User talk:Russavia/Archive 8

Happy New Year!


Happy editing in the coming New Year! Peace.Biophys (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism articles
Give it up. I whole-heartedly agree with your cause and support it 100%, but with the current trend of "zomg keep it has sources" votes at AFD, you can't do shit all. You're just going to get more stressed out if you try and push; believe me, it happened with me. Sorry. Sceptre (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a good point about approval ratings: even Bush, who is languishing in the high-30s, deserves three-eighths of positivity in an article :) Sceptre (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a good point about approval ratings: even Bush, who is languishing in the high-30s, deserves three-eighths of positivity in an article :) Sceptre (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of George W. Bush
Have nominated the above for deletion. Please share your views.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll bite :-)
About "за мужество и отвагу, проявленные при ликвидации незаконных вооруженных формирований в Северо-Кавказском регионе"... the language is not difficult, what Hero of the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation&mdash;the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation doesn't distinguish between the Soviet and post-Soviet era in listing them&mdash;are we interested in today? PetersV    TALK 15:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The language is Soviet-era language, and there are specific meanings for specific words under that usage. As another user has put it, it is legalese. As to what ones I am interested in, all of them. --Russavia Dialogue 06:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Again
Russavia, I really think that you waste your time in the article Putinism. I think that it will be much better to create such template for English Wikipedia and use it in that article.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, yeah it appears that 2 editors in particular want to make the "most grotesque" article possible. My advice to them would be to cut the shit, and remember what we are here for. If they don't like it, then they can leave and start their own wiki where they can make the rules and right as much rubbish as they like. But so long as I am here, I will keep on them and will keep on them, for they don't WP:OWN a single article on WP and actually have a long, long way to understanding exactly what WP is supposed to be about. My advice to other editors is don't let them get away with it, and keep on their backs about such things, for we all lose so long as it is allowed to happen. --Russavia Dialogue 12:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot have the dialog with that users without administrators. Please, study this list

--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I knew Muscovite99 has been blocked multiple times on ru:wiki, the latest time for 2 weeks due to the same type of disprutive editing on the Alexy II article that he did here. Seeing as his block is now over, it is probable that he will go back to ru:wiki and lead more havoc over there, but if he should come back here, I won't hesitate to ask for administrator intervention if he does the same type of rubbish that he did whilst here; of course, I won't bother with User:Moreschi, as this admin seems to only do anything with editors who he perceives as Russian nationalists after their opponents come to him. But still it isn't Muscovite99 has to deal with on a long term basis, it is Biophys. This particular edit basically sums up everything that Biophys does with that article; he knows it is not a valid external link, but he added it anyway; is it a sign of WP:DISRUPT? WP:OWN? WP:TEND? (Frankly, I think it is more of a case of WP:DICK.) This is the type of problem one encounters, and will always have to encounter so long as people are here only to place their own propaganda here on WP. One can only keep on their backs about it, for WP:NPOV is more important than use of WP as a soapbox, or whatever people want to treat it as. --Russavia Dialogue 13:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that Muscovite99 will not come back to ru:wiki. It is very problematically to write crazy articles about Russia while the majority of the editors actually live in Russia. That is why he said that all the editors of ru:wiki are from FSB. :) However he cannot live without his crazy theories, that is why he went to en:wiki to continue his activity.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OHHHH! Muscovite99 IS BLOCKED AGAIN in RU:WIKI :-))))) Super! :-)) --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Russavia, you are entitled to your opinion that Putinism is just another lame excuse for Putin-bashing and that the article should simply be deleted. However, since the article is not going away any time soon, you might consider contributing constructively to the conversation there instead of loving yourself taking pot shots at editors with  WP:NPOV WP:POV WP:DISRUPT WP:OWN WP:TEND WP:DICK and all the other WP:ALPHABETSOUP you invoke to practice reductio ad patriam--i.e., that it's not about the content, it's about Russians in pitched battle defending homeland and honor against the Russophobic WP:HORDES. PetersV      TALK 17:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC) And it's a sad commentary that in that entire list there's only one redlink.

