed dispute tags, which Offliner has almost instantly reverted, only to be almost instantly reverted by Muscovite. The aggressive removal of dispute tags is the first link. Then note this history in which Muscovite and the IP editor are the only contributors - the IP editor adding interwiki link to the ru article which Muscovite worked on during this time. Then note this removal of information, which Muscovite also aggressively removed from the article (I am certain Offliner or Ellol could provide specific diffs there). Note at ru:Википедия:Заявки на арбитраж/Muscovite99 he was found to be socking with the IP 217.26.10.144, which is in the same range and also belongs to Tascom. This is obviously Muscovite99, I will leave this in your capable hands to deal with if that's ok? Sockpuppet report, or whatever. --RussaviaDialogue11:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Muscovite99 has removed the exactly same economic info from the article as the IP editor did: [18] vs. [19]. Just before getting blocked, Muscovite99 was "fixing grammar": [20]. The IP editor even used a similar edit summary "Basic grammar": [21]. Muscovite99 also put this message [22] on his talk page just two days before the IP startet editing. All in all, this seems like a clear case to me. Offliner (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, Alex!
May be I do not understand the policy of WIKIPEDIA. But I tried some times to put on the page about Putin an external link to the Site Putin.ru which is exactly about Putin, and surely might be interesting for Wiki visitors (It has thousands of registered users and lots of unique articles in Forums and Blogs). And this link was removed by the editor Russavia.
Does it mean that this page about Putin has some political preferences or interests? And is it a real way to collect the quality content for Wiki visitors? Who made a decision that I am spamming? As I feel this internet-project is really independent and interested for different opinions. Please let me know if I am wrong!
I did carefully investigated the rules for the external links: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
И как тогда относиться к основопологающим принципам Энциклопедии?
Вот выдержка из правил размещения ссылок на внешние ресурсы:
"КОИ часто принимает форму саморекламы, в частности, добавления рекламных ссылок, ссылок на личные веб-сайты, личных фотографий и иных материалов, которые направлены на продвижение личных или коммерческих интересов автора и ассоциированных с ним лиц.
Примеры таких материалов:
1. Ссылки, рекламирующие определённый продукт, которые направляют пользователя на коммерческие сайты, имеющие слабое (или вообще никакого) отношение к предмету статьи (коммерческая реклама).
2. Ссылки, добавление которых напоминает раскрутку персоналий, не имеющих никакого отношения к предмету статьи, путем указания на их личные веб-сайты.
3. Биографические материалы, не содержащие значимой для данной статьи информации.
Где, позвольте узнать несответствие этим принципам? Если на странице http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin , которая дает полную и независимую информацию о Путине, удаляется ссылка на сайт, который дает независимую информацию о Путине? Или здесь все-таки личный интерес того или иного Администратора.
P.S. Кстати слегка удивляет наличие картинки "ПРИВЕТ МЕДВЕД" (Что однозначно является выражением политической предвзятости) на странице редактора Russavia! Или это нормально???
Putinru (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, firstly, there is no information showing that the information on the site Putin.ru is somehow reliable (went through a fact checking process) or even comes from notable sources. The authors of the site even did not described themselves. We do not provide external links to anonymous sources of dubious reliability. I think it is enough to remove the link.
Secondly, the site looks like a result of internet search with Google adds added. There is no indication that the authors have copyright for their content. Thus, it is a copyvio site.
Thirdly, most of the information on the site has very little relevance to Putin
Fourth, the editor adding this link has an obvious conflict of interests regarding the link (the same name as the site) and do nothing except promotong the site
Thus, if the editors add the link one more time and do nothing useful, then he or she will be banned indefinetly as a spam-only account.
Regarding the Preved I am unaware of any political connections of this phrase and anyway we give users a lot of leeway regarding the design of their own userspace Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, Alex!
Well, firstly, that site Putin.ru is an Independent Community with lots of different Authors. Everyone has his own profile. So do I on that Site.
Secondly, all the articles are signed by Authors. I posted lots of articles to the site Putin.ru by myself and all of them about Putin. And in the Main Sections - Forums And Blogs there are lots of different opinions about Putin from other people. Some of them positive, some negative. And I love it.
Thirdly, most of the articles are about Putin and Russian Government. And as I can see NOT censored by someone, like it here!!!
Fourth, when I made a link on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin first time, I described this site. Link with only site-name was made next time, after removal. And, please, do not see any Commercial or Political interest in it.
Regarding the Preved - It is exactly the POLITICAL ADVERTISING!!! I do not have anything against Russian Party "Edinaya Rossiya", but this Preved one of its main symbols, you must know! And that is exactly means - Political Preferences of the page owner. And his way to edit the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin. And, surely, this editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Russavia must be banned, according to the Wikipedia Main Idea!
So, conclusion: Now I understand, that Wikipedia now is not FREE, not INDEPENDENT and (MAIN!) really CLOSED for PUBLIC by Some Bureaucrats! (As you call each other). It is NOT a Public Encyclopedia anymore! IT IS JUST A BLOG OF SOME PEOPLE. May be I am wrong and this situation is only about the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin and only some Admins, who have some OWN (political or other) interests about it.
Wikipedia is not a free advertisement media for websites selling stolen content. I have come to the only English-language section of the site: News and click on a random article putin.ru/news/81-engnews1/7518-putins-report-card.html , short search and we see that the content is stolen from an article By Sergei Balashov printed by Moscow Newshttp://www.mnweekly.ru/comment/20090327/55372069.html . Can you point me out to any English-languahe material on the site that is not stolen? Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, Alex!
You are talking about NEWS on Putin.ru. To be earnest, I have never visited that part. I am talking, just about Blog and Forum. All the news, as I understand they take from some other sources. And that Blog and Forum must be interesting for Wikipedia visitors.
And I am talking about Russian Page of Wikipedia about Putin. And anyway I am not talking about advertising. For me it was really interesting to find the keen attention of some people here about some links and exactly the links to Putin.ru. It looks interesting. And for me it looks like some political or commercial interest. Nothing more. I do not have any relations with the owners of Putin.ru site. And really do not know who made it.
There are many forums and blogs devoted to Russian politics. I do not think we need to link it there. According to WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an internet guide. Putin.inside does not look like a proper site for linking to any of our articles either. To start with it requires registration. I am not very familiar with Ru-wiki rules, but I think the link should be removed from there and is not needed here Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So that Alex also has some background, the following has systematically been removed by a couple of editors who he can see in the article history, and then has been gamed against on the talk page, using the usual "Russian media" rubbish:
Even worse, according to Digwuren, the famine is "too old" to even be mentioned, even though the media back then, as it does now, shapes public opinion.
But it's totally ok to have this, sourced to The Economist:
What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position." That is as true today as when former Economist editor Geoffrey Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage.
That is self-serving, advertorial prose if ever I saw it. But also telling is the removal by Vecrumba of the "Russia" opinion from a subsidiary article [23]. What these editors clearly don't like is that 2 lines of "Russian opinion" are present in an article on a subject which has been quite vocal in its opinion of Russia; of course, Russian opinion in English language only can come from the Moscow Times, and Russian opinion in Russian language can only come from Novaya Gazeta; and everything else must be challenged and removed at every opportunity.
