User talk:Russavia/Archive 23

Aeroflot
Will undo your edit an place the information you deleted in another section of the article.--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have placed information on the talk page. Please refer to it there. Also, sites such as planespotters.net are not reliable sources for information -- they are hobbyist sites, and should be avoided at all costs. Russavia Let's dialogue 23:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice
Please see WP:A/R/C. T. Canens (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Jo0doe
Hi, just wanted to let you know of a discussion over at the Blocks/Protections noticeboard at Commons regarding User:Jo0doe, since you have been involved with discussions regarding him in the past. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note, that my response below was before I noticed the disruption from several editors. I have removed the below from the noticeboard, and it is my intention to block numerous editors, and I am currently discussing this with other Commons admins. Russavia Let's dialogue 02:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

My response
Please note that it is pertinent that discussion and notices relating to my actions in an administrative capacity on Commons should be posted on my Commons talk page. Not to my enwp talk page. Please just remember this in future. However, I will respond here, and will copy it to the Admin noticeboard on Commons as well.

The file in question has been a long standing area of dispute on Commons with infantility on all sides within that general area. If you refer to Commons:File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg in mid-September I moved the image to a name which can't be disputed by anyone, and due to edit warring I also locked the image page for 1 month. I also posted Commons:File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg where I explained to editors exactly what is needed for any edits to be made to the file image page. It was my intention as an admin to give EVERYONE a clean slate on Commons in relation to this particular file (and somewhat in general) -- everything previous would be ignored and forgotten -- and editors would be required to work together in order to reach a firm description for this image (even noting reliable controversies related to this image specifically). In other words, it is an opportunity for editors to show that they can be productive and collegial on Commons, even if they have problems doing so on other projects (again directed to ALL editors).

I also posted at Commons:File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg where I explained what date of publication meant, and what consequences incorrect information would mean to having it on Commons. I also advised that I was taking the file and talk page off my watchlist, and had no desire to become involved (in an administrative capacity) in the debate, mainly because of other "projects" I have been working on taking up my time, and I wouldn't be able to spend any great time on it. Now is the first time that I have seen that page since posting that comment.

What I see there since my last post is ignoring by Jo0doe of my administrative direction that only information/evidence relating to the specific image should be discussed as it is only such evidence that will be taken into account by administrators. I also see from Lothar ignoring of a direction to be Commons:Commons:MELLOW, especially Commons:Commons:MELLOW.

I have given ALL the opportunity for a clean slate on Commons to be collegial, and as such any problems from the past will be ignored by myself. There will be NO importing of disputes from other projects to Commons. Commons is not an extension of battlegrounds from other wikis, where problematic editors are able to continue such behaviour. Editorial behaviour on "EE topics" in future on Commons is going to be collegial, it is going to be constructive, it is going to civil, it is beneficial to this project. Battle armour and weapons of mass disruption will be checked at the door when entering Commons. We on Commons do not care if the Holodomor (for example) is genocide or not; it is irrelevant to our Project scope (read ALL of this carefully), which is being a repository of freely licenced educational media. And if editors are using Commons to settle scores for editorial conflicts on other projects, they will be swiftly shown the door.

I have also made it clear that ALL editors are able to approach me for assistance/advice on my Commons talk page if they need it. This has already occurred at Commons:User_talk:Russavia/Archive_2. Any this stands true even now, and it goes for ALL editors; contact me on my talk page if advice is needed on any issue relating to Commons, whether that be copyright questions, or questions relating to editorial conduct -- if I am unable to help due to lack of time, or any other reason, I will direct you to the appropriate area on Commons for assistance.

In relation to this request, if there is other disruption, let's say post-22 September 2011 (with exceptions for noted comments above), then please provide the evidence of this, and if it requires blocking of editors (from any side), or file description protection, etc, you can be assured that I will take necessary actions without prejudice.