Re:Photo Request
Hey, Thanks for voting. Regarding the embassy, I don't have much free time now, but hopefully I'll get time to take the picture in early March. Just out of curiosity, did you live in DSM for a long time? Muhammad (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Homer is old Bart is an adult.png
I removed the speedy deletion request as the image has not been appropriately tagged and the uploader had not been given appropriate notification. There is a grace period of 7 days for the uploader or others to fix the problem. Instead, I'd suggest listing the image at Images and media for deletion so that your specific concern is noted & able to be fixed. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Tip
Here is a little something for you. Just to add a bit more "grunt" to your work, you know :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 05:35, January 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * You already have my thoughts on this on your talk page. OK, so I've seen how it looks on the list, and it looks ok, however, just a small thing which I hope you can add...a field for the URL, which in the case of the one I have done so far, would be to http://document.kremlin.ru/doc.asp?ID=080087. Can you add the field to the template? But which field to make lead to the link? Perhaps the name of the law/decree/whatever? I've leave that up to you to decide. --Russavia Dialogue 08:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hero-of-Russia-stub
Hi Russavia - there are problems with the new stub type you created - it's listed at SFD. Grutness...wha?  22:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR
You want Biophys blocked. Fine, but you'll need to explain why the reverts you've listed really are reverts. In particular, reverts 1 and 3 are not obviously reverts. If you think they are, please carefully explain, with diffs, why exactly they are reverts. Do that here William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * William, looking at the history of that article one can see that there is a long, long history of contention around the inclusion of certain pieces of information, which is what Biophys has re-included in the "first revert". Discussion has taken place on the talk page, and it seems to go absolutely no-where, although by looking at discussion one can see consensus of some sort that unrelated subjects should not be present in this article in order to boost the thinly sourced conspiracy theory. Due to this long history of contention, Biophys would surely have been aware what would ensue afterwards. There was no sign of any discussion on the talk page relating to reinclusion of materials into the article, after many editors have taken exception to it in the past. After I have reverted it twice, I have backed right off. Marting has reverted my last revert claiming "consensus is to include" -- looking at the talk page there is no such thing. And the edit war has continued from there. When I was blocked for breaching 3RR, one of the reverts which was presented in the evidence against me was a shitload of copy editing (fixing grammar, spelling, making dead links live again, etc), and that too was taken into account. All topics relating to Eastern European topics are under permanent restriction as per Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren. All long term editors are aware of those restrictions, and are aware there are discretionary sanctions in place. Given that Biophys would surely have been aware what would occur, it is my firm belief that the first revert, as pointed out in the 3RR thread, is a revert as part of long term ownership of the article, and was possibly done to provoke another edit war. And it is an edit war, for we even now have editors actively violating WP:SELFPUB (part of policy) which states that Wikipedia is not to be used as a source, yet they are including an Arbcom decision in the article.    -- User:Digwuren is responsible for the first two. User:Piotrus is responsible for the last two. These two editors have openly violated a key policy of WP by acting as a team. If that is not disruptive, and bringing WP into disrepute, then what the hell is it? I would like something done about this, and if needed under Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren, for this shit has gone on for too bloody long.  --Russavia Dialogue 00:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, note that User:Martintg is now also openly violating WP:SELFPUB as evidenced by this latest reversion. --Russavia Dialogue 01:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me make myself clear. If you want a block under 3RR, *you* have to supply evidence that the reverts provided are indeed reverts, in those cases where it isn't immeadiately obvious to an outsider. This is one of those cases. "supply evidence" doesn't mean provide me with a link to the article history. It means provide a diff of the revert, and then something - a diff, a version - showing *why* its a revert. This is commonly done on AN3 for complex cases; if you can't be bothered to do it, don't expect admins to do it for you. You are assumed to care about your 3RR reports. This applies to the first and third reverts you reported (thought I should warn you that its probably stale by now).