The eXile just isn't notable for its idiosyncratic opinions to be mentioned in an encyclopædia article.
As for the famine issue -- it's not too old to be mentioned, it's too old to be used as an exhibit of The Economist's editorial style, which is fluid. And so is probably almost anything from 1950s. Do you want to add a section on Historic controversies? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος!22:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently many of "your" articles extensively rely on Kremlin.ru, which is also self-serving and not peer-reviewed or something. However, some non-controversial information can be verified in this way, and this is the case with The Economist as well. Aside from its somewhat uneven style, I don't see the second piece you cited as particularly problematic, it doesn't promote the subject and is mostly uncontroversial. What do you dispute there? As to Ames, whoever he is, The Economist's coverage is much wider than just Russia, and a single opinion on such a marginal topic as their reporting of Russia is undue there (otherwise there should be plenty of reliable sources on the topic). By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with The Economist's analysis of the Irish famine as described by Ames, and it gives me a very favorable impression of the newspaper. If their reporting of Russia is to be compared with this, well... But it would still be undue there. And the article Russia is much more similar to an advertisement, would you let me do anything about it? Colchicum (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. Don't mix up Russian propaganda with Kremlin propaganda, please accept this now!!!, as Koov used to say. No, I don't care about Chernomyrdin and the like, they have deserved this, but when you add something like this wherever possible, it doesn't really look right.[reply]
Well, apparently, you haven't seen many of my articles Colchicum because very few of the things I am working on rely extensively on Kremlin.ru, but may indeed have come about because we have that resource available. For example, yes, I know that you all hate dearly List of Heroes of the Russian Federation (good), but there are editors such as myself who find such articles important for the project, not only because they are actually notable people, but because they also aid in downline article development. Of course, you could see this as an opportunity to create another 750 war criminal articles. I know you hate Koni (dog) and the sight of it makes some people sick (good), and recalls memories of Soviet days gone by, but 15,000 people viewed this article when it was on DYK. (funnily enough, if one was to read the article closely, I've actually taken the piss in a most subtle way -- that obviously was lost on some). Can you show me something you have done for the good of the project lately? I really don't take much notice of the peanut gallery's opinion on the articles I edit, particularly when they don't do much on WP except heckle and opine. As to Mark Ames his opinion is valid; in exactly the same way that I could argue that Russian topics are so much more than what The Economist thinks of them, so therefore, by everyone elses reasoning, we should systematically remove ALL Economist opinion from ALL Russian articles, because their opinion is WP:UNDUE also. And I will continue to utilise resources we have available, which I know just irks people that we have available (and I like that), but so long as the peanut gallery is the only one who has a problem with the utilisation of that resource for articles, I will treat that how I treat the peanut gallery in general, and that is by ignoring them and keep on doing what I am doing. Seeing as this is Alex's talk page, that's all from me in this somewhat inappropriate venue; sorry Alex. --RussaviaDialogue04:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, penisometrics started. I am not payed here and I have no obligations whatsoever to produce articles at a certain pace. Hate? I don't care about Koni, I haven't seen it yet. Though yes, I find slobbery, barking, crapping creatures disgusting in general. Now I see, the mere fact that we have an article about Pootie-Poot's pet speaks for itself and doesn't show Pootie-Poot in a favorable light, of course. Well, it is up to you to decide how you spend your spare time. The same with the heroes, with the ambassadors, with everything. Notable? Notability is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Let's face it, most of the heroes are not notable. They are significant for their role in a single event, most often the awarding itself rather than their deeds nobody have ever described. But unlike you and your pals I am not a deletionist. You prefer to upload tons of pictures of Putin, now you might even try to create a 3D model of Putin, very well, but I consider typical landscapes or Hermitage antiquities or even mere porn more encyclopedic. Colchicum (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a big fan of Clinton, but the difference is that Clinton apparently didn't use his cat to intimidate his guests. Also it would be hard to do, as cats are not slobbery, barking, crapping creatures and don't like to be used. Colchicum (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read through both articles, and as surprising as it is, Koni (dog) is written as though Koni was a political player -- one whom Putin reportedly consults. Socks (cat) is rather open that Socks was a pet, and while cartoonists sometimes drew him, he didn't have any real political significance. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος!14:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think it's quite funny Colchicum that you seem to have a bug up your butt because of articles which I create and am working on. As I said, I don't really care much for what the peanut gallery has to say about the articles I create. In fact, now, I will try even harder to create even more content, who knows, I may actually cause someone to pop a blood vessel or two; and if I succeed, then my job here is done, and I will eventually pass from this earth happy with that knowledge. As to the heroes, you are more than welcome to go ahead and nominate each and every one of them for deletion as they are created; and be created they will, and who knows perhaps people will read them and know that there are people who haven't deserted their country, and know that there is another view of Russia contrary to that view that "certain" editors want to portray. BTW, Mark Yevtyukhin is one of my faves, 11,500 people read that in January whilst it was up for DYK; you may want to take some blood vessel medication before reading it though. OK, but seriously, I am a little concerned that you seem to have a fixation on me. Do I have cause to be concerned that I will start finding you following me around in the street and hiding behind trees; perhaps sneaking into my bedroom at night and cutting off a slither of my hair for "the album"; perhaps you already have a shrine installed in your house devoted to me? --RussaviaDialogue19:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Colchicum, I see that you are an anti-dog and pro-cat editor. I am surprised you don't write more on this bias of yours. Perhaps I will write an article in your honour, how's Dorofei (cat) sound to you? PMSL. --RussaviaDialogue19:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(For benefit of those readers unfamiliar with obscure Russian pet trivia, Dorofei or Dorofey (Дорофей is derived from Dorothy) is Dmitry Medvedev's cat.) ΔιγουρενΕμπρος!06:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, where did you take this? I couldn't care less about the articles you create, I don't remember I have ever edited one of them. It was you who started advertise Koni and your heroes here (some of them are notable, some are not, I have created at least one of them, but I don't really care). However, my watchlist now contains 8,231 pages (and used to contain even more), you pop up there quite often, and in my opinion you are a very problematic contributor. Forum-shopping for blocks of your opponents, support of the worst trolls all over Wikipedia, pervasive deletionism when it suits you POV (and the opposite when it doesn't), tag-warring and twisted wording on articles from my watchlist, and so on - the overall pattern does concern me and is certainly not to be encouraged. But I won't talk to you anymore. Undoubtedly you will eventually run into other opponents, who will be better suited for this. As to the inference that I will be interested in Dorofey just because I prefer cats to dogs, it is an obvious logical fallacy. As to the SS matter, you surely understand that if it weren't for eSStonia, this would never happen. Bye. Colchicum (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, usually the opinion of a more authoritative source about a less authoritative one is more relevant than the other way around. Thus, opinion of the eXile about the Economist is of less interest than the opinion of the eXile about the Economist (the same way the opinion of Mr. Feldengauer about Putin is of lesser interest than the opinion of Putin about Feldengauer). Still I do not see any harm in putting opinions of lesser sources if they clearly stated as opinions. In short I cannot see why we must not have an opinion of Exile about the Economist nor why we must not have such an opinion. I do not want to interfere there.