It was my intention to try and give all editors in the somewhat problematic EE area a clean slate to prove that their presence on Commons is beneficial to the community. With the exception of the two edits from the article talk page noted above, I do not see anything else in this request that is post-my instructions on the talk page; some of the links go back months.

I am also somewhat concerned by editors who aren't Commons contributors (next to no edits on Commons) and are known "opponents" on other editors appearing at this request; User:Galassi is one such example; the IP is the other. It is reasonable to assume that there is a possibility that this request has been canvassed; if this is the case please provide any necessary links to where this has been done; because if this is the case, it is classic importation of battlegrounds from other projects, and in future will be frowned upon at least, and the ignoring of non-contributors and known "adversaries" from other projects at best.

To fellow admins, please consider my comments above. I will not be acting upon this request, as it was my intent to give these editors an opportunity to be positive contributors to Commons, and have encouraged discussion between parties, by explaining what we as admins need when there are disputes. It is likely that many editors on all sides do not realise that Commons is not Wikipedia---by giving them this opportunity to know what is expected of them as editors on Commons; I am almost certain that if all editors completely reset their AGF metre in relation to their adversaries from other projects, one could see improvement of content on Commons, with a possible side-effect of more collegial editing on other projects where this has not been the case previously. I think this is worth a shot.

However, if I were to act upon this request, I would place the following blocks:


 * 1 day on Jo0doe for his failure to adhere to Commons:File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg at Commons:File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg
 * 1 day on Lothar von Richthofen for this failure to adhere to Commons:MELLOW (Commons:File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg at Commons:File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg
 * 1 day on Lvivskie for reporting behaviour by Jo0doe when he was just as guilty in the stale history of edit warring, and has also ommitted that Jo0doe has used the talk page for placement of sources which could back up his revert.
 * 1 day on Galassi for his obvious battleground arrival to this request
 * 1 day (additional to above if necessary) on the editor who canvassed this discussion (if that is demonstrated as I suspect)
 * 1 day on the IP arrival who is also obviously a battleground arrival.
 * Additional notice that failure to abide by Commons standards will result in longer blocks.

I would also recognise that all editors are as guilty as one another in the battle and importation of dramuh from other projects in violation of Commons principles. This recognition is not directed at any editor, but would be put out there as a generalisation.

I would also remind editors to discuss the content rather than the editors -- on Commons the content, especially sources relating to publication and copyright is of utmost importance; this could make the difference between whether stays on Commons or is deleted -- disputes from other projects are of almost total irrelevance to us here.

If Scope is not understood by editors coming to Commons from other projects as being completely different from Wikipedia, and they refuse to drop outside disputes upon entering the door, they should be reminded that their presence here on Commons could be problematic in future.

I would also recognise that editors may or may not have trouble understanding our policies, guidelines and other information on Commons due to language barrier issues. If this is the case, they should be directed to relevant information in a language they understand, or failing such a link being available requesting asisstance.