 * consensus is to include - yes yes, I agree, this is generally a sign of not having any very good justification for an edit.
 * All topics relating to Eastern European topics are under permanent restriction as per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren] - could well be. As you say All long term editors are aware of those restrictions but please don't assume that all admins are - I wasn't. If arbcomm sanctions are relevant to a 3RR report, *you* need to include the link to them, and say *why* they are relevant (I'm still not sure now why you think they help).
 * William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, and might I suggest that going on leave at this particular point until the 20th might be a mistake? The purpose of protect is to allow for calm discussion, not to preserve your version William M. Connolley (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ignore my report in its entireity, as per the report I made during my 3RR case, in which I clearly documented 3RR and BLP violations, which was also ignored. The arbcom is obviously now aware, and there are other issues involved. I will have them deal with it, otherwise I will file for AE upon my return, as there are far wider issues here. As to your suggestion. Sure, I'll ring my mate now, and tell him I won't be going to Thailand tomorrow. When I tell him that I can't do this, because an Arbcom member has seen a case of edit warring and has locked an article to my version, and an admin suggested that I stay and conduct a discussion over a f'ing wikipedia article, because he believes it is a mistake to have a much-deserved and much-needed week long break, and is seeming to suggest that I am going on holiday in order to preserve my version; what do you think he would say? I would say that someone who would even suggest this has a kangaroo loose in the top paddock. Take this how you will, be damned with the nuttery, and I am off for a week. --Russavia Dialogue 10:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Biophys did it again
Looks like Biophys found a new way to revert changes made to the Web brigades article. He created Internet operations by Russian secret police which basically at the moment is an earlier version of the Web brigades text. I really hate to voice any kind of criticism against editors themselves, but I'll have to make an exception. This Biophys is rather ingenious: I've seen multiple cases where he reverts other peoples edits he doesn't like by using a cover-up tactic. He goes into an article, fixes some small thing, saying something like "just fixed an punctuation error!" and then at the same time reverts other peoples edits, restoring his favourite version of the text. Now he created a new article with his favourite version of text. Offliner (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I got tired of Biophys' constant edit warring on his brand new article, so I filed a complaint: Offliner (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not surprised by his actions, and I am not surprised by his bad faith creation of a disambig in order to prevent moves of the article. I'm not getting involved further with his paranoid nuttery, but will be taking it to WP:AE in the coming days. --Russavia Dialogue 23:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Russian Embassy in Tehran
Hi Russavia. I just wrote an article about fa:سفارت روسیه در تهران(Russian Embassy in Tehran). I thought you might be interested to write about the Russian ebmbassy in Tehran here on en.wikipedia. Best Regards --Kaaveh (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
Denbot (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Trouts, Russian laws, and overall unhealthy attitudes
You know, first of all, since I never explicitly opted in for any fish-related activities, you are technically in violation of the Cabal Decree #2 and hence are subject to all kinds of severe and unusual punishments. I'll come back to that once I am finished with more pressing matters (vandalizing Kumyk articles comes to mind... so tempting!).

