User talk:Trust Is All You Need/Archive 5

Biased
I want to inform you that the wikisocialist project is incredibly biased, inaccurate, misunderstanding and crude. This project attempts to attach the word socialism to everyone from Pol Pot to Alex Salmond.

Secondly, the social democracy sandbox claims progressivism and 'new left' as types of social democracy, when neither are. Alpha-ZX (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The SNP are self proclaimed scottish nationalists, just because they advocate generous spending on education and the NHS, that doesn't make them social democratic.

I would appreciate it if you could either tell me how to edit the social democracy sand box, or edit it yourself to remove progressivism and the New Left. Progressivism is an american school of thought that evolved independently of European social democratic thought, but is now used in Europe to define policies that enhance individual autonomy, as well as often policies that lead to greater ecological and economic sustainability. The 'New Left' has nothing to do with social democracy, it originated amongst academia and anti-stalinist leftists, who were not necessarily social democrats, because they inlcuded many libertarian socialists and anarchists ans social liberals too. the New left was an attempt to construct a left wing thinking that was anti-american, anti-soviet/communist, and pro lifestyle freedoms, it had nothing explicitly to do with social democracy and social democratic parties were largely uninvolved from the construction of the 'New Left' movement. The new left was mainly constructed by students and academics. --Alpha-ZX (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to the red box that says social democracy in the top right hand corner of the wiki article on social democracy. It the development section it lists 4 'ideologies'; revisionism, reformism, progressivism, new left. Progressivism and new left should not be there. Alpha-ZX (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Alpha-ZX (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Progressivism roots owe more to liberalism than to socialism. Alpha-ZX (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please could you give me the names and links of the users who edit the social democracy sandbox thing, and insist on putting progressivism and new left in there. Thanks. Alpha-ZX (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the template. Alpha-ZX (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Brian Moore Presidential Campaign
This is in regards to this post: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Moore_presidential_campaign,_2008&diff=next&oldid=343007200

I would first off like to thank you for reverting it (even if on the basis of topicality). Please keep an eye out for more of this as those charges were not legally supposed to be released.

KV(Talk) 03:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --TIAYN (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

DSA page
Do you really think it is necessary to list the number of delegates for every year? I have no problem with the fact that you removed the years with missing information, though. Ripeugenedebs (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll see what Carrite thinks about the table. And it was my pleasure to help with the article on the Moore campaign-that article needs a lot of work! Ripeugenedebs (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

pj, fpv and kirchner
hi! i left a message at the discussion page of the fpv. i don't know where you're from, but i get it's hard for people that are not from latinamerica to understand populism. i find the views expressed in your usrpage very similar to mine, and that's why i get so frustrated when populism gets easily confused with being left-wing. cheers.--camr nag 17:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * if you're interested in populism, particularly latinamerican populism, you might find Ernesto Laclau's work useful. he's not that easy to read, but since he's lived a big part of his life in london, most of his work is originally written in english. personally, the amazement he provoked in me when i first read him is on par with the work of macchiavelli or foucault.--camr nag 00:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Foot image
The image has already been removed; adding it back, especially without an edit summary, really is not appropriate. Another user is already facing warnings at the noticeboards concerning this issue. Non-free content should be used as an absolute last resort- what efforts have been made to aquire a free image? In any case, we should give it a few weeks while eyes are still on the article; if nothing has been forthcoming (and all efforts to locate a free image have reached dead ends) then a non-free image may be appropriate. If you wish to discuss this, you are welcome to contact me on my talk page, but, for the time being, please do not add the image back to the article. J Milburn (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Socialist mayors
Nice job on that! Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The name Bloom probably doesn't have three "o"s and the name of American group probably wouldn't have a "u" in "Labor." Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My fault. --TIAYN (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

DSOC
DSOC was NOT a political party, so I am not sure why you put it in that category. It was explicitly intended to be a pressure group within the Democratic Party. As Harrington put it, it was intended to be the "left wing of the possible." Ripeugenedebs (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. --TIAYN (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's ok-can you change it, or should I? It could go in the category of political organizations, socialist/social democratic organizations, etc.  Ripeugenedebs (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Trust is not enough
You also need trustworthiness. Or else it doesn't work.