Or other admins, and the above (and all other) editors can agree today is the day that a new leaf was turned over. I see no harm in this, as those editors who are disruptive would be banned completely in the future anyway if they are that disruptive. Dramuh from other projects should immediately be rejected as from now. It is worth a shot I believe, let's see what could be produced from this; nothing to lose, but a lot to gain. Russavia Let's dialogue 01:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I posted to this talkpage because I figured you were more active here than there. My mistake.
 * Per WP:CANVASS, we see the following as acceptable: "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) ... The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions [I sent a message to you, didn't I? you were the only one who I remembered having supported/tolerated J. to any capacity]—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them." Notification ≠ canvassing.
 * I think that the IP is probably someone from here who forgot to sign in. Per my report, there is no reason why individuals from here should not add input, since the disruption on Commons has sparked some issues on Enwiki.
 * On the other hand, I laud you for not taking action. It would be improper, IMO, given recent events here. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Lothar, I urge you to please resist from posting anything relating to Commons issues on my talk page on enwp. And please do not think that any issues I may have been involved in on enwp automatically make me ineligible to take action on Commons for disruption there. I ask that you do not post to my talk page on enwp again in relation to this issue; the reason for this will be evident on Commons in the near future. This discussion is now closed. Russavia Let's dialogue 03:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Your query
I've taken down the evidence page because, in the light of recent events, it seems to be no longer needed. I will restore it if circumstances require; please let me know if you see any further incidents of possible sockpuppetry relating to this individual. Prioryman (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Prioryman, thanks for that. The editor in question is going to be under scrutiny, as is the Arbitration Committee itself. Thus far, the Committee is avoiding the issues at hand, and they need to take responsibility. Their secret unblocking of a most disruptive sockpuppet, and their pig headedness and fobbing off of evidence presented to them, is setting a very bad precedent. You will notice that as yet, not a single Arbiter has ponied up and taken any degree of responsibility, and the longer Committee members do this, the worse it is for the community. All one is looking for is acknowledgement that they were duped by this sockpuppet, and perhaps for something to be put in place to ensure that knowledgeable community members are not overruled in such cases again. If you refer to my comments at the clarification request, you will notice that this editor has been topic banned, and unbelievably in face of evidence of them being a sockpuppet, admins have allowed this sockpuppet to participate in mediation on one of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia; the article is within the very subject area that this sockpuppet was indefinitely blocked from for being disruptive.


 * Whether you make it available again or not, that is up to you, but I will let the Committee know of its existence, and will also post a link to it at the clarification request. Cheers, Russavia Let's dialogue 10:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * To be honest I don't think that would be helpful at this stage. I agree that the Arbcom likely got it wrong, but it would do little good to berate them further for it - the issue is moot unless the editor returns. There is no ongoing harm while the editor is inactive. I know that is less satisfactory than seeing them blocked, but the outcome is the same. If the editor returns then an in-depth SPI would be necessary (which is what I was preparing for) but right now there is no point pursuing it further. I would advise you to keep your powder dry and take action if there is a recurrence, rather than now when people will just say "he's gone, what's the point?". Prioryman (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess we can agree to disagree here, however, I think it is important to press ahead with this, and the reasoning is quite simple. The editor in question has only just placed the retirement tag on his talk page, and there is a possibility they will return; either under the same username, or under a new username. This leaves us with 2 scenarios...
 * If they return under the same username, and the clarification request is closed off, we need to start all over again. And what a monumental waste of time that will be.
 * If they return under a new username, they can wikilawyer that they are not in fact Marknutley, but that they are TLAM, and because the Committee has given him carte blanche to return under TLAM, they are simply using their right to start afresh, and that they should be dealt with by the Committee, seeing as the Committee is now trying to tell us, contrary to previous advice, that anything concerning this user should go through them. And wikilawyer they will.
 * I am a firm believer in people taking ownership of their actions, and this is a case where the Committee itself needs to pony up and take responsibility. I will continue to berate them at every opportunity until such time as they take responsibility. Whether this means I press them to take responsibility at the current Clarification request, or whether I press individuals at their re-election bid, I will continue until such time as someone takes ownership. Once there is some clear acknowledgement, and something put in place to prevent it from occurring in future, the matter can be dropped. It is up to individuals on the Committee how they want to proceed?
 * In regards to other evidence, I have clear WP:DUCK evidence that these editors are one and the same. However, I won't be posting it onwiki for 2 reasons --- the Committee is saying that they will take charge of any evidence, so posting it onwiki not only makes the evidence unable to be acted upon onwiki, but it also give MK information on how obvious it is that TLAM is a sockpuppet, and hence will give him an opportunity to try harder to evade detection in the future. Providing it on email is possible, as long as there is some sort of guarantee it won't be disseminated; especially to Arbcom, because to do so will only make it unusable; hence why this still needs to be dealt with at the clarification request. Russavia Let's dialogue 12:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to email it to me, if you wish. I still have a copy of the evidence page so I can add it to that material if necessary. I won't disclose it without your permission. Prioryman (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