Regarding the template, I am simply overjoyed by your sincere enthusiasm to go through ~400 references (and counting) and re-format them properly. I know the only reason you have not yet started is because you like to expand the pleasure of anticipation. We all do that now and then; it's understandable. Nevertheless, per your request (as well as to add to the wonders this joyful day lit by a gaily shining sun is going to bring us), I have added two new parameters to the template (ru_url and en_url). Normally, I simply incorporate the url into the title, but after having reflected on this, having dedicated fields probably makes more sense, so here we are.

I did not, however, quite grasp what kind of presentation problem you were going to point me to. The example you provided looks just fine to me&mdash;what seems to be the problem? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:52, January 20, 2009 (UTC)

image of esstonia badge
The PD tag was inappropriate: many logos contain only letters, but it is their graphical appearance which is copyrighted. - 7-bubёn >t 02:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The PD tag is correct. It contains only letters, in standard fonts. They are not eligible for copyright. They are however eligible for trademarks, but not copyright. Please re-instate as per PD rules. --Russavia Dialogue 03:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Phone call to Putin
Thank your for your support. Still, there is little chance for this article to be deleted. There is mob of users here, who do not care for encyclopedic qualities of the articles or notability, but think of wikipedia editing as a tool for promotion of their views.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Like I have said on that AfD, the case which was taken to Strasbourg is notable and deserves a place on WP, how fucking ridiculous does it look to build an article around this case based upon on a non-notable term?!? The mob of users you mention are the usual POV-pushers who don't care about building a half-decent project but merely want to promote their own dillusional, paranoid nuttery (Putin is a paedophile, anyone?). It's the same with Putinjugend. Have a look at that AfD, and look at the figures which I presented which demonstrate it is a fringe term, but the sheer weight of numbers and bullshit arguments make half-decent consensus impossible to achieve. For example, if any of them had an NPOV bone in their hate-filled bones, one of them would have suggested Pro-Kremlin youth group or Pro-Putin youth movement, or variation thereof. But their reason for their existence on WP being what it is, they have to choose the most hate-filled POV term possible. Then look how quickly users tried to delete User:Russavia/eSStonia (that of course being evidence of stalking). Hell, I could go and create Fucking lunatic and have it describe how Sergey Lavrov described Misha, and how the British press outright lied about it. The more that time goes on, the more I realise that this isn't Wikipedia, but Nutjobpedia, where if some nutjob journalist farts, it becomes news and notable. It's a joke, plain and simple. --Russavia Dialogue 06:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of bitching, why don't you write the good analytical article with neutral title, Pro-Putin youth movements (note the plural), add a sentence or two about the slur, and make a redirect? It would be much more productive and useful for wikipedia. - 7-bubёn >t 02:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Putin-Dobby article
I must admit there is a definite similarity here. Did a bit of a search and this is even gets a mention in a book or two,. Definitely a notable topic, don't you think? Martintg (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP. That's all I really have to say about shit like that. People may be interested in flinging as much shit as possible, but I have had enough of that. --Russavia Dialogue 04:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lavrov called Saakashvili a fucking lunatic, does that mean we have an article there? Saakashvili was caught eating his tie, and he had the piss taken out of him for it, even Russian pyschologists used that video to delve into his mental state and came back with the same type of term as Lavrov. John Howard was called an arse licker. Tony Blair has been called Bush's poodle, etc, etc, etc. Does this mean that you have to use WP as a battleground to fling your bullshit? No it doesn't, and in fact, WP would be much better off without people like that. --Russavia Dialogue 07:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it is mentioned within the article, and is relevant to the actual topic of the cyberattacks. It is not suitable however for the article on Misha, or an article on Saakashvilism (well particularly not the lead). --Russavia Dialogue 21:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are right, but why then do you need this image? This is very much in style of the hanging rope by Kuban kazak, except he did not place the image to mainspace. Biophys (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I asked third opinion, just in case.Biophys (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL

 * Thanks Termer, WP doesn't have to be a battle, we are able to have good-natured fun, or so I thought хе-хе. Russavia Dialogue 08:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Eduard Marmet's photos
Many thanks for helping to organise this - what a gold mine! I'll drop Mr Marmet a note as well :) --Rlandmann (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, we've had access for ages, but just never told anyone about it, coz i kept forgetting to. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 15:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Borjomi wildfire
Don't put words into my mouth. I did not accuse you of vandalism. I just reminded you that repeated elimination of the whole text without consensus amount to vandalism. Your decision to stop edit warring is somewhat refreshing, though. --KoberTalk 13:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ukha, Russian fish soup
Hello! I wrote an article about this soup, because it was entangled in an other soup and I thougt it should have his own article. The problem is that I am not sure that tha article is correct. I would need som e real Russian:) expertise, to be sure that I didn't made any mistakes. Do you know anything about this topic? And if you do, could you please check this article for possible mistakes?

Cheers! Warrington (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You have asked the wrong person here. As soon as I see the word "fish" or "seafood" I turn right off. I would suggest posting a quick message over at WP:RUSSIA and some of the members there will likely be able to help on this one; but at first glance it looks ok to me, but I am not 100% certain if it is. Sorry I couldn't be of more immediate help on this one. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 10:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So you are not a big fish-fan. Well, that's life.-

I will ask the Russians over there. Take care,

Warrington (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Eye for an eye, rant for a rant
There was a time when I believed in Wikipedia. Among other things, it meant I paid careful attention my edits would be counted as mine, so as to satisfy the editcountitis.