Regarding the informations from the article's subject WP:RS allows such info unless it is challenged by reliable sources (or if it clearly marked as subject's opinion). Thus, the opinion of the Economist that they belong to the "extreme center" is certainly notable although if it is challenged it should be stated as the Economist's opinion. If Putin via Kremlin.ru states that he is the best protector of Democracy compared only to Ghandi then this opinion is notable but could not be stated as fact Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sneaky attempt at WP:SYN: superimposition of contextomised facts in such a manner as to implicitly mislead the reader to think a conspiracy is present. Against existing policy, but these days, very hard to properly enforce. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος!19:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about all the articles that might say things like "Kremlin-funded ambassador then delivered the diplomatic note to the Diet-funded Prime Minister Asô Tarô" or "Kremlin-funded soldiers were relocated to Sakhalin (which was not funded at that time) a day later" makes me feel all warm and funny inside. It's so absurd it resembles watching an apocalyptic movie of Mel Gibson's variety. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος!20:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the qualifier US-funded is unneeded here. For once everybody can click on the link to Radio Liberty and see it for themselves, secondly the government backing of the Young Guards is an indisputable fact, thus there is no need to blame this particular source. I have reverted the edit Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think User_talk:Digwuren#Are_you_able_to_help_with_this.3F says a lot about Colchicum, particularly as I have kindly asked him on numerous occasions to stop with his trolling SS crap. Which, of course, is what this thread of his on your talk page is Alex. I find it absolutely childish and pathetic that an editor is advising another editor not to collaborate on what is a collaborative project; that says so much about such an editor in my opinion. I'd be seeing Colchicum's trolling for what it is...trolling. --RussaviaDialogue20:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to merge these two articles? Vyacheslav Nogovitsyn and Vyacheslav Nagovitsyn? They seem to be the same person, with one difference in the name spelling, and one has a 1930 birth year category you added (which is why I came here to check), when the birth year appears to be 1939. For now, I added the "living people" category to both. Carcharoth (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bäckman lacks individual notability; it only makes sense to discuss him in the context of the Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee. Redirecting names of such persons to their organisations, or articles describing the events that led to their fame, is a common practice. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος!18:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. When time comes to write my article, I'll have somebody else do it. Only insanity lies at the end of the road that starts by writing one's own article. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος!20:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest it is the first such a case in my wikihistory: somebody first votes on an AfD to delete an article and then recreates it as a redirect to a controversial organization. Somebody is either notable or not. If he is not notable then no redirect is needed (and redirecting living people to controversial organizations they are the members of is a bad idea per WP:BLP anyway. If he is notable (or became notable per the new sources) then the article should be undeleted and the info that the person is a member of the organization should be added. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is not individually notable. I'd still vote delete if the AFD came up today -- I don't think anything significant has happened that would have increased his notability in the intervening time. However, his committee has caught a lot of press recently, and in that press, the people's names are sometimes mentioned. Sometimes, even wrongly: take [25], for example -- the person reading the manifesto is Petri Krohn, but the video credits him as Bäckman.
In such cases, it is Wikipedia's standard practice to redirect the non-notable terms -- even people's names -- to the notable article they relate to, in order to aid our reader in locating the notable article.
As for controversy, you might be a little bit overcautious. All signs show that none of the Committee's members is particularly shy about his or her involvement. Besides, the membership is fully sourced, which means that BLP should be quite satisfied.
You might prefer to think of like this: the prime notable subject in the Bronze Nights was mob. The mob is notable. But does it mean the thousands of participants should have their own articles? Certainly not -- but if a few of them are likely search terms, it makes sense to redirect their names to the article. Properly sourced, of course. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος!05:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Johan Bäckman, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Bäckman (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Hi Alex, you might want to read this note left to you by Alex. It's funny. Really funny. Did you notice how said Alex voted in the above-mentioned AFD? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος!07:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You undid my edit on the Suvorov article. What don't you like about "Suvorov was born into a noble family hailing from Novgorod"? That's more clear then the way its phrased now. Sotnik (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the usage of word "to hail" as "to originate from" is not the modern one. I have never seen it in modern texts. The modern usage for "to hail" is almost exclusively "to greet". Maybe we should ask for an opinion of a native speaker? Alex Bakharev (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I consider myself a native speaker. Here is an examplehail from To come or originate from: She hails from Texas. To be fair, that does sound a little unusual, how about something like, "Suvorov was born into a noble family originating from Novgorod, at the Moscow mansion of his maternal grandfather Fedosey Manukov (a landowner from Oryol gubernia and an official of Peter I)."? Sotnik (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine with me. This edit would remove the info about his Armenian heritage but I guess it is OK it was not referenced for quite a while Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing. I noticed on the article it also mentions that he does speak English (something which until now I haven't been able to verify), so I wonder if he would ever "edit" enwiki. Now there's a thought, perhaps we could entice him come edit with us. How long do you think he would last in this nuthouse before being blocked for 3RR, edit warring, and then community banned? :) --RussaviaDialogue23:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking of it more, he likely wouldn't get into many disputes; he could issue an ukaz declaring Wikipedia wrong, and then we have a reliable, notable source to debunk anything he wants to counter; no need to rely on media then. If media report on it, another ukaz is pumped out to discredit them. The more I think about it, he could really make some heads spin and could be a lot of fun. I'll get the letter of invitation written up now :) --RussaviaDialogue23:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On April 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sergey Degayev, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Alex, since you are obviously interested in programming, maybe you have an opinion about this: [26]. My feeling is that most of the source code in Wikipedia constitutes a gross WP:NOR violation, and I think this is a huge problem. But I'm unsure on how to proceed, other than trying to launch a discussion. Can you give me some advice on what to do? Offliner (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, out of four people in the infobox only Kostya Tszyu is an unquestionable Russian Australian. Lazarev and Miklukho-Maklai were never Australians and Sidney Myer was a Belarusian Jew (although from the Russian Empire, but I guess neither Belarusians nor Poles would agree that he was Russian). Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Alex. Thanks for the welcome for 166.217.251.170 - as you can see, I've since registered.
Lenin's words, naturally, have been perverted in order to justify one thing here, another thing there – as is true of Marx and Engels, who have been proposed as responsible for everything from Pol Pot (in the anti-capitalist reading) to an intellectual defense of Henry Ford (!) and liberal Western capitalism (in the reading of Kojeve). Hence, it only beehooves an ideological skeptic to question the accounts of American and post-Soviet historians, especially since many of them altogether omit the fact that Lenin's Red Terror order was not even circulated until Stalin's term at the helm.
I'm not generally an overzealous editor, but waiting period is annoying. :)
Thanks for uploading File:Gaft Voland.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at all in agreement with you on your reversion of my edit on goy.