He's back. I've restored the page at User:Prioryman/evidence and will develop it into an SPI. If you have additional evidence, please let me know. Prioryman (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Prioryman, I do have additional evidence, and I will provide it to you, on the basis that none of the evidence contained in it is to be either disclosed onwiki or shared with the Arbitration Committee. The reasons for this are stated above. We don't want to give the sockpuppet behavioural and editing traits which gave them away by it being onwiki, and we don't want to give the additional unseen evidence to the Arbcom, so long as they continue to assert supervision over this sockpuppet -- the behavioural evidence I provided was WP:DUCK to the extreme -- the committee made a WP:GOOSE decision by fobbing it off completely. The Committee needs to hand control of this case back to the Community -- this in my mind is especially important, as you will see that the Arbs who made this "consensus" decision have yet to identify themselves. This is akin to a case of the police policing the police.
 * Once control is handed back to the Community, then even then the behavioural and editorial traits should not be posted onwiki; but rather to SPI investigators via private means. If all of that is ok, I'll pop it right through to you on email -- once you see the WP:DUCK evidence, you will understand why it is important to keep this from the sockpuppet. Russavia Let's dialogue 22:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's fine. A similar consideration had occurred to me, which is why I've held off from populating some of the evidence page. I'd be interested to see if your observations and mine coincide. Prioryman (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You have mail. Russavia Let's dialogue 08:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Perth Airport
Hi Russavia! Here are couple of discussions on this matter on, , and. Former routes doesn't appear to be encyclopedic and sometimes they are hard to reference. Some carriers that have terminated services to Perth may restart them. I suggest you bring it up at WP:AIRPORTS and gain new consensus if you feel that it should added. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Eurasian Union
Hello! Could you procure some images from the Kremlin.ru to illustrate the article Eurasian Union? I'm not exactly sure about the procedure to do it myself, given all those copyrights etc. Grey Hood   Talk  00:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, since the Consulate-General of Mongolia in Ulan-Ude is an article created by you, you should be informed that it has been nominated for deletion. Grey Hood   Talk  21:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Greyhood, sorry for my delay in responding. In relation to the Kremlin.ru photos, upload them to Commons, and when it comes to licencing use Commons:Template:Kremlin.ru Kremlin.ru for the licencing. If you are unsure how to do all of this, let me know and I will put it to my list of things to do in the future. Cheers, Russavia Let's dialogue 19:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

WP Russia in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Russia for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you are going to participate, aren't you? I'm just trying to assess how many people are interested (I'm planning to answer at least some of the questions myself, too). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 21, 2011; 15:13 (UTC)
 * I will try to give some answers where I can. Do you know when we have until to do this? And do you know which other editors were asked by any chance? Russavia Let's dialogue 19:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks that we have until mid-December. Other editors asked to participate are Greyhood, Nanobear, and WhisperToMe. I additionally asked Yaroslav and am planning to post on WT:RUSSIA. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 22, 2011; 19:53 (UTC)

hr wiki
Thanks for suggestion, good pic! SpeedyGonsales (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Air Arabia Egypt A320
I see you are missing one of these, feel free to add this one to your A320 collection --Biggerben (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. It was one people were wondering if it would ever appear anywhere. I've added it to the list currently under development (and which probably still will be in 10 years time). Cheers, Russavia Let's dialogue 04:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
– Connormah (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Required photos
Do you still need photos for different Moscow landmarks? I travel and walk around the city quite often so I could help the common cause :). P.S. Is it better to write on your TP in English or Russian? Artem Karimov (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Artem, feel free to write on my TP in English or Russian. I am still looking for a couple of photos in Moscow as per User:Russavia/Required_photos -- there's only a few embassies in dedicated buildings left that I need -- the Philippines and Abkhazian embassies -- the rest being in office buildings, which may prove difficult in getting? Other than Moscow, I'd appreciate any help recruiting photographers in other cities from which I need photos. I appreciate your offer of assistance, and hope to hear from you in future with news of new photos being put up. I know that there is also a category on WP which lists articles for which editors are looking for photos, if I can find it I will let you know.