This time is no more, and at times now I consider it too much of a hassle to log in for a single comment that can stand on its own. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What? You expected a feature-length rant to match yours?  Well, bummer. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem
No problem. With best wishes. Oth (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a question of citizenship but ethnicity, I'm afraid an average visitor wouldn't know the difference between Russian and Estonian names (there are surely Estonian people with Russian names and vice versa but their numbers are not significant). And if you look at other countries then Finnish and Swedish names are separated in the case of Finland and Quebec has separate list for Canada. Latvian section doesn't include any Russian names although considering the lesser diversity of names among Russians Ivanov or Petrov could top that entry too. Germany doesn't have Turkish and France Arabian names etc. IMHO all this list should be ordered by different peoples not countries, would much more informative. Oth (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Patriarch-Elect Kirill of Moscow
Здравствуйте. Название «Metropolitan Kirill» не верно, сейчас Кирилл является Наречённым Патриархом Московским и всей Руси, по английски лучший термин это «Patriarch-Elect», но он уже не Митрополит. Tat1642 (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI
Hi Russavia. I am a little concerned at some of your recent edits, which come across as rather nationalistic. This one in particular is troubling. There is nothing wrong with editing articles in areas you have expertise in, and neither is there a problem with balancing any unbalanced information you come across. But the tone of some of your rhetoric (your edit summary here, for example) makes me question whether you should recuse yourself from Russian-related articles per our WP:COI policy. I'd be interested to hear what you think. Best wishes, --John (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * John, where is the WP:COI? Because I dare try to achieve NPOV and balance in my writing on WP? There is a long history of stalking, harrassment, tendentious editing, violations of verifiability, violations of BLP, gaming of the system, and the list goes on with certain editors, and I can tell you, I have had a fucking gutful of it. Your first edit noted was done for the following reason. Why is it acceptable to have an article on Allegations with the Terrorism in Russia category, but not have it in a category for what it actually is; an article of conspiracy theories. This edit was done because the fact that he was a recipient of the Hero of the Russian Federation award has been in doubt for a looooong time. I am working on List of Heroes of the Russian Federation for some weeks now, having turned this into what the article looks like now. I have been unable to find in all of my research on this list a single source which verifies Jamestown's assertion that he did receive it. He may have been "hailed as a hero" (or something of the like), but he has not, according to all available evidence ever received the Gold Star, as if you note in the AfD, I have noted the 2 awards he has received. The second paragraph of information which was reinserted by Biophys is unsourced, and was removed because he did not meet WP:BURDEN of providing sources for it. I have no problem with having articles on WP covering subjects that I don't agree with, but I do believe in the core policies of WP, especially WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV; for example I would never insert into an article an accusation that a person is a paedophile, and present it as fact, but others have. Everything that I do on WP is meticulously sourced; I do not add information without ensuring that I add inline citations for everything, and I try to write everything I do from a NPOV. I have been adding a lot of information from a scholarly source to Alexander Litvinenko. The removal by Biophys on that article of information is what I regard at WP:TEND editing, as I have clearly stated to him on his talk page. In fact, if you were to look at Alexander_Litvinenko, the paragraph was added by myself, but because I know it is not covering all POV, I myself have added Template:unbalanced-section to it, in order to alert other editors that other POV's are required. I do find it funny though that I am being called nationalistic when I am Australian born with British heritage. So how can this be nationalistic? Maybe, just maybe, as I say, I have had an f'ing gutful of people using this medium to engage in advocacy for their own POV, rather than doing what we are supposed to be doing, and that is building an encyclopaedia, in which all POVs are covered (we are supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge are we not?) in a balanced fashion. So perhaps you are asking the wrong person to recuse themselves from editing from these areas, because as an Australian editor with British heritage with an interest in Russia, who wishes to see balance over out-and-out advocacy, I don't see where the COI is, unless of course you are accusing me, as other's have done, of being in the employ of Russian state security services, or in the employ of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. My edit summary may have been a bit stand-offish, but I have had enough of the nuttery with these people, and I have had more than enough of their stalking, harrassment etc as mentioned above, and if you really interested to know, I am in the process of filing WP:AE in regards to the whole lot of this shit. Now if you really want to appear as being neutral, you may now ask me what the problems are and where they lie, instead of simpy coming to me and suggesting that I recuse myself from this area of editing, when it isn't myself who is the one pushing their POV into article and the like, at the expense of other POV and in violation of key policies. --Russavia Dialogue 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. First, then, please tell me what the problems are and where you think they lie. Be aware that your nationality and ethnicity are not relevant here. I notice the work you had done on the Litvinenko article. As I say, there is a fine line between balancing an article and appearing to be pushing one particular POV. Along with your uncivil edit summary, I thought I would give you a friendly warning that, form this neutral bystander's view, you seem in danger of crossing it. --John (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst I am aware of WP:CIVIL, you will agree that there is only so much that one can take before they have enough and lash out, particularly as in the past, issues have been raised, and not a single thing has been done about it. I will be more than happy to give you details, however, if I could ask that you go into User:Russavia/AE and retrieve for me the last edit before it was blanked by myself. It had evidence already written up there, and I thought I saved a copy but it seems I didn't keep a local copy on my hard-drive. If you could do that I would appreciate it, and I would prefer that it be emailed to me, but if you can't do that, restored elsewhere is fine with me. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 21:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've restored the revision you asked for. I will have a proper read of it when I have the chance. --John (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have retrieved it now and asked for it to be speedied. It is by no means completed though, but I will be doing this in the coming days, and I can alert you when I have finished if you so wish? --Russavia Dialogue 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes please. If there is anything else I can do to help please let me know. --John (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Excessive confrontationalism
Russavia, I have several pages you've contributed to watchlisted, but the contributions on Moreschi's talk page over the last day or so were sort of over the top. Reading those, and your comments to Digiwuren which started the whole thing, and your comments here on your talk page, I think that you are not abiding by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA either in letter or in spirit.