A yiddish/english speaker myself, I consider it highly relevant and important to note that young influential yiddish/english speakers are using it deliberately in their English writing targeted towards goyim. I specifically brought a reference from a printed newspaper to make that point. I further fail to see why you are using reversion to make your opinion heard.
WRT blogs: they are not banned as references, read the rules properly and you will see that a blog is just considered self-published. To quote a relevant and insightful passage from a popular and influential writer who happens to have a blog is allowed so long as it is not used to justify original research. To revert it just like that because of the two reasons you state seems to me absurd and rude.
You do not need to find usage notable, certainly not for information within a page! Wiki does not give you the right to place your opinion before mine and since you have offered no reasonable suggestions to compromise and I stand by my opinion...
Dear Alex,
I need in your advise again. I am currently involved in the very long dispute about couple sentences in the World War II article. The present version of the article still contains the sentences in the form that seem to be biased and incorrect. I am intended to initiate a mediation process, or use another appropriate way to resolve the issue. The disputable statements are in the article now, and I have absolutely now idea when the dispute will be resolved. In connection to that, my question is: is it normal to introduce the appropriate tags into the section that will inform the reader that the section contains non-neutral statements that are the subject of the ongoing dispute? Thank you in advance, Best regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, putting tags if a valid editorial discussion takes place is a normal and very good practice. I guess everybody knows this. I will look what is going on later Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked on the article and its talk page and I feel that I do not have enough knowledges to interfere into your disputes with Mosedschurte. But bearing in mind that you have quite an active discussion I think you have all the rights to stick {{POV section}} until the issue is resolved Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: [27]. This is why I am supportive of Talk:Gdansk/Vote, for example. It doesn't matter what POV does a tiny group of nationalists thinks a given names supports, what matters is that neutral historians use various names and we should make it easy for a reader to find what he is looking for and tie it with other pieces of his knowledge. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the biography part should concentrate only on generally accepted, 100% sure facts. Controversial statements and criticism by opposition groups such as that should be moved to a separate criticism section. In a similar manner, we don't base the biography sections of Western leaders on the claims of their arch-enemies and notorious opposition critics. Offliner (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not about your opinion, and you are wrong. Independent sources are preferable to self-published crap from Kremlin.ru, not the other way round. If numerous independent third-party publications agree on some facts, this should not be hidden. For the purpose of Wikipedia such facts are 100% sure. If the BBC, Kommersant and SPb Times are arch-enemies of the Russian leaders, I am sorry, but this cannot be helped. If you argued that some part of this should be transferred to Vladimir Putin, I would agree, but outright deletion of reliably sourced material is a no-no. Colchicum (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better if you discussed things instead of repeating your challenged edits in the first place. Separate criticism sections is a bad idea akin to POV-forks, in my opinion. In what sense is the information about where Medvedev worked from 1991 to 1996 criticism? Get real. It is an essential part of his biography. Colchicum (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where he worked is - of course - not criticism. And I have left the workplace information to where it was. What however is criticism is this fine rant based solely on Yuri Felshtinsky's book:
According to the research of critics of Putin's administration, Yuri Felshtinsky and Vladimir Pribylovsky, the International Relations Committee (IRC), where Medvedev worked as a legal expert from 1991 to 1996 was involved in numerous business activities including gambling. The connection with gambling business was established through a municipal enterprise called Neva Chance.[10] Neva Chance became a co-owner of the city gambling establishments with an authorized capital usually of 51%. The mayor's office contributed its share not in money, but "by relinquishing the right to collect rent for the facilities that the casinos occupied."[10] The authors concluded that Medvedev "was one of the first people [...] in Russia as a whole, who figured out how the government could "join" a joint stock company without breaking existing laws: not by contributing land or real estate, but by contributing rents on land and real estate."[10]
That book is not a mainstream, high-class, reliable source that should be used to source the biography. Read this review[28] for example:
As with much else about Putin's Russia, this work makes little distinction between analysis and polemics. Felshtinsky is an associate of Boris Berezovsky, the self-exiled tycoon waging a ferocious propaganda war on the Kremlin from London. Some of the book's accusations lack the sourcing that could reasonably be expected of a historian or a journalist. (Chapter One, for instance, has no footnotes.)Offliner (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This accounts for only a part of the material you initially deleted. What about the rest? What about the other articles where you practiced similar things? As to the book (that particular paragraph was surely written by Pribylovsky and not Felshtinsky, and the former is not an associate of Berezovsky in any meaningful sense), it is possibly not good enough for a Wikipedia biography when the facts are not backed by additional sources, but at least in that part it is fairly accurate, believe it or not. SPb is a small city. And there are other sources, see references here. Colchicum (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will think what to do about the phrase. The information that he was initially selected out of all candidates by Putin himself is inherently a speculation (although quite plausible) until the archives will be open. The information that he was officially endorsed by United Russia is an unquestionable fact. Maybe we should put that Medvedev candidacy had strong personal support of Putin? It seems to be unquestionable fact. I do not like the idea of moving all the negative info/opinions into a separate criticism section and would rather see them in the chronological flow of events. I will try to see what can be done in a few hours Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, on an unrelated matter, what do you think of this? This is the most dirty Wikipedia trick I have ever seen, but as there seem to be some pro-HIGW cabal here, I think it is hopeless even to try to make this more NPOV and on-topic. Colchicum (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cut-n-paste moves are bad things, you did absolutely right by reverting it. If it will be repeated I would give offliner a warning. I am not sure what the correct name of the article but surely, it ought not include the word conspiracy per the sake of WP:NPOV. If needed I can consolidate article history. I am not sure what trick was played with the Current_sea_level_rise. I am avoiding global warming related articles as my views on the matter are not mainstream. I have reasons to believe that the threat of GW is significantly overstated by the mainstream sources. Wiki on the other hand should reflect the mainstream with giving brief introduction in alternative views. Still I will interfere as an admin if the rules were abused Alex Bakharev (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, basically I think it is extremely unfair to keep statements like "Current sea level rise is occurring as a result of human-induced global warming" (few weeks ago even "in part" wasn't there), while it is only a single POV (maybe mainstream POV, but certainly not the only significant one) and it is absolutely irrelevant there, as warming would have exactly the same effect on sea level whether it is human-induced or not. Therefore this can hardly be construed as anything other than a political statement which, I believe, should have no place there. What is even more worrying is that such dubious claims are defended with inline comments like <Do not remove this statement, even if you disagree with it. It has been conclusively proven that the current global warming episode cannot be explained without taking human input into account, and that this is causing sea level to rise. > WTF? This goes against every Wikipedia policy I know. Whenever I come across a GW-related article (and in some entirely unrelated articles as well, see e.g. [30], [31]) I see such things, but this one angered me in particular. Anyway, never mind, you could hardly do anything about it. As the team defending this approach is large and include several dedicated admins, it looks hopeless. Colchicum (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess nobody is bound by whatever inline comments are made. On the other hand if the issue was intensively discussed and this is the consensus obtained, I would hate to interfere without producing first-class sources supporting my point of view Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the cut-and-paste move was that Biophys had made this[32] edit to prevent people from moving the article back by normal means. Biophys edit was discussed here: [33] and here: [34]. Offliner (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was my fixing of the double redirect that prevented offliner from normal movement. Honestly, I have done it in the good faith. Regarding Biophys I hope it was done in good faith as it is actually a blockable offence. I will drop him a note Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bonk&alexeev.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a russian you should be more open to admit the barbaries everyone knows did russian army in spain (1936-39). Trying to obscure this truth is comic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim FOR sure (talk • contribs) 03:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have been using the results from your bot for some time to search out articles related to South American football and improve them. At WP:FOOTY we have decided to have a crackdown on unsourced BLPs (unfortunately we have thousands of them). I was wondering whether it would be possible for your bot to filter the new article results to add anything unsourced to a new WP:Football/Unsourced articles page. Please let me know if this is possible whenever you get a chance. Kind regards King of the NorthEast21:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alex, I hope your holiday is going well. I need to ask a question, do you speak any Ukrainian? I'm dealing with a genre troll from the Ukraine and there is a language barrier preventing any headway. His current (for a short period of time) IP address is here. Any help is much appreciated, and no worries if you are unable to render assistance. Thanks in advance, ScarianCall me Pat!22:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Leopold the cat.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Leopold the cat.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this IP has been doing the same disruptive edits again. I noticed you blocked this IP previously, may be needed again. --Martintg (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Moshkov.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...that the Russian portal's new article annoucements page has fallen into disuse! Has it been superseded by another page somewhere? -- Ynot?16:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading File:Sorochintsy_stamp.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
Hi, Alex. There's been some trouble going on with Biophys: note the blatant attack on me he's done here, where he takes the trouble to attack me at Nishkid64's user talk in the course of Offliner's completely unrelated complaint against his edit warring at Russian apartment bombings (where, in fact, I've never even participated).