 * It might also be interesting to get photos of Leningradskiy Prospekt 37 -- this of course being the huge complex at which aviation in USSR, and less somewhat in Russia, was centred around. Russavia Let's dialogue 19:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Вот:
 * File:Москва, Карманицкий переулок, 6-8.jpg.
 * File:Москва, Мамоновский переулок, 4.jpg. Artem Karimov (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies Artem, I thought I replied and i didn't. Thanks very much for getting those photos for me, much appreciated. Are you open to other requests from myself and other editors? ;) Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, I am always happy to help you if I can :) Artem Karimov (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

747
Regarding this edition. I am interested in finding out why the removal of such image? Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the image for two reasons. Firstly, a cutaway drawing is more appropriate for an article on the actual aircraft. The second reason is that the livery as shown on the cutaway was never flown on an Avianca 747. File:Avianca 747-124 HK-2000 Eldorado.JPG shows the only livery which was flown on the 747s. As we have access to plenty of photos of Avianca 747s, there isn't really a need for a cutaway drawing on the airline article. Hope this explains why I removed the cutaway drawing. Russavia Let's dialogue 00:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should put it back. The image is not intended to have any historical significance but it includes the Avianca color scheme which could be useful for illustrative purpose. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"please observe WP:BRD - bold, revert, discuss - you need to discuss before spamming articles with external links -- and partisan i am not lol"
Oooh. Well lol yourself! You must be very special if the Wikipedia rules of discussion don't apply to you, and you can simply state what is and is not acceptable to everyone, including to our readers who rely on us for actual information and multiple points of view. Read this or ignore it, as you like. Apparently your definition of "spam" is "anything which doesn't support your personal spin". 75.59.206.69 (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Russia–Sri Lanka relations
Hi, a while back I created the Russia–Sri Lanka relations article, which I believe you have contributed to. I was thinking of improving the article when I came across your article User:Russavia/Sri Lanka. I wondering if its ok if I can take the information from your user article and place it in the Russia–Sri Lanka relations? Thanks!--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Denise Welch
Thanks for adding a usable photo at the Denise Welch article. The only free photo we had was horrible, and I fought to keep it out, feeling no photo was better than an uncomplimentary one. Happy holidays! Lhb1239 (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Orphaned non-free image File:Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ping
Still interested?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 12, 2011; 14:24 (UTC)

Please can you report user collect for edit-warring, violation of Deletion policy and whitewashing of Berezovsky article
if you know how to do it properly. you can find the details on the discussion page. Thanks a lot 170.148.215.157 (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Whitewashing_of_Boris_Berezovsky_article спасибо и с НГ! 170.148.215.157 (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Пожалуйста, прокоментируйте от себя также

Singapore Airlines Cargo
Hi. When you place tags on the top of an article like the one at the top of Singapore Airlines Cargo you need to expalin in as much detail as possible the problems with the article in the talk page. You shouldn't just tag it without this. Thanks. --JetBlast (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, this is already covered almost 5 years ago at Talk:Singapore_Airlines_Cargo. It is as true then as it is now. There is a problem of airline articles being overdependent on press releases and the like...this is just one such example where the tag on the article is pretty much self explanatory. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 02:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You will need to change the date of the tag from December 2011 to the date from a few years ago. This is so users can find the discussion. Also it not safe to assume its self explanatory as it might not be for other users. --JetBlast (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