You say that Wikipedia is not a lot of things, in those commentaries. One of the things it is not is a place in which to abuse other editors. You have been doing that a lot recently.

You mentioned on Moreschi's talk page that you'd asked another uninvolved admin to let you know if you were being a WP:DICK. As an uninvolved admin you didn't ask but who found this sequence of stuff by chance, I have to conclude that yes you are.

The Wikipedia project can't work when its members treat each other in an excessively abusive manner, as you have done with numerous other editors recently. Please stop this immediately. Further abuse will warrant a final warning, and if it continues past that a block to prevent it.

Please cooperate and de-escalate the issues. You can argue your point in discussions more effectively by being less confrontational and abusive. I have no opinion either way on the underlying content issues, but if you actually care about those, you need to approach dealing with them in a manner which doesn't get you banned from Wikipedia. Further abuse will lead there. Please stop.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And I don't think that people are abiding by WP:STALK and WP:HOUND, which is done to such an extent that it has caused me to breach WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but there's no warning for those people, is there? Of course not. I am trying to ease the bullshit in this area, and am concentrating on other things for the time being. Thanks for your comments anyway. --Russavia Dialogue 10:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

frivolous tagging
Stop putting tags in Putinism without presenting any valid reasons - thus far you haven't. All the statements in the article are referenced and presented fairly as opinions as per WP:NPOV. If you THINK something important is missing, you welcome to add thereto.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Look Muscovite, I see you have been banned from ru:wiki, yet again, for a week. This does not mean that you need to come back to en:wiki, and continue with the same sort of bullshit you pull over at ru:wiki. Things have been raised on the talk page that question the neutrality and original research on the article, and they should remain. Having said that, once your week long block on ru:wiki is over, we'll see the end of you for another period of time, before you are blocked again, and then you will come back here to engage in your sometimes disruptive editing. Valid questions have been raised as to what exactly this article is supposed to be documenting, it is a mish-mash of original research stringed together to present the "most grotesque" (YOUR OWN WORDS!) article possible; just how exactly does Putin saying "Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself." related to Putinism? And just does the section that is in relate to "Putinism"? It doesn't, its inclusion is based upon your own POV and OR. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an outlet for advocacy and creation of "grotesque" articles. Oh yeah, and a word of warning for you, accuse me of being employed in the state security or government structures again, and I will not hesitate to seek sanctions against you. The other editor who continued/s to help you inisinuate such shit should know better, and should have told you straight out that such things are disruptive. --Russavia Dialogue 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your personal attacks have been reported.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny though, you mention my having been banned from the ruWP for a week. I'll tell you this: very soon i'll be banned there altogether (Doctor's orders): any one who will take some trouble to look into it, will see that this has been done not because of any violations on my part, but purely because it has been ordered you know who by: in fact the admins have grossly breached the basic WP Policies themselves: See Victoria's latest imputed edits and hers: removing valid refs and inserting unsubstantiated dubious statements (of course, the articles in question are mere pretexts; the real problem with them are totally different ones). This, in effect, is a graphic personalised example of Putinism in action.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Therefore, relax and enjoy my permanent presence here henceforth.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good lecture for yourself
such aggressive POV-pushing and deliberately creating WP:BATTLE condition is not tolerated here on en:wiki, and is in fact the subject of discretionary sanctions.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Relations
Right down your alley, I presume?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:14, February 2, 2009 (UTC)