Though he is currently blocked for his edit warring, little has been changed: he is now accusing me of being of working for the Russian services here (this edit particularly; of course, it's all a plot now by the SVR) – apparently Biophys isn't learning from anything in the past. My understanding is that he's been either warned or blocked for this, as you'd be aware. I think he should at least be warned for this.
I hope you are reading the posts at User talk:AlexNewArtBot. It would be nice if you could reply to the requests that a special run of the bot be made to find articles created while you were on holiday.-gadfium08:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I had hoped it would be a simple matter of changing a single parameter or variable in the code.-gadfium04:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In January this year we had a discussion about user Roobit (talk·contribs), see User talk:Alex Bakharev/Archive23#Nazi crimes in Estonia. I stated, that the sock accusations were unfounded, as the real sockmaster, Bloomfield (talk·contribs) was trivial to identify. You answered "I do not know what to do about it. Roobit was blocked by Moreschi for soapboxing and POV-pushing not for sockpuppeting." I was not going to ask you to unblock Roobit. I was however going to ask you to remove the protection from his talk page. The issue has come up again here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Salonen.
I am now asking you to remove the block, so that these false sock accusations can be discuseed at a central place. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. - Roobit may have been guity of soapboxing, but I do not think he has been "pushing" anything into article space after the WP:DIG arbcom. Looking at his edit history, the only thing he has been trying to push anywhere, is one soapish statement at the talk page Talk:Estonia–Russia relations. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have unprotected his user page, so he could negotiate his unblocking conditions and/or do other encyclopedia-building activities. I would not hesitate to reprotect the talk page if it is abused Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Newmelbournecathedral.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Koval.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have put the article on my watch list. I do not think that pointing out Novodvorskaya's own remarks supporting apartheid or putting Russians in Estonia and Latvia next to parashas constitutes violation of BLP. Especially as the second remark was a subject of a criminal case against her. Still the facts should be put in neutral manners (e.g. the information that the court found nothing illegal in her articles should be mentioned Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you think that Wikipedians are entitled to interpret the quote ("Apartheid is a normal thing") from a primary source in their own way as "Novodvorskaya openly supported apatheid", even though no reliable secondary source draws this interpretation and she later explicitely refuted it herself ("Я никогда не оправдывала апартеид")? In my opinion, this is a gross violation of WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:V, bordering on fraud. Even worse, as the familiar team (Offliner, Beatle Fab Four, PasswordUsername, Russavia, socks of Jacob Peters) is edit-warring over their version, which as they know is a no-no in Wikipedia. I understand why you may be unwilling to step in, but an admission that their version is legitimate would nevertheless be an unreasonable stretch of our policies. Check it against the sources:
The first source is her own article which doesn't support this claim without many additional assumptions. "Apartheid is a normal thing" is not the same as "I wholeheartedly support apartheid". The second source makes no mention of apartheid. The third source makes no mention of apartheid and is merely an accusation not confirmed by any court. This is fraud, plain and simple.
I think editing of the article to make formulations more exact and agreeable would benefit the article and would stick. Removing obviously correct information because it is against the narrative is a wrong thing. As well painting Novodovorskaya like she is a straight A major of a Politically Correct Studies is a wrong thing else. BTW, who are Peters socks? They probably should be blocked Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Alex. You reverted my edits to Boris Berezovsky with the summary "UNDO, I do not like the term Jewish Civil Engineer, also the edit removes referenced info about his conversion." If you check the reference, there is nothing about Berezovsky converting to Orthodox Christianity in the supposed source, as I'd indicated in my edit summary and you can see for yourself. What's wrong with describing Berezovsky's father as a "Jewish civil engineer"? It's common practice on Wikipedia to describe the ethnic origins of the subject – hence I chose not to delete any references to Berezovksy's ethnicity as Jewish, and I thought that describing Berezovsky as born into a Jewish family would be a more tactful way of going about it than having something like "Berezovsky is a Jew" (somehow, it seems misplaced) somewhere in the lede or the beginning of the biography, since as far as I know it's not a particularly important part of his public life as a figure of controversy.