The Transhumanist 04:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Communism
I'm from vietnam. This is a Communistic country. you don't know how bad communism was Llevanloc (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * but i have seen your user page and i think that you probably like communsim. That's all Llevanloc (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Labour Party
You wrote on the Progress party article that the Labour Party is increasing its membership. But seeing that the following are the membership numbers since 1950, I must be allowed to question if you think this qualifies as though the party has an increase of members. While numbers from 2008 to 2009 increased somewhat they are still below 2007 figures, and the general trend is a downwards spiral. I don't know if numbers from merely one year – more or less an exception – to another qualifies to make it sound like the party is generally increasing its membership. We are looking for long-term trends over many years, not if the party increased or decreased for just the last year. Figures show that Ap was at its peak in 1950, V and H in the 1980s, Sp in 1971, Sv in 2005, KrF in 1980 and FrP today. All the other parties is thus in a decline. AP: 1950: 200,501 1960: 165,096 1970: 155,254 1980: 153,507 1990: 128,109 2000: 66,813 (individuelle medlemmer.) 2007: 51,500 2008: 48,589 2009: 50,269 I wanted to be fair and post this on your talk page to make you see my point, but I'll probably remove the edit you made anyways since it doesn't really make sense. But I'll be nice and wait a bit and allow you to make an action yourself. -TheG (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have thought about the same a bit actually. Such an article can be found for the British Labour Party for instance. I guess this is rather the more appropriate way of listing MPs. Articles would then be List of Socialist Left Party (Norway) MPs and List of Progress Party (Norway) MPs etc. Making it in the template form I did might perhaps be a bit much of a mess. -TheG (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see to do it. But I'll make the "list of MPs article" first though. -TheG (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a notice about me finishing the above mentioned list. Please feel free to use as a basis for "your" list. -TheG (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Progress Party
That was a mistake on my part. I didn't mean to include that in the infobox, although as a matter of fact they are a fascist party, and the way they conduct themselves towards immigrants is straight out of the Gestapo playbook. Hitler would be proud. UBER ( talk ) 05:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left comments in the talk page about how to proceed with improving the article. UBER  ( talk ) 05:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * TIAYN, I know you are not exactly a political fan of the Progress Party, but I hope that I can count on you to please help to talk to this user UberCryxic. I believe you, as you have also stated yourself, see that this users edits are utterly nonsense. He will probably ignore my comments regardless, so I hope that you can help out on this one. (Look on his talk page with the endless history showing that he himself in reality is attempting to bias articles - perhaps simply of his lack of understanding of the left-right spectrum (he's a US American).) -TheG (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are of course as free as I am to edit the article. It would anyways be great if you are able to contribute to the article with such sources you mentioned. It is a bit tricky for me sometimes when I only have web sources to work with. But be sure to use objective sources, as we all know this party has been controversial throughout its history, and especially with the media. If you can help improve the article it is of course great. -TheG (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
OK, restored for now  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  18:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ivar Hippe/GA1
I left a few comments for this article. Since someone else reviewed and passed it though, there's not really a hold time, just get to it when you can. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Could you please elaborate some on Dan Børge's "close relationship" with Ivar Hippe? It has somewhat strange connotations as it stands. Thanks in advance, Geschichte (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat better, but why not show what the association is instead of telling? I guess it has something to do with Latin America in the 1980s..? Geschichte (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion valued
Hi.

There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:International Socialist Review about the direction of a page, whether its content should be split and converted into a disambiguation page, and I would appreciate your comments about the matter one way or the other, particularly with respect to your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

WPA logo
Email me (MutantPop@aol.com) if you have trouble with the clearance of that WPA logo — I'm the original source of the scan. The way you phrased the licensing makes it pretty likely that they will bug you about it. I'll run it through again as an image from a pre-1923 publication which I created, which is true and 100% sure to get through the gate. Carrite (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Inclusionist
So you want me to put on a bullseye hat, eh? Ha ha... I saw a better user tag along the same lines recently, it had a Wikipedia logo and said something like "This user believes Wikipedia should actually be encyclopedic" or something like that. It was longer than that, I can't quite remember the phrasing, but it contrasted that concept with some of the more narrow notability policies. See ya! Carrite (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ice (The X-Files)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ice (The X-Files). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Ice (The X-Files). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Socialist Party of America by state
Is there any way to con you into undoing the "Socialist Party of America by state" category... Or at least removing it from all the SPUSA state parties that it's attached to? As far as I know, only Oregon and Florida combine SPA and SPUSA periods on 1 page — and I'm pretty definite that we should be splitting the Oregon page at some point in the future, to follow the precedent set splitting SPA and SPUSA. Florida I'm not worrying about just yet...

Obviously, the division at the year 1973 isn't perfect, but it seems to work in practice. The (future) state party pages for the SPA parties are coming eventually, so I like the IDEA of your categories, it's just that right now the SPA by State isn't ready to go yet... best, tim Carrite (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Splitting at 1973 is a really tricky problem particularly with respect to Wisconsin. I can't emphasize enough how HUGE that state's history will be if done right and there's a real continuity from SPA to SPUSA there unlike any other state's. I have a hunch that the solution might be to have a small outline page that includes the pre- and post-1973 parties on one page for each state and then to have "Main Articles" for each that go into considerably more detail. It's a tricky question. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oregon map
Grrrrr, once again you delete first and ask questions second... Stop doing that!

1. The Oregon map is useful in helping to identify where Astoria is located. If for nothing else it is functional to the article for that.

2. The Oregon map will come in handy when I start talking about movement of the party HQ.

3. The Oregon map is informative because it illustrates how small the state actually is, compared to the big red blob state map, which is mostly mountains or high desert.

Carrite (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Subpages
>>wouldn't it be wiser to create one main article, such as the Socialist Party of Wisconsin and then create a sub-page entitled History of the Socialist Party of Wisconsin. This is the most normal for articles about party history. Doesn't this sound better?

