User talk:Miacek/Archives/2009/April

Teinonen as RS?
Imagine THAT: apparently, User:Offliner believes that Teinonen's blog is a reliable source for Kaitsepolitseiamet. Not only that; he appears to take this neo-Nazi's claims that Kapo is "criminal civil service" at face value, too:. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Will check it. A Nazi blog as a source is patent nonsense. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 16:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Siberian Wikipedia
I have nominated Siberian Wikipedia, 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 Articles for deletion/Siberian Wikipedia. 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.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Firestorm Talk 19:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

CPRF
I have removed part of your latest additions to the CPRF article because it is weasally in wording and isn't attributed to those who hold the opinion. Just in case you were wondering why I did so, just letting you know here. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 12:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all available on p. 51 of the books. There are simply too many people with such opinions to be listed, but I'll do it one day, as I was asked.  -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 12:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But are they notable opinions? An anti-fascist journal of dubious notability? And the other people? I dunno. But attribution of the opinions is the way to go on all articles for opinion IMO. --Russavia Dialogue 13:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you aren't implying that I am stalking anyone. As one can see, I have edited the article before as demonstrated by this only the other week. Any articles I edit are automatically placed on my watch list, which has led to it being several thousand articles long. I will admit that seeing your removal of information from the other article, and then an edit to the "Criticism" section of this article straight afterwards did draw my attention to it. As I have said above, I don't have a problem with opinions being present on WP, so long as they are attributed to those who hold said opinion, rather then being presented as a matter of fact, etc. I hope you understand that. --Russavia Dialogue 13:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say comparing criticism by Teinonen with criticism by Stephen Shenfield's works and certain Radzikhovskii (2000) and Proshechkin (1999) is creating false equivalencies, though, indeed, I couldn't get the corresponding bibliography page so I don't know yet who these two authors are. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 13:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well when I get back from my block, I will help you find this if you like. --Russavia Dialogue 13:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you.-- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 13:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)