Alex, I do not know who is doing the update part of the Ukraine web-page, but the sport section needs to be updated ;) In opinion it would be better to say that Shakhtar and Dynamo are the main contenders for the national top title in the recent decade, instead to keep the track what team is the current champion. More general definition rather than go into specifics. The Soviet championship as well as the Cup of Winners' Cups are the competitions that were discontinued therefore the number of the titles for them can remain. Another thing is the fact that Shakhtar obtained the UEFA Cup which I believe is worth of mentioning. Anyway... some thought for food or something like :) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aleksander, can you make the changes yourself? I am not following Ukrainian football that closely. Or is it protected or something? Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in your RFC statement for paid editing, you say "I am not sure if it ever happen but I once offered something that looked like one". I think you mean "I am not sure if it ever happen but I was once offered something that looked like one". i.e. you were offered a bribe, rather than you offering the bribe. John Vandenberg(chat)06:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
I see you added "Dubinina" to "Evdoquia Timofeievna" in the article Volodia Dubinin. Since you are Russian (right?) and it's the first time I ever see Dubinina after Evdoquia Timofeievna's name (even though I read Улица младшего сына in its Spanish version), I would appreciate it a lot if you could explain to me more about the usage of lastnames in your country/language. Is she Dubinina because she married Nikifor Semionovich Dubinin? Or is it just a coincidence in this case? I thank you beforehand for your answers. I loved the book, by the way.--Universal001 (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Dubinina is just a feminine form of Dubinin last name, thus, if she married Dubinin her last name should be Dubinina. That is all Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just checked and indeed the last name of Evdokiya was Dubinina (there was a small probability that she did not changed the last name then marry) From Lev Kassil [37] Иногда на улицу эту в сопровождении керченских пионеров приходят Евдокия Тимофеевна Дубининас Валей. Пионеры часто навещают их. Они долго смотрят на портрет Володи, перечитывают простое, мужественное письмо, которое написал домой, узнав о гибели сына, Никифор Семенович.Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello... There is a problem with an user called Rastrojo. He continuosly seems to vandalize Leonese language article, without any collaboration on it. There are several users that told him to stop but he continues disturbing the work on tis article. Like you can see he almost writes anything more in the English Wikipedia. Can it be vandalism? Really we're tired about that fact. Thank you. Bilgelik (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I am the right person to moderate your dispute as I am not an expert in Leonese language or Spanish internal politics. The dispute on Leonese language appears to be a content dispute and Rastrojo is reasonably involved in the discussions on the talk page. Please follow WP:DR for this case. I am not an expert in the matter but some of Rastorjo's changes appear to make sense: using modern names of provinces, using the official spelling for the city, etc. And just the name of an institute is not a valid reference: we need the exact reference of a particular publication for verification (see WP:V or WP:RS) Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Привет. Можно ли исключить сайт biarmia.narod.ru из спам-листа. Если честно не знаю предысторию как сайт туда попал, возможно как и в русской его авторы раскручивали (в русской в свою очередь не забанили). Сайт является качественным источником картографической и исторической информации по Кольскому полуострову. Хотел добавить ссылку на источник в статью Semiostrovskiy Reid, но не получилось. Авторы сайта больше рассылкой не занимаются, а сайт удостоен нескольких премий в области. --Insider (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alex. I apologize for my comments in the past. We had quite a few disagreements, but you know me well. Right now I am debated at AE as you probably aware. How do you think, what would be most appropriate sanctions? Could you please comment there? Unlike with Piotrus, no one can tell that you are on my side. I believe that an overall topic ban would be unreasonable, as I contributed a lot of content in this area. What do you think? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Biophys. Apologies are accepted, please also take my apologies for the 'slap to the face remark", it was over the top.
Regarding the arbcom I am sceptical about its abilities to help and I am quite nervous about its ability to harm. Arbcom is good when we talking about administrative rights abuse or great incivility or complicated spamming, etc. It is not that effective about disputes that are mostly about content. Usually arbcom just bans a couple of editors from each side. IMHO it would not solve the conflict but we will lose four prolific editors. All sides hope that the arbcom would only ban editors from the opposing side. I am afraid that in that case the balance of fire-power would drastically change and the neutrality of articles would deteriorate. I will try to put some statement on the arbcom request page when I have time .
I do not want you to retire although some rest from the controversial themes might be good for you. I am semi-retired now myself. This is not a protest from a particular wiki-event and mostly because I am quite busy in the real life. Still I am enjoying wikiediting much less than in the past and it partially caused by many interesting editors driven away from wiki Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Then I would rather stay around and do some editing. But I will be more cooperative, especialy with the editing restriction. I agree with your comment about loosing good content editors. To keep more editors running, I am personally planning not to file complaints about any editors except such as Jacob Peters (and you possibly noticed that I did not report even socks of Jacob until he became enormously disruptive). And I know that you are also generally supportive of content editors, at least until they become a real problem for others.Biophys (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. At 00:41, 22 June 2009, you blocked me for 48 hours with the rationale, "Violation of the three-revert rule: on Human rights in the United States". I have some questions about this block per your comments here.
My first question would concern your neutrality in this area, or rather your conflict of interest. You are an outspoken advocate of the two editors who reverted me - Biophys and Mosedchurte. In the past, you have given them both awards on your user page. You have also defended Mosedchurte's behavior in regards to the dispute on Human rights in the United States. Please recall approximately a month ago when Mosedchurte was blocked for previously edit warring on this same article. You were contacted on your user page by User:Colchicum and asked to comment on ANI. You wrote this glowing appraisal in his defense:
I have my own experience with Mossedchurte. He is a brilliant editor with wealth of knowledge and good writing skills. Still his communicative skills somehow fails him and often small genuine editorial disagreements tend to blow into conflicts requiring some sort of mediation. Still it is possible to deal with him and his brilliant contributions more than compensate the additional efforts on solving the editorial conflicts. This is my opinion on Mossed, someone else's opinions might be different. Still one thing is clear, he is a very valuable asset to Wikipedia and we cannot apply a long ban to him based on a short AN/I discussion...[39]
You then tried to close the discussion. Fast forward a month later. Mosedchurte files a 3RR report against me on 22 June. According to the header at WP:AN3, "When reporting a user here, inform them of this on their talk page. Be aware that the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption."
Although you are semi-retired, and rarely, if ever, find your way to WP:AN3, you were able to find the report and block me. I was not, however, able to find the report, because I was never notified of the report at any time and had no idea it existed, and could not, therefore, compose a reply. Perhaps if I had someone like say, User:Colchicum or Mosedchurte, or perhaps even Biophys, contacting me by e-mail that would help. I also notice that since the year 2009 began, this is only your second time commenting on AN3; The first involved your friend Biophys in February.[40]
I don't see how you considered the behavior of Mosedchurte or Biophys, both of whom were deliberately restoring plagiarized, copyrighted material into the article. And you never considered the behavior of Biophys, whose only edit was to tag-team for Mosedchurte, again, restoring the plagiarized, copyright violating material back in, even though I had commented extensively about it on the discussion page and explained why it had to be removed. I have looked at Mosedchurte's report and it appears to have a multitude of errors with the wrong dates and diffs given. Is it safe to assume that you did not look at the report or the actions of the other editors here? "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users," yet I was the one punished. Who was doing more damage with their reverts, the editor removing plagiarism and copyright violations, or the editors adding them into the article?