I think you're probably pretty close to right here. Ironically, the International Socialist Review page might be the model. Very short descriptions of the two organizations, with the extremely long, micro-detail for specialists in attached pages. Rather than "SPW" and "History of the SPW," which might be confusing, "SPW" and then "History of the SPW (SPA)" + "History of the SPW (SPUSA)" or some such might be the way to go. Not exactly sure how to name the sub-pages, but going with a combined first page and detailed and divided subpages might make sense.

Well, time to write about a Finnish Communist newspaper... Carrite (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Socialist Party of America
There is only one "Socialist Party of America", yet the parties listed under this title are all affiliates of the "Socialist Party of the United States of America". The SPA is a noted social democratic group while the SPUSA claims to be the "Voice of democratic socialism". A second point here is the older historical party of the SPA of Eugene V. Debs had folded and closed for decades before the idea was reborn to our postmodern era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.171.114.23 (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hell, Norway
Just a quick question here. Why did you move Hell, Norway to Hell, Nord-Trøndelag? First of all, there's no other Hell here in Norway apart from 7517 Hell, so specifying the county is unnecessary. Second, doesn't "Hell, Nord-Trøndelag" make it rather less accessible to those who are not familiar with the various counties in Norway? It makes no sense to me, but rather than move it back altogether, I figured I'd ask here first. Thanks, Mirithing (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hell is in the county of Nord-Trøndelag, and not Norway. But its not that important. --TIAYN (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Mass killings under Communist regimes
Hello i read on the articles discussion page that you nominated it for deletion, anyone honest would recognize that the article is nothing but a propaganda scheme and of course the editors double standards love to cozy themselves under this or that rule of wikipedia's underdeveloped codes and laws playing the internet lawyer to push their pov. Anyway i hust want to say i support the deletion on the article and want to know wheres the discussion--Andres rojas22 (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. --TIAYN (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Brian Moore presidential campaign, 2008
Congratulations on the GA. I apologize for being unable to review the article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats okay, but thanks! :P --TIAYN (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, i know, but i hate when people talk about something they don't have a clue about. --TIAYN (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Secretary-General infobox
I think what you want is Secretary-General, rather than General Secretary. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_Secretary-General for current examples. Flatterworld (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Leaders
I'd love to! I'm generally not very good at content, but editing is a second love. I'll take a look tonight. Tyrannophobe (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject United States presidential elections

 * And i will join. --TIAYN (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Leonid Brezhnev
Hi, I hope I didn't offend you by copy editing the article. I was trying to take care of spelling and format issues mainly, in preparation for reviewing it for GA. However, I lost a lot of my fixes in an edit conflict. I'm sorry, I didn't know you were editing it at the same time. I apologize and will desist. Best, Xtzou ( Talk ) 15:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Soviet leaders
You left me this message around 31 minutes after I made this edit. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not in the slightest bit irritated, I've capped my oppose, so it no longer stands. I'll almost certainly come back to revisit the list in due course.  Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Leonid Brezhnev/GA1
Hi, I have initiated a GA review of your nomination of Leonid Brezhnev. In general, I think it is a fine article and can be brought to GA standards between the two of us (and anyone else!) Regards, Xtzou ( Talk ) 22:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I haven't forgotten about the GA review. I am collecting my thoughts to go through it again with a clear head! (I was looking for some easily to obtain sources, but could not find much in addition to what you have already used.)   Regards, Xtzou ( Talk ) 14:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats okay :D --TIAYN (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies to you for taking so long. I do think it is a fine article and I'm going to pass it as GA. Best wishes, Xtzou ( Talk ) 13:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Category needed
Hiya, Trusty... I'm not sure how to launch a Category page and there needs to be one made for "Category:Independent Labour Party members". Can you help? Thanks. —Tm  Carrite (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, I should have made it clear, I needed the category for the U.K. party... I got a redlink when I tried to use ||Category:Independent Labour Party members|| yesterday... Carrite (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A socialist party history nominated for deletion
This is a general notice to members of the Socialism workgroup that there is a motion to delete an article relating to our topic: Socialist Action (Canada).

Please visit the Articles for Deletion page today and offer your opinion one way or the other about whether this page should be stricken from Wikipedia.

Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_May_28

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Ivar Hippe.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ivar Hippe.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Theleftorium (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