P.S. WTF is going on above???
 * Right up my alley. What can I say, but f***, I better get cracking on the Russian relations articles (some of which I think we will have a little trouble sourcing, such as Russia–Tonga relations ha. Because my opinion on those ones is to delete them, I mean just what notable political, trade, transport, cultural ties does Ukraine and Uruguay have? I'm gonna stay out of that discussion on this occasion man. ;)


 * WTF is going on above? Oh, I've been reported for 3RR on that article (and couple others), so I've told them to block me, and f*** 'em, I'll work on the article on the talk page in the event I am blocked. But i've moved it to User:Russavia/Litvinenko for time being and will work on it there. I've begun to use some scholarly sources to add NPOV-written analysis to the article. It appears some have taken issue to this and want to turn WP into a debating society, full of "compromise versions" (which is code for "Fuck off Russavia, I own this, don't touch my article). Do you think if I get blocked again, it will affect my chances of becoming an admin? Nevermind, I like it too much down here in the trenches. Nevertheless there is still a lot of misrepresentation on that article, such as compare this to User:Russavia/Litvinenko. It's amazing what different form an article takes if one reads the sources, and doesn't misrepresent them. People are concerned with what I am doing to this guy's biography, and do you know what? They should be, if the above misrepresentation is anything to do by. So that explains that. How's the weather? --Russavia Dialogue 17:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I did post on the WP:RUSSIA talk page, but you may want to look at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_1, it may affect categorisation of articles on the project. --Russavia Dialogue 18:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weather? Well, no heat wave is coming to this neck of the woods any time soon, I can tell you that much.  Would be great for a change, though.
 * Regarding the relations, Ukraine and Uruguay may not have much of a relation to talk about, but why deprive a poor person who happens to be interested in whatever little s/he can find on this topic? Heck, if I needed to find out how about Uruguay's presence in Ukraine, Ukraine–Uruguay relations would be the first place I'd head to.  Just because there is little information and it is obscure is not the reason to get rid of it altogether.  I wish sometimes the deletionist folks were as vigilant about some crap animé fiction characters as they are about this completely valid topic.  Anyhoo, it is, of course, your call whether or not you want to voice your two cents; just thought you'd be interested.
 * As for your note on WP:RUSSIA, I saw it and have already posted a comment. I don't know what the best way to procede is, but the current name of the category is completely useless as far as the categorization processes go.
 * I don't know how your block log is going to affect your admin chances (well, I do know, but for the sake of kindness let's pretend I don't; besides, if you ever run, you'll have much bigger problems than your block log). It is all really sad, though.  It seems that only overly cautious maintenance-oriented morons (like yours truly) ever have any chances of becoming admins.  I can name at least five extremely qualified and worth candidates off the top of my head, all of which have zero chance of becoming admins because they happened to get involved with controversial topics in the past.  Well, duh, what a surprise.
 * That said, good luck with the Litvinenko re-write. I am not getting involved for the reasons I outlined to you a few days ago on my talk page (in the thread which you did not respond to due to browser problems), but I do wish you the best of luck quite sincerely.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:47, February 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * Cmon Ezhik, surely YOU could tell I was being facetious with that admin comment. In regards to the relations articles, if all that can be said by way of sources is that two countries recognise relations, I personally think an article such as Date of establish of diplomatic relations with Uruguay (or similarly titled list) could be created, where these minor relations can be tabulated, and then re-created when it is known for certain there are other notable relations. In regards to what you wrote the other day, I'll respond here. I understand and respect your reasons, and yourself as an editor, for not wanting to touch that with a ten-foot barge pole. And thanks for the acknowledgement that I do try to keep NPOV, etc. I will take it to WP:AE in the future if the shit keeps happening, because like you, I recognise there is clearly a problem in this area of editing.