This is the substance of the revert made by Biophys. Please compare it with the original material from the book. The version Biophys (and Mosedchurte) restored consisted of 43 words, 28 of which were in the form of exact phrases taken from the book without quotation marks or author attribution. This is defined as plagiarism and copyright violation. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Viridtas, I am in Fiji at the moment and mostly offline. I would answer after Monday, when I will be back hame. I think I am fairly objective in regards with Mosseschurte and Biophys and certainly not in the same cabal as those two. Recently ther was an Arbcom named Piotrus 2 there we were on the opposing sides with Biophys, so if anything I suppose to be his enemy. I have very little common editing with Mossedschurte, although I admire his redoning of Joseph Stalin and a few other Soviet Union - related staff. I was trying to moderate his dispute with Paul Siebert over the Molotov-Ribentrop pact and well aware about some of his strong and weak editing habits Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can verify that Alex is not of the pro-EE/Baltic whatever they/I are called these days. A calmer outlook will assist all in the end, I wouldn't want Viriditas' positive contributions to get lost in one of those "missing the forest for the trees" things. That said, I sometimes get the feeling that the forest is getting lost for the trees in some of the arguments over content at H.r. in the U.S. For what it's worth. PētersVTALK02:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just informed of the existence of this blunderbuss attack from Viriditas. I'm not exactly stunned. Viriditas is now on extensive and intense WP:Wikihounding campaign against several editors, which is the discussion of an RfCU on Virididtas here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas. Honestly, if I could just get it to stop, regardless of any methods taken (I don't need a block of him/her), I would be happy, as you can read in the rather long, painful RfCU. For the record, contrary to some of the outrageous allegations, I have actually had fairly few dealings with Alex Bakharev (hope you're having fun in Fiji) except the few instances he outlined above. The inclusion of this editor and allusions of conspiracies and the like are not new for Viriditas, as is made clear in the RfCU. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I initially supported majority of Viriditas' edits his recent campaign against plagiarism doesn't seem reasonable for me. This campaign creates an impression that Viriditas doesn't want some materials to be included into the article and uses plagiarism as a pretext. In that sense, Mosedschurte's behaviour looks more constructive. It is worth noting, however, that Viriditas' behaviour on the "Humans rights in the US" page resembles closely the behaviour of Mosedschurte on other pages. By refusal to get a point Viriditas eventually prevented Mosedschurte from editing the article (exactly what Mosedschurte have done with me on some Eastern Europe pages). Nevertheless, Mosedschurte seems to be prone to collaboration, and, according to him, he doesn't want Viriditas to be blocked. (That resembles my own attitude towards Mosedschurte). Therefore, the collision "Viriditas vs Mosedschurte" resembles that of Mosedschurte vs Paul Siebert. Look at this mirror, Mosedschurte, maybe you will learn something. Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with your assessment Paul, is that it isn't accurate. The diffs show that before I discovered the plagiarism, I supported the material by trying to fix it and add author attribution. This fix was reverted by Mosedschurte with no edit summary describing his revert. I then took a closer look at the material, discovered it was plagiarized wholesale from a book, and removed it. I also expressed concerns that it didn't belong in the lead per WP:LEAD. At no time did I ever express any disagreement or dispute with the content, so I don't know where you are getting that idea from. I also expressed concerns that by removing the attribution, Mosedschurte was asserting the opinion of the author as fact, rather than asserting facts about opinions per NPOV. When I discovered the content was plagiarized, I discussed it on the talk page. I brought up the problem of the placement of this content in the lead section and its status as copyvio/plagiarism on the content noticeboard. The replying editor agreed that material that isn't in the body shouldn't be in the lead. On the content noticeboard discussion, I added a copy of a newer, recently paraphrased version of the original plagiarized material that had replaced the original version. I believe Mosedschurte was the author. I asked if this newer revision was still plagiarized (and by Turabian 2007 definitions of inadvertent plagiarism it is). Although the responding editor did not comment on the original plagiarized material, they did say that the newer, paraphrased version was not plagiarized. More importantly, this new paraphrased version had been added to the article after my initial complaint, so the content noticeboard did not weigh in with an opinion regarding the original material, or at least it was ambiguous if they did. I asked a second time for clarification and still did not receive an answer. Because I could not get a straight answer about the material, I filed an incident report on the copyright cleanup board. They responded that that material was problematic, improperly paraphrased, and did not meet Wikipedia's standards for free content. They also stated that the material was an opinion, not fact, and needed to be properly attributed as such. Further, they recommended that the next time I run into this problem, that I try to fix it before removing it. However, they were unaware that this is exactly what I did before I was reverted by Mosedschurte. Because I have posted the diffs for these claims so many times now, I have left them out of this response. If anyone requires a particular diff for a certain claim, please say so and I'll provide them. Viriditas (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except one important fact: It was found 'NOT TO BE PLAGAIRISM.[41] Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge this sentient, undisputed fact by repeating this pronouncement ad nauseum does not change this fact, nor does it act as a justification for breaking the 3RR rule, for which you gained a short ban, much less your latest campaign of wp:wikihounding, harassment and personal attacks on numerous talk pages, ANI's, Neutrality Noticeboard complaints, Copyright Noticeboard complaints and Sockpuppet accusations that have now spanned a period of over one month. As it stands, your continuous claim that a user is a plaigarist in the face of User:Binksternet's statement that he is not is a personal attack of the first order. Moreover, though I have yet to see where my contributions were questioned on this basis, you have decided to make this accusation against me as well: [42]. Your entire history is completely documented here: [43] Please stop the madness. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no desire to engage in any discussion with you, Yachtsman1, because you are consistently distorting the facts. The material in question is defined as plagiarism by every known definition and was found to be plagiarism. Binksternet's opinion about the material did not directly address it, and his response was unclear and ambiguous. From what I can tell, he was not referring to the original plagiarized version, but to the latter paraphrased version which replaced it. This has been explained to you several times but you keep ignoring it, preferring to push your POV. The copyright cleanup project also found the material unsuitable for Wikipedia and their response placed it on the same level as plagiarized content. I am currently pursuing this with their project so we will await their final opinion on the matter. Contrary to the false appearance you are trying to portray here, there is no debate on this point. The material was inadvertently plagiarized from a book and meets the definition of plagiarism. The fact that latter versions which replaced it were paraphrased appropriately appears to be the opinion of Binksternet. I attempted to have him clarify this point unambiguously, but he did not, but the copyright cleanup project was clear on the issue. You are free to take it up with them. Lastly, the removal of copyright infringement is not applicable to 3RR. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You had previously banned User:Viriditas for edit-warring, and the moment the editor was off the ban, she went right back to work with four substantial edits in less than 24 hours on the above-article. I now have claims that materials are plaigarized when the work is directly attributed to the source via a cite: [[45]]. I have avoided re-adding this material at present as I myself would like to avoid an edit war, even though the claims of plaigarism are transparent and patently absurd.
Don't think the criticism is fully justified, because both Viriditas' opponents, Yachtsman1 and, in particular, Mosedschurte are not too prone to productive collaboration. Therefore, the recent Viriditas' behaviour can be partially explained by that fact. I believe Alex is aware of that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All such matters should be reported to uninvolved administrators or filed to SPI in order to provide impartial investigation.Biophys (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you've been tracking HanzoHattori in the past, so I thought I'd keep you in the loop.