People's Commissariat for Agriculture
I do not understand why you took it into your head to move this page to the completely inappropriate Ministry of Agriculture and Food page. There are reasons why a series of Peoples Commissariats were set up, and also this was long before the Soviet union had been devised. Anyway we now have a Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Soviet Union) for the post 1946 confection.Harrypotter (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are incorrect. The decision to organise as commissariats rather than ministries was made for specific reasons. Also at the time the Soviet Union did not exist, so to describe these innovations in terms of ministries of the Soviet Union would be problematic. All of the Commissariats are notable in themselves, representing attempts to reorganise social life following the collapse of Tsarism. As regards continuity, this has to be balanced by change: I have an old broom, I replaced the head two years ago, and now I have just replaced the handle! However the formal change of name is part of a disjuncture parallel to the reorganisation of the Soviet Armed forces from being the Red Army to the Soviet Army which also happened in 1946. The changes were significant, e.g. the People's Commissariat of Ammunitions became Ministry of Agricultural Machine Building, (Minselkhozmash). Parallel to this is the reorganisation of the Communist Party of Italy as the Italian Communist Party following the termination of the Comintern. Now, these issues may involve political arguments you are unfamiliar with, but then the onus is on you to familarise yourself with these arguments rather than pushing for changes which actually make clarity harder to realise and could create a situation where articles represent a particular point of view.Harrypotter (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I will see what I can do, but I am generally more interested in the earlier period.Harrypotter (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Basically they had a one man, one vote system, only the "one man" was Lenin and his vote was final!Harrypotter (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Post-Modern Prometheus
Hello, I reverted your edit to The Post-Modern Prometheus, I can only imagine it was a mistake. If not, I apologise. I notice your edit summary said "Removed referenced information and replaced it with un-referenced info" - A correct description of your edit, but I can't imagine why that would be something beneficial to the article. -- Beloved Freak  13:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed
Hello, I have reviewed you. Derild 49  2  1  00:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

General Secretaries
Thanks. Glad you liked what I wrote. I have no references because I was only writing something off the back hand, general information from memory. As for the numbering, such numbers do not hurt in a list. They only serve navigation. Speaking about the "nth whatever" is anyway a very American thing that unfortunately is sneaked into all sorts of articles. BTW, Malenkov was a powerful figure for a while and even supposed to be party leader but he never was General or First Secretary, hence he does not appear in the list. Str1977 (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Know how to copyedit and want a barnstar?
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. Derild 49  2  1  13:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank You For all you done to improve Communist and Socialist pages. Also thank you for making wikiproject Socialism.

Spongie555 (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

On Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity Committed in Albania during the Communist Regime for Political, Ideological and Religious Motives
An editor has proposed renaming this article. His original choice was "Albanian genocide law". However I oppose any change of name because no reliable sources provide a short form for the law and there is another law on "Genocide" under the Albanian criminal code, while this law has been repealed. Please comment at the article's talk page. TFD (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns
Hi. I'm an administrator who works extensively in copyright cleanup on Wikipedia. Another contributor brought concerns with the article Economy of the Soviet Union to my attention after discovering some problems with content in comparison to. I have evaluated and found that some of the content you added here seems also to follow very closely on this book and this one. I have given several examples at the article's talk page.

Your careful citation suggests that you probably simply are not aware of the extent to which content must be rewritten under the United States law that governs Wikipedia. Most contributors realize that we cannot paste verbatim from previously published sources, but some do not know that US copyright law also protects against both "fragmented literal similarity" (where too many phrases are copied from a source) and "comprehensive non-literal similarity." Particularly for the latter concern, thorough rewriting is essential. While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. The essay Close paraphrasing contains a few suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid such issues. The article Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

I have blanked the article and listed at the copyright problems board while requesting further review. Please let me know if you have questions about this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The copyright template is not to be removed. "the majority is not" does not justify publishing content that is. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have left you a more complete note but had to answer the phone. Apologies for my brevity, but I wanted to at least explain quickly why I had reverted you.


 * The template on the article's face explains how copyright concerns can be dealt with. If you are able to verify that you have permission to use the copyrighted content (see Requesting copyright permission), we can retain the text. If not, you have the option of proposing a complete rewrite in your own words in the temporary space linked from the article's front. If none of these are done, very like the content will be deleted and the article restored to an earlier version, before it was added. Further action will be taken when the listing period has closed at the copyright problems board.


 * As I said above, I appreciate that this was almost certainly not intentional infringement, but intentional or otherwise the Wikimedia Foundation is bound by US copyright law, which we must follow. It is important that all contributors understand and follow our policy on copyright and on incorporating non-free content. Contributors who violate these policies may be blocked from further contribution, and nobody wants that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to add; I'll start looking through the article line by line either today or tomorrow, checking it and rewriting the parts that are copyvio. So don't worry the article will be back soon though it will take some work (as it always does with extensive copy vio problems). Of course it'd be nice along the way to have some help to make it go faster. But it does need to be checked thoroughly - can't remove the template until then.radek (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Economy of the USSR
The lead is not copyviolated you screw up! It has nothing to do with the books.. How do you expect me to fix the **** problems if you always revert my edits to rewrite the page? Your edits are already unproductive enough, but why are you reverting edits which re-writes the so-called copyviolated text? It doesn't make sense. --TIAYN (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can fix the problems by writing clean content in the temporary space, as the template directs. The template also says, bold in original, "Do not edit this page until an administrator or an OTRS agent has resolved this issue." If you feel that some of the text you had contributed is not a problem under copyright policy, you can place that there, in the temporary space. It will be reviewed before placement in main space. Your edits to this article violated our copyright policy, and while there is no reason to doubt that this was done inadvertently, it will need to be thoroughly evaluated before it is restored to publication. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As you know, User:Radeksz has volunteered to help review this. He verifies that the lead is free of concern, so it has been restored. Pending review, other sections of concern have been moved to a subpage. More information is at the article's talk page, in the subsection Talk:Economy of the Soviet Union. Hopefully, he will soon be able to determine the parameters of the problem so that the content that you did not copy or closely paraphrase may be restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