How to deal with an edit conflict
When your edits conflict with those of another editor who saved changes before you did, as I did at Women's archery in Australia, you need to merge in your changes with the edits that preceded yours, not simply destroy them as if your edits are more important than everyone else's. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 05:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All I did, by the looks of it, is removed the PROD tag that you placed. Also, I'd suggest you stay away from LauraHale; it seems that you are delving into stalking and harrassment of her good faith edits. And that is a no-no. No further response here is required nor wanted. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 05:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Look again. Putting the prod back on the article was a temporary error, a byproduct of restoring my edits that you clobbered. No big deal either way. That said, if you have a personal issue with me, take it to User talk:SMcCandlish, don't use article edit summaries to be incivil and make false accusations. If LauraHale wishes to raise an issue with me, I invite her to do so. I'll be happy to show WP:AN/I her multiple cases of blatantly falsifying facts and sources in articles, among other disruptive editing. Repeatedly warning a problem editor that they are violating policies and making other mistakes, and undoing those mistakes, is not "stalking" or "harassment", it's normal Wikipedia patrolling; we have a whole page of templates about it at WP:UWT, and I was polite enough to address Hale directly and personally on what the issues are instead of just slapping user warning templates on her talk page like she's a noob vandal.  I have not addressed Hale in any way in any context other than in the problematic articles in Category:Women's sport in Australia and on her talk page and (because  posted there) my talk page.  Meanwhile, falsifying sources is  "good faith edits", it's worse than vandalism, and is the #1 biggest "no no" on the entire system.


 * You don't get to lambaste me and then pretend I have no right of reply. If you don't want to engage in a discussion of user behaviors and rationales, then you probably shouldn't start one in public. I think we probably understand each other fine now, and I have no wish to carry on a further conversation with you about this stuff beyond this response, unless you feel it is necessary (you'll need to talkback me; I'm not watchlisting your page).  Or maybe you'll accuse me of "harassing" and "stalking" you simply for defending myself against your broadcast accusation?  ;-)  Surely not.


 * Anyway, I'm not sure what your interest in the matter is, but perhaps you can convince Hale to edit more responsibly. No more falsifying facts. No more adding irrelevant things to articles just to pad them. No more citing the same source in the most redundant possible way to make the refs section look bigger. No more adding trivia to make the article seem bigger.  No more adding infoboxes for national team sports to individual pastimes in an effort to make the stub look more like a real, organized article. Etc.  I refuse to have anything further to do with her to the extent I can help it, as I said on my own talk page, because she appears to simply do whatever suits her agenda, with no regard for any other concerns, and I have better things to do than argue with a brick wall. The ironic thing is that much of the content she's misapplying in a vain attempt to save stubs on totally pointless triple intersections like "women's fishing in Australia" (which makes as much sense as "Hispanic gambling in Oregon" or "homosexual karaoke in Sweden") would be very good material, if pooled together and added to material from other countries, for a more useful article on discrimination against women's sport, as I suggested at WT:WikiProject Women's sport. That's an article we actually need. So is Women's sport in Australia, which I tried to create from her sprawled stubs, but she got upset, so I gave up and self-reverted it all. Big bad harassing stalker, undid his own changes against his own better judgement so his alleged "target" is happier and gets her way. Yeah, I'm real sinister and evil like that. I pet cats, too, and send my sister birthday presents.  Call the police!  — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 05:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review of Pope John Paul II
Hi Russavia, I thought you might be interested in participating in this peer review. Kind Regards -- Marek. 69  talk  01:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy Australia Day! Thank you for contributing to Australian content!