00:39, 1 July 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 94.246.128.0/19 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 year (Abusing multiple accounts: HanzoHattori.) (unblock | change block)
00:38, 1 July 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Cheshire-cat-smiled (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (HanzoHattori) (unblock | change block)
00:36, 1 July 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Mjr Edit (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (HanzoHattori) (unblock | change block)
00:36, 1 July 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 94.246.139.202 (talk) with an expiry time of 2 years (account creation blocked) (banned user HanzoHattori) (unblock | change block)
00:24, 1 July 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 94.246.154.130 (talk) with an expiry time of 2 years (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Abusing multiple accounts: HanzoHattori.) (unblock | change block)
00:23, 1 July 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 94.246.154.130 (talk) (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of 1 year (Abusing multiple accounts: HanzoHattori.) (unblock | change block)
00:22, 1 July 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts: HanzoHattori.) (unblock | change block)
Здравствуйте! По поводу Вашей правки [48], хочу обратить вниание, звание Маршала Российской Федерации, в соответствии с законом, является высшим для всех видов Вооружённых Сил. По этому поводу была большая дискуссия в Русской Википедии [49]. Там, давольно долго, шалил вандал, постоянно вносивший информацию о Адмирале флота Российской Федерации и т.п. С уважением, Сергей Корнилов (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alex: Can you please amend this edit history to eliminate the edit of July 7, 2009? [50] Sometimes, kids don't think, and this is one of those times. The contributor listed the name of a Federal Judge's "favorite niece". I left a message for the contributor to avoid ever doing so again. Thanks. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute obviously requires independent intervention for resolution. I am a novice user. YellowMonkey is a highly experienced user. Some help to bridge the technical-skill divide is required and would be greatly appreciated.
Have tried to engage other experienced users, to no avail so far as to the substantive issues of Roland Perry content -- including content that is still posted on various Wikipedia pages that maligns Roland Perry, some of which I have already identified in my previous posts (see my contribution History) that should be removed immediately:
Alex, as an experienced Administrator who has placed Protection on the Roland Perry page on two occasions this year -- can you please assist me with removing content that is yet still posted on various Wikipedia pages that maligns Roland Perry; and how I can effectively advocate for this. It is not obvious to a novice user how to go about this and surely content which continues to malign the living author Roland Perry exposes Wikipedia to all sorts of challenges. Haruspex101 (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)[reply]
Hi, regarding 1993 constitutional crisis again, I am not planning to revert any more to the previous version that Biophys also used. However, I think the issue is not limited to having fluent prose in articles. When I first started editing, the article looked like someone's lecture material, i.e. having emotional language and reflected someone's (author's) personal stance.
So, yes, if an article is written by one author, and does not have references for each and every phrase it likely gets a better sentence structure, too. But the problem is that Wikipedia does not work that way. It is not so crucial to have 'good prose', we rather need to have things verified and as objective as possible. The main quality issue of the Wikipedia article on 1993 Russian constitutional crisis still remains lack of proper verification as this thing was not emphasised at the time when most of the text was written (around 2004). All in all, I do hope 172 will now refrain from reverting to obsolete versions in various articles, as he has also been told not to do e.g. here. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog(woof!)11:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alex. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University in the United States. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic current events articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at 2008 South Ossetia war that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below. An explanation of my project is included with the survey.
Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admired your candidacy last year, and wish you had run for the Board again this year! I hope you will ask questions that matter to you; we have good data now to confirm that growth has been stagnant for over two years. And I would appreciate your contributions to m:Suggestions and proposals. Cheers, +sj+00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you'd be interested to see this - it's a simple article about a fish - seems to be generating a lot of false positives. Hope that's useful for future enhancements. If not, ignore! --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are mostly logfiles of the bot that are used only by people tuning up the bot rules. They will disappear in a day or two. There are only three hits in the search results: Fishes (duh!), Waterbodies (it might be marginally usable for people interesting in lakes,ponds and rivers to check the fish article), References (for the new articles that use inline references - I am not sure of the utility of the feed, but your article certainly uses the reference). No inclusion into a search result looks like a clear false positive to me Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, i have seen that there is a anonymous user who is determined to corrupt the articles: Russians and Russian diaspora. He always changes the Statististics and writes worng data. this user also has the nerves to give false sources: they do deal with demography but have nothing to do with his changes. in other words his changes are not established and false. I ask you to monitor his activity and those articles.
thank you very much, 77.127.174.140 (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
It is not a vandalism but a content dispute. Usually we do not know the statistics of migrants by their ethnic heritage but by the country of origin. Many migrants from Russia to USA, Australia, etc are not ethnically Russians but Russian Jews, Russian Germans, Russian Ukrainians, etc. Israel is obviously an extreme example of such problem. The majority of immigrants from Russia there are presumably Russian Jews but there are many Russian Russians (family members, converts to Judaisms, etc.) as well as people of mixed ethnicity. It is very difficult to get separate statistics on ethnical composition of emigrants from Russia and I am not sure we need to separate those groups. One of the solution would be to keep the demographic data per country of origin but give footnotes that many (in the case of Israel, probably most) of those are not ethnical Russians. Other suggestions could be discussed on the talk page Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also there's a nice guideline called WP:POVFORK, which says "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts."
Forking the war crimes conducted by ony the other side into a separate article (while conveniently dropping the bigger context and crimes by the other side) seems to be prime example of this. Or do you disagree? Offliner (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People flying from the war are indeed humanitarian impact of the war, people forced out or prevented from returning well after seizing of the hostilities are not directly related to the humanitarian impact of the war. Also expanding scope of the article beyond 2008 explaining how ethnically mixed territory of pre 1991 became divided between almost pure Ossetian and almost pure Georgian enclaves in 2008 is important and does not fit the Humanitarian impact article Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct Alex, but there is a difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing. And of course, it needs to be looked at from the other side as well, as per my comments in the current AfD, Georgian genocide (if that is what WP is calling it now) of South Ossetians would also be worthy of an article, given events in 1920, 1991-1991 and 2008, and Georgia for Georgians doctrine/policies. I think what Offliner is saying is that such topics would best be dealt with in an article on the war itself, rather than be splitting out into articles, especially those with such POV/devisive names as the one currently under discussion, where it is being used as mere propaganda in the sense that it is setting out to prove that there was genocide, much the same as the Communist genocide article. --RussaviaDialogue07:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :-) I really appriciate everything you are doing with this bot. Just to let you know, I think this bot run may be missing some articles. It looks like it passed over all articles created on August 10 and 11. For example, this article I created on August 11, Beverly Bower, was not picked up.Singingdaisies (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your bot erroneously tagged the article Fakta fra verden, that I created, as COI. I'm not the creator of this series, which should be fairly obvious, as he's Norwegian and I'm Finnish. I have only met the creator once in my life, very briefly, at a public presentation he did of this comic, and he doesn't know who I am. I have concluded the reason your bot tagged the article as COI is because I included the name "Jippi Comics" in the external links, part of which matches my username. This is sheer coincidence. My username comes from my initials, and this "Jippi Comics" name undoubtedly comes from the Norwegian word for "Yippee". JIP | Talk20:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a false positive. Bot was alarmed that your nickname is close to the "Jippi Comics" in the external links. Sometimes false positives happen, I am sorry. I have removed the entry from the search results of the bot and I have modified the bot code so to make repeating of the problem less likely Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:VeronikaDolina.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! there is a problem with your photo, I have uploaded from en-wiki to commons. It would be apreciate if you say some word... Regards Electron (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Tretyak.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Great! bot
){kind=link}
![[5]](/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Herald.jpg){kind=link}
— 16 March 2009
Template:VHS rationale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --GedUK 16:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