List of leaders of South Yemen
When you created that article in May you used two references to Icon Group International books. Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are copied from Wikipedia. Fences &amp;  Windows  20:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto Socialist Party USA, you added it to the bibliography in February. Their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. ). I've only removed the reference. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Economy of the Soviet Union
Yes, I'm still involved. If you can however you should do as much as you wish.radek (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Progress Party (Norway)
You may be interested in participating in improvements to Progress Party (Norway), based on the latest GA review that I have commenced here: Talk:Progress Party (Norway)/GA2. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Music of The X-Files
Hi TIAYN, I was just reading Music of The X-Files, and wondered about an addition you made. You added that "The theme music for Millennium was created by Mark Snow ... in reality, Chris Carter allegedly sent him a traditional Scottish song by Ceilidh", sourced to the DVD commentary. I have no idea about this as I've never seen Millenium let alone listened to the DVD commentary, but what I was wondering was did they actually mean a song by a band or artist called Ceilidh? Or did they say "Ceilidh song"? In which case they probably meant a traditional folk song used in Céilidhs. What do you think? -- Beloved Freak  14:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Province/Domain Rome
I thought I'd let you know that I'd edited the Template:Infobox Province/Domain Rome. Until now, you've been the only contributor, and I've never tried editing an infobox template before. I have removed the nickname khmer - I really couldn't understand why it was there - and the labarum, not as far as I know a historical symbol of this entity. I hope that you agree, or can suggest improvements. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bryan Adams albums discography
I made some minor changes to the introduction and now have given my support for FL status. However, you might consider adding this to the list. &mdash; Jimknut (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm considering the possibilities of its inclusion; but I'll have to read more about the topic. --TIAYN (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Eastern Bloc economies. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.

Such edit summaries are unacceptable in Wikipedia. Personal attacks will get you only blocked.

If you insist adding multiple tags to the article, create a talk page section about them, explaining why you think the tags are needed and what is wrong with the article. Otherwise your actions are little more than vandalism, and as such, will be reverted. What anyone has said about the article months or even years ago is not relevant to the version you keep tagging. Sander Säde 05:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't shout in the edit summaries
As you did when reverting infobox entries at Socialist Party USA. I'm not directly involved in this dispute, but the article's on my watchlist, where your ALL CAPITALS are screaming at me, which doesn't do anything to persuade me to your own view of the SPUSA's ideology. With fraternal thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Premiers of the Soviet Union
Has been deleted. You can finish the move yourself. (It's a personal thing, as I don't know enough to know whether the move should really be done or not, it keeps people coming to me to ask questions about it :) )Courcelles 06:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks :D --TIAYN (talk) 06:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Legislature Historic
Why did you remove the leader fields from the infobox? Renata (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ministry of Railways (Soviet Union)
Do you have any reliable sources showing that the Post Office of the Soviet Russia was moved to the Ministry of Railways? What you claim is wrong and does not make any sense. --Michael Romanov (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Gennady Yanayev
-- HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What is your problem
I do not understand why you continually change the People's Commissariat pages to that of Soviet ministeries generally esatblished over 25 years later. Please could you explain what your probelm is or desist. Thank you very much.Harrypotter (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree there is no need to combine the content of the two articles, and there should be a separate article for the People's Commissariat and another one for the Ministry. These were not the identical governmental organs. So, I would revert the edits and plan to add info in the article about the Ministry. --Michael Romanov (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "My problem is that these People's Commissars are exactly the same as Ministries. There are no differences, I've seen anywhere else where you create a seperate article for the same bloody thing. It haven't seen this happen in any other article, or topic, why in gods name should the Soviet government be treated any different? It shouldn't... Second argument, none of these articles seems to be growing, no one is working on them, and if its true as some say that there is enough information out there to evolve these articles from stub and start-classes into GA's, FA's or an article that is not easily mergeable, then yes these articles should have separate articles. But there has been no work on these articles, no work on trying to expand them, and therefor its hard to establish a reason for why two articles about the same thing should not be one article. If you can prove to me by actually finding enough sources for both articles which can get both articles in decent shape, it would have been okay. But instead you seem to want seperate articles because they had different names, even if they worked exacly the same way and did the exacly the samething. Do you now understand my problem?" --TIAYN (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You may think that there is no difference, but if you read, for example, Mikhail Tomsky's Relations between the Trade Unions and the Commissariat for Labour presented at the Fourth All Russian Conference of Trade Unions in 1918, then you will appreciate why they set up Commissariats rather than simply continuing with the old ministries. Now you might regard the Bolshevik position disingenuous, and indeed you might be right, but the fact that they could not simply continue with the old ministries indicates something about what was going on at that time. Likewise, check out Maurice Brinton (Bolsheviks and Workers Control), and why he refers to Nikolai Glebov-Avilov attitude towards the old ministery of Post and telegraph. Read Frederick Kaplan as referenced. Also you should be aware that the Soviet Union was not founded until December 1922, a full five years after the foundation of the Commissariats. In fact there is work going on on these articles, and I have been doing it, but I am being distracted by your insistence on squashing them together with the post 1946 ministries, which were very different. What exactly are your reasons for saying they worked exactly the same? Do you have any references? In fact the processes of the Russian revolution is something about which there are an exceptionally large amount written and much of it in English. Perhaps if you could do some real work on developing the topic you would have to engage with the issue. Unfortunately you do not seem inclined to do so. So no I do not understand your problem, which appears little different from a subtle form of vandalism. Please would you stop, then perhaps the article might possibly grow instead of people having to deal with your distractions. Thank you very much.Harrypotter (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I support Harrypotter and ask you, TIAYN, not to refer to GA's, FA's and so on because this is irrelevant. There is no a single Wikipedia rule that forbids to create and develop two separate articles under discussion. The above substantiation provided by Harrypotter clearly shows that Commissariats were not Ministries. Also, adding sources not written in English (as I did for People's Commissariat for Post and Telegraph) does not violate any Wikipedia rule, especially nowadays, when everyone can easily use Google Chrome or Google Translate to read major languages other than English. --Michael Romanov (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When did I say you couldn't use sources other than English? I use Russian sources all-the-time! And yes, there were some key differences from the people's commissars from other ministries, but those costums did not disappear when they renamed the whole-system. Question did these differences disappear with the ministries, or did the system continue? You are saying the commissariat's were special, but you seem to be skeeping over the point that the only differences between the ministries and the commissariats by the end of the day were none-existing.. And yes, I know, there was a different government for the RSFSR, but thats not what we are talking about, right?
 * Oh yeah, you are vandalising the pages as much as I am; don't be arrogant! --TIAYN (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to remind you your own words: . And two more reminders: WP:EQ and WP:RELIABLE. --Michael Romanov (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am taking a break from work on the section about Brest Litovsk because of your actions. I was just reaching the part about the separate Ukrainian peace. This clearly has NO PLACE on the Page you insist on moving everything. However I shall return to this later.Harrypotter (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you want to rub things in my face? Why do you want to be abusive? Why aren't you civil? Why are you so keen to insult me?Harrypotter (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you think just because I disagree with you, this is to insult you? You have not dealt with the important issues I have raised but instead just refer to a text which goes on as much about Kruschev as Lenin.Harrypotter (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the early period before not just Stalin, but the Bolsheviks concentrated their power, is quite different from the period particularly after 1922. It was five full years before the Soviet Union came into being, yet you insist that what happened in those five years be put on a page about a ministry of the Soviet Union. No, this does not make sense at all.Harrypotter (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Other uses
Sorry, you are wrong. This template is not a redirect, it's for disambiguation. I revert your edit. --Michael Romanov (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And thanks a lot for the Infobox! --Michael Romanov (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Gennady Yanayev
Hi, I see that in your editing of this article, you have reverted my removal of a link to a Wiktionary definition, for the word "disintegration':