 * On the category, how would you foresee it being used, outside of what is currently done. The problem is, is that Russia is most likely meant in a modern sense to refer to the "Russian Federation", so am still a bit unsure as to how it would benefit us? --Russavia Dialogue 20:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the relations, yes, it can be done the way you are describing, if what's already in the article is indeed all there is on the subject. My only concern is that when an article clearly falls in the scope of some established WikiProject (two, in this case), folks should really bother to try contacting those WikiProjects before nominating the article for deletion.  If we had a few deletion votes from Argentinian editors and a couple from those in Singapore, that'd really be a sign that the article does not belong.  Nomination, or support of the nomination of articles because you feel it's inadequate, and especially nominating them is bulk, is a sign of dire incompetence in my book.  I sometimes am genuinly curious as to what exactly is going in the heads of such nominators.  It's not like the articles are completely useless one-liners either!  Problem is, I very much doubt any one of those who voted "delete" would actually bother creating something like the list of dates you described.  They just feel, at this particular moment, that because the article is very short and is of little interest to them personally, that means the article should go.  Anyway, that's just my view.
 * As for the category, I don't know. Like I said, I have no idea how well splitting Cat:Russia into period-specific subcats would work in practice.  It may work OK, or there may be some non-obvious problems with this approach.  One thing for sure: naming a category "Post-Soviet Russia" makes no sense whatsoever.  What's so special about "post-Soviet" Russia?  What's next, "pre-Soviet Russia"?  "Pre-Imperial Russia"?  "Post-Moscow Tsardom"?  "Post-Putin Russia"?  At any rate, mine was more of a theoretically workable compromise solution than anything.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, February 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, look at the AfD. I've added my opinion there. It's not the response you expected, but hey.
 * On the cat, there's no problem in compromising, but I just can't see how it would be workable. Damned Constitution saying that the country can also be called Russia! --Russavia Dialogue 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually expect anything, I just wanted to point you to an AfD that seems to be in your area of interest and couldn't resist posting a comment myself in the process :)
 * Good point on the Constitution; I keep forgetting about this inconvenient little piece of truth (incidentally, could you write another letter to the Kremlin and ask them look into changing this, as it botches our categorization scheme? One more constitutional amendment shouldn't be of much trouble, since they are on a roll anyway).  Category:Russia after 1991, perhaps?  Clumsy name, but at least it's still period-specific and in line with Cat:Russian Empire and Cat:RSFSR.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:39, February 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * Write another letter? My dear Ëzhik, I will ask them for you at our next staff meeting. Category:Russia after 1991 is also problematic, because what do we do about the dates 25 December-31 December 1991? Those dates, the first few days of the Category:Russian Federation would be in permanent purgatory. It should be noted also that Russia is only considered as THE successor of the USSR in terms of international relations, i.e. it took over all seats in organisations of which the USSR was a member, kindly took over all Soviet debt (leaving the other 14 republics debt free at their independence), and took over all Soviet property in other countries, etc. I can't fathom the category as it stands now though, but I do understand the "Study of" article, but even then, what goes in it? :) --Russavia Dialogue 21:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Staff meeting? Oh boy, am I now in deep trouble or what.
 * After giving all this a night of thought, I think you are mostly right, so I tweaked my vote somewhat this morning. "Russia after 1991" is really not a good idea, that much is clear.  "Studies of post-Soviet Russia", on the other hand, has some merit.  Lots of stuff currently in Category:Post-Soviet Russia will go away after the rename, but a few things will remain (namely those which, as Vecrumba pointed out, deal with the actual studies of post-Soviet Russia: Category:Books about post-Soviet Russia and David Satter, for example).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:10, February 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the results of the meeting is that we have to work this one out on our own. I did raise a motion which involved mercury, but I was resoundly defeated, with myself being the only one in favour. The rest said that we haven't done such things in the past, so there is no reason to start now. In the end, I believe they had a good point, so don't worry, you have nothing to worry about.
 * I've added my tentative support to the studies category, with development of a "guideline" (of sorts) to be discussed as to what to include in it. As KNewman said, when does Russia stop being post-Soviet Russia? The answer to that question in itself is a highly opinionated one. But yeah, with some firm consensus based upon other policy and guideline (not our own POVs/desires) on what to include, it could be a useful category. --Russavia Dialogue 21:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)