 * I'll second that - good stuff on the heritage council list - thanks for that SatuSuro 03:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks Laura and Satu. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 03:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI notification
I have asked for you to be blocked for your remarks here. You are quite simply wrong about this, but I do not expect that anything I say will change your mind. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Russavia, I would be interested in having more details about your statement that DC posted Fæ's home address and phone number to Wikipedia Review. It's high time this individual was held accountable for his poisonous conduct. The ArbCom ducked out of dealing with a similar episode of harassment from DC against another editor last year but this is too flagrant to be swept under the carpet. Please get in touch - my email is enabled if you want to do it that way. Prioryman (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Prioryman, I think it only needs to be asked of DC, the simple question requiring a simple yes or no answer; "Did you or did you not post information, including Fae's home address and phone number to WR, the posting of which then lead to further harrassment of Fae". Let me remind you all, DC has already admitted they did so, and wanted me to post off-WMF links to said information. They were told by another editor that this would be inappropriate, and I agree. But please, ask DC whether they did indeed post such information to WR. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 18:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have posted an account of what happened below your comments and proposed a block or ban of DC for his egregious conduct; you may wish to comment on my proposal. Prioryman (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW there isn't a Template:Support. Maybe there should be. :-) Prioryman (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I'd forgotten that I'd deleted it, years ago, following an overwhelming vote in favour of deletion. Oops! Prioryman (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ivan Petrov.JPG
You have listed this as a 1950s picture - but haven't linked to a source or reason for determining this age. Do you more information about this image? Rmhermen (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to remove the speedy deletion notice, but will instead take it to DR. I misread the 1954 bit, my bad, however, it does appear to be a WWII image, meaning it would miss the cutoff date for PD-RU. However, if it can be shown that the image was published in Ukraine before 1951, it will likely be PD-Ukraine. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 22:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Heritage sub page
We have been watching it quite a task you have set the active wa eds there!! well done! SatuSuro 13:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's a heap of articles to be written for sure. The photos I will be knocking off in the coming months.
 * Also, I noticed you wrote Maylands Airport - you might want to upload some of the images from here to Commons. Be sure to categorise under Commons:Category:State_Register_of_Heritage_Places as well if you do. Cheers, Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 02:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Re your note. No problems. Moondyne (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 04:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey thank you - great stuff !! SatuSuro 10:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for making changes on your workpage, thought I was assisting - as per your note have made some suggestions in respect to links on the talkpage. Keep up the good work - is a good reminder of all the articles that need to be created. Dan arndt (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you'll find interesting...
... for your page. Cheers! --Dura-Ace (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 05:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Racepacket
By consensus of the Arbitration Committee, the request for arbitration enforcement in which you participated has been moved here. The hearing will take place at the new location,  Roger Davies  talk 14:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Roger. I don't have anything more to add, except for the levels of harassment and general hostility towards editors on this project is spiralling out of control (talking about several different issues here), and something needs to be done to put a halt to it for once and for all. In relation to that motion, I'll let my comments stand -- if what is being presented is accurate, a global meta ban is in order, we don't need such editors on this, or any other, project. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 14:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

tolerance, and intolerance
Hi Russavia. I'm not under the impression that I am capable of turning bigots into enlightened people, but I do think I might be able to help prevent non-bigots from being unfairly labeled as bigots. With that in mind, I wanted to make sure you saw my reply (and offer) on that other page. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 00:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Assessment request for Luzhniki disaster
Hi, I found your name here, as the one of only two participants of the Sports and games in Russia task force. If you have a chance, would you be so kind to take a look at Luzhniki disaster? It's a start-class article, but I recently did a lot of work on it. Do you think it could be rated as C or even B class now? Thank you. --Potorochin (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * hi thnx for msg. I would be happy to look it over for you over this weekend. Cheers Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 04:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Natalya Timakova
Orlady (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Escalation by Cla68
Please see Administrators' noticeboard - I suspect you will have a view on this. Prioryman (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I do have a view; that being that Cla68 is simply trolling. I've removed their comments, and I won't be commenting on him any further, because the way to deal with trolls is to ignore them; without attention trolls will die a natural death. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 19:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also Prioryman, a comment directly for you. I am not commenting anymore on this issue, not because the trolls have succeeded in trying to make me be quiet, because they haven't, but because I am also reading comments by John Davies in a different light to the way that others have read it. Think about it. Also, did you see the motion that Arbcom just passed on User:Racepacket? Quite a precedent they have just set, don't you think? :) Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 21:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)