''disintegration (plural disintegrations) 1. A process by which anything disintegrates. 2. The condition of anything which has disintegrated. 3. (geology) A wearing away or falling to pieces of rocks or strata, produced by atmospheric action, frost, ice, etc.'' IMHO this definition is circular and fails to add anything substantial that would further the understanding of anyone reading the original article - and that is why I removed it. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't fight over it. --TIAYN (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries, I'll delete the link again. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Question
I have a question about the Communist Party USA. Does the Communist Party of USA have any relations with North Korea? Spongie555 (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Answering your question : I found you by looking on the WikiProject Socalism user page Spongie555 (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Arseny Zverev.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Arseny Zverev.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it fails because nobody will gain anything from knowing what Zverev looked like when they read the article. For actors and actresses, singers and dancers, it might matter how they look. You can pick them out in films that way. But it doesn't really matter for politicians how they look. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:
I understand where you are coming from; I was considering adding 'Left-wing' instead, but they seemed kind of synonymous to me. I was not adding it as 'Far-left' to add my own POV; if I wanted to POV edit, I'd go to Conservapedia. :)


 * Also, to clarify, I am not a self-proclaimed 'right-winger'; I identify as a conservative (which is center-right), but I'm fairly libertarian on a lot of issues; If you look at my page, I scored a -1.08 on the 'Social' scale on the political compass, and oppose many things traditional social conservatives support. I doubt libertarianism, or even libertarian conservatism, is right-wing, even in fairly socialist Europe. :)


