Talk:Seda Pumpyanskaya

Unsourced claims
Odd that so much should be claimed for somebody with so little evidence. How about a CV? Is it possible that the claims to be a Harvard Graduate and Global leader were fabricated? Did anybody every meet here at MGIMO? Did anybody ever see her at the BBC? Minthumbug (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Even odder that so many nameless individuals would write and continuously add to a page about Ms. Pumpyanskaya with so many unsubstantiated claims. User Minthumbug even adds mysterious references to the Lithuanian Jews as if he were a personal geneological expert on her heritage. Where is the personal wiki-biography of Minthumbug which can changed at the whim of biased individuals with an axe to grind? It seems as if Minthumbug and various other editors of this page are very clever wiki-vandals. The question to Minthumbug is what is your motivation? PaulRaunette (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
Probably a good idea. From what I understand the page was set up to politically smear a mid-level bureaucrat who has no real need of a separate wikipedia page of her own. PaulRaunette (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Biowulf Edits
5 albert square did a poor job at reverting the accurate work by Biowulf. Previously placed information about her studies at MGIMO are complete lies. She studied at Moscow State University which is confirmed by a friend that knows her well and studied with her. In fact all the current edits by Biowulf were 100% accurate as opposed to the previous article with only 50% or less accuracy.

If Off2riorob chooses to retain inaccuracies, then it is a complete disservice to the Wiki community. You may as well delete the article completely. Compared to all other contributors to this article Biowulf is the most accurate and should be commended for fine work. Stating that the "Edit was detrimental to the article" is farcical and shows a lack of respect for authenticity. PaulRaunette (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the way you are editing the article is detrimental to the article, you are adding inline citations and removing the formatted citations. If you are understanding of that and willing to discuss then we have a good option, if not, then I will not allow you to edit the article detrimentally. If you have issues with the article then you need to start discussing . I am here almost every day and am ready to discuss any issues anyone may have with the content. Off2riorob (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The way I edited the article was to revert it to the previously correct version. I did nothing else. Please do not say that was detrimental or make incorrect accusations. That is very unprofessional.PaulRaunette (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Paul


 * I will come on to defend my edits :)


 * When I reverted the article all I could see was that information had been removed. From memory the information included references, external links, that type of thing that are normally not inaccurate.  There was nothing to state why the information was removed so that's why I reverted the article, for unexplained removal/blanking of content.  Unfortunately I've never heard of this person until today, have no idea what they do, I do not have the ability to mind read (!) so unless somebody tells me why they are removing information, I have no way of knowing why!


 * However, I have apologised to the user on their talk page and given them helpful hints about using the edit summary as that may have helped. --5 albert square (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps your revert was a little hasty and it would have been better served to combine the two to save the citations? It isn't rocket science to see the difference between blatant vandalism and corrections even if the subject isn't commonly known.PaulRaunette (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I will make corrections to education. I also suggest that the Biowulf corrections be added in to the current article with proper Wiki formatting as you see fit. I am not familiar enough with proper Wiki formatting to take this task so perhaps the editors more familiar with proper syntax can make these corrections?PaulRaunette (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion is the way to go, if details are wrong we all want to correct them. Off2riorob (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a cite style to use.add the details and cut and copy to the article

- date format is eg .. November 12, 2010


 * Can I just make a point here that the formatting of the citations is a trivial matter of concern only to us, whereas the accuracy of the article is of paramount importance, as mandated by WP:BLP, and preferring a correctly formatted but incorrect version over an incorrectly formatted but correct version is wrong in every important respect. I hope that's not what has been happening. Biowulf is, as far as I can make out, an employee of the Council of Europe, who has been asked by the Secretariat to assist the subject in correcting persistent inaccuracies which themselves originate within the Council. It is clear to me that this article is being abused for the pursuit of a vendetta of some kind. Anyone with OTRS access can check 2010120410014632. I cannot believe that we actually allowed shit like this:  to remain in the article. It's appalling. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)