 * To conclude, I did not edit out of POV, and I also feel like I have a pretty good understanding of socialism; that is why I oppose it. I don't think you were being arrogant or anything, just helpful, and thank you for that effort. :)  Toa   Nidhiki  05  20:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Brezhnev FAC
I'm greatly looking forward to being able to support this article in future at FAC. Khrushchev got through, and may provide a useful model. Both in the article, and in its FAC processes. My comments were extensive not to dishearten you, but rather, because you deserve the most constructive review to allow for an easy FAC completion. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well thats very nice :D I thought that the best idea was to fix the problems many problems you saw with the article. I'll renominate it when I fix those. Thanks for taking your time reviewing the article, I really appreciate it. :D --TIAYN (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If I have recent edits, feel free to knock on my talk page for a more detailed peer review. You can see the depth of reviewing I'm capable of over at Talk:Economy of England in the Middle Ages.  Getting a close copyedit / prose peer review is also pretty useful; but I'm not so good at those. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow is the first word thats pops up in my mind after seeing that review. If you are ever interested to do such a review on the Brezhnev article you are free do to so, I would really appreciate it. --TIAYN (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe have a bash at improvement based on what FAC returned first :). Economy of England in the Middle Ages was the result of a _year_ of userspace gestation by the lead editor.  It is an impressive article :).  Also, an article not likely to receive blow-through vandalism or desperately partisan editors like Brezhnev. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, didn't notice your message before now. I was working on the List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1970s, and immediatley logged off when I was finished. But to respond, I fully understand, and I agree it is impressive. I read the article a week ago. --TIAYN (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you withdrew. Here are some more comments
 * Krushchnev a few times
 * I was rereferring to the n in there in a few typos.  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  23:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Vietcong and not NV? -> USSR gave weapons and built bases in North Vietnam and then it was smuggled to the VC in SV
 * Thing about "many" countries falling to communism. I see only SV, Cambodia and Laos. Also later it was PRC/Khmer Rouge v Vietnam/USSR
 * Olympic boycott was most of Western World, ditto for 1984
 * Space race needs more info as a the showpiece propaganda
 * althought it is one of the first things in the lead Growth of international influence not explained. Single sentence on African, Middle East in the body; does this mean stuff like the 1973 Yom Kippur war and funding Egypt?

Your username made me smile
 Hello Trust Is All You Need, I dream of horses has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 19:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Milestone
In case you did not notice, your article Ministry of Finance (Soviet Union) was the 10,000th good article :D Arsenikk (talk)  06:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Article up for deletion
Hi there, member of the Socialism Work Group... There is a newly created article on Communist Party of Great Britain activist Tony Gilbert now up for debate at Articles for Deletion. If you get a chance, please drop by and offer your views on the encyclopedia-worthiness of the topic, pro or con at Articles for deletion/David Tony Gilbert. Also, if you'd like to help with research on this article, there's a need. Thanks! — Tim Carrite (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism
I have seen your report about User:Harrypotter at Administrator intervention against vandalism. I have not examined the user's editing history, but on the basis of your comments there I see no reason to think there has been any vandalism. There is a very common tendency for editor's to think that Administrator intervention against vandalism is for any kind of editing that they find unacceptable, but this is not so. Roughly speaking, vandalism is editing which is intentionally harmful, but a more precise definition can be found at WP:Vandalism. Any editing which is done in good faith, no matter how unconstructive, is not vandalism, and Administrator intervention against vandalism is not the right way to deal with it. Dispute resolution has already been suggested to you. If the problem has gone beyond the stage where discussion is worth considering then you could consider Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You suggest that there has been edit warring, in which case Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring may be an appropriate venue. Please note that these comments are based purely on what you have written. I have not checked, for example, whether the user has been edit warring or not, so I am not advocating a report at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: that is for you to judge when you have made sure you are acquainted with the relevant guidelines. My purpose here is simply to make it clear that Administrator intervention against vandalism is not a catch-all venue for any kind of inappropriate editing, and that other venues are likely to be more appropriate on the basis of what you have written. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just read through this at WP:AIV and I think it is worth bringing this up at WP:ANI, where administrators look into this sort of thing all the time. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Third opinion: The Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard ("WP:AIV") is a venue for quickly disposing of simple cases of blatant vandalism, usually involving kids. Whatever the merits of your situation, AIV is just not the place to take it. As others have mentioned, there are other noticeboards where it will get a more thoughtful look. The admins at AIV care about Wikipedia's quality just as much as you do -- they're just working on a different set of tasks when they're handling AIV cases. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass move
I really wish you would discuss, for instance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway, before moving 20+ articles. By handling it the way you have, you are being reckless. There is actually a reason why they were where they were. The ministries have for a long time been marketing themselves as "Kongelig norske foodepartement" (Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foo). WP:NC-GAL is clear that if there is an official name that indicates the jurisdiction, then that name is preferred to the constructed name of Ministry of Foo (Jurisdiction). Please note that all Norwegian public agencies have an official English name. Arsenikk (talk)  22:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm reverting them back, --TIAYN (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't revert them back now, but instead start a discussion on WP:Norway about the issue. If consensus is to keep the old naming, then they can be reverted back. I am not saying that the move was necessarily wrong, but it was hasty and there is a reason why they were where they were. Perhaps things have changed since we named the articles? I notice for instance that the branding of the ministries has changed somewhat recently. Arsenikk <sup style="color:grey;">(talk)  10:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Second FLC
The FLC instructions say "Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed". As such I'm untranscluding your second nomination. Also, as an aside, I don't see why adding a new nomination would ever classify as a minor edit. Best, <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  12:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR
You are just about to break WP:3RR on the Malenkov article. Nsk92 (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a report at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, you may want to comment there. Nsk92 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Georgy Malenkov. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I got an edit conflict trying to reply to your unblock request so I'll put it here: I apologise for not adding the time to the template. Your block is 12 hours—the same length as the other two editors. I blocked all three of you because you all made multiple reverts in a short space of time. In 12 hours' time (11 hours and 20 minutes now) you can all come back and hopefully you;ll engage in discussion on the talk page. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Vitaly Vorotnikov
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Vitaly Vorotnikov. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply

 * TIAYN,
 * regarding your constant accusations I will respond assuming good faith once: I did not break the 3-revert-rule at all. I am a different user from Nsk, who broke it too, though not as egregiously as you did.
 * As for the issue: Malenkov, as you yourself stated in an edit summary and in talk page postings, was not "First Secretary", neither was Stalin. And you produced no sources (no surprise, they don't exist) for that claim. Whether the two informally were first among the secretaries is another matter. But informal power doesn't belong into infoboxes or succession boxes.
 * Now, as to the abolition of the GS in 1934: thus far your claim has not been sufficently sourced. The GS article contains info that the position was not mentioned again after 1934 and that Stalin contented himself with the designation of secretary. That the GS position was formally abolished is never stated - this would require positive proof.
 * Even if you bring up a few sources that cover such changes in 1934, it doesn't change the fact that historians overwhelmingly reckon Stalin to have been GS from 1922 to his death.
 * BTW, Stalin ruled party and state after 1934 not because of any office he held (he became premier only in 1941) but because he was Stalin.
 * Str1977 (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't hate you and never said I did. Can you separate personal animosity from valid criticism of both your claim and your behaviour.
 * Both books call Malenkov First Secretary but both are simply wrong: there was no such office until September 1953. And neither says anything about the GS being abolished.
 * Str1977 (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edits
Hello there. Just wanted to drop a line to thank you for improving and adding pictures to articles Grigory Kaminsky and Ştefan Andrei. I appreciate it. Tuscumbia ( talk ) 16:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) I didn't know you were Norwegian. In that case, could you upload and add pictures of platforms to the articles I started on Norwegian oil fields when you have spare time? There should be many in OLJEDIREKTORATET. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 18:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Tuscumbia ( talk ) 20:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * NDP is OLJEDIREKTORATET and stands for Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (website: http://www.npd.no/engelsk/cwi/pbl/en/index.htm). It provides information about all Norwegian oil and gas fields, i.e. abandoned, active, prospects, etc. Do you think maybe you can download the photos from flickr, if there are any on the Norwegian fields? But of course, if you have time :) Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 18:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's OK, and there is still much to learn about Norwegian energy potential. Any help you can provide for improving Norwegian oil and gas articles would be very appreciated. Besides images, maybe you could also help with adding the names of oil fields in Norwegian when you have time.
 * Soviet history is vast and I'm sure your work there is very appreciated :) Thanks again. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 20:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You can find the Norwegian articles on my page under Norway. Sure, no problem, I'll help with the List of leaders of the Soviet Union. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 20:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I just did some rewording and tag-inserting in List of leaders of the Soviet Union. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 21:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Bayerngas Norge.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Bayerngas Norge.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Noreco.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Noreco.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Lists of Russians
This is a pretty minor issue and I may do very well with your version, but I just want to make myself clear about this your edit. There is no point in inserting a separate list for the period of 1917-22, since Lenin is generally considered the leader of Russia for all of that period since October Revolution. Yes, his leadership was contested during the Civil War, but he won that war and he controlled the central parts of the country and its capitals. Lenin was also the first Soviet leader both in the sense of ruling the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic and ruling the Soviet Union, and he appears as the first entry on the List of leaders of the Soviet Union. So, when I type 1917-1991 in the link to the list of Soviet leaders, I do not make any false statement or mistake, since the Soviet period started in 1917, and Lenin's rule started that same year, and Lenin is the first person on the linked list. Look, this not a link to the Soviet Union (in that case 1917-1991 would be indeed false), this is a link to the list of rulers of the country in the Soviet period. Grey Hood  Talk  22:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the list of governments and heads of state of the RSFSR may be created, of course. But there is hardly any point in creating a separate list for 1917-22 period. And you haven't got my point - in the context of the Template:Lists_of_Russians we are interested primarily in people, not in the names of states and the historical periods. Lenin qualifies as the leader of the country in 1917-22 and appears at the start of the list of rulers of the Soviet Union. So, he is listed, and by listing him we cover the entire period when he was the leader of the country. Grey Hood   Talk  12:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, in some ways Russia is the successor to the RSFSR, and in other ways to the USSR in the whole. And the list you propose definitely is worth creating. However, as far as we are interested in actual and not formal or technical leaders of the country, we should remember that the republican heads of the communist parties in the respective Soviet Republics were the actual regional leaders in the corresponding republics. But interestingly, there was no separate Communist party of the RSFSR except for the period 1990-91. So we have only the heads of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as the actual leaders of Russia in the Soviet period, and adding other less important people into the timeline between 1917-91 in the Template:Lists_of_Russians would be misleading. Grey Hood   Talk  12:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean the Russian Federation is the successor to the RSFSR, in terms of territory and people - yes indeed. By the way, as far as I know, already in the early Soviet era the RSFSR was sometimes called the Russian Federation in the official documents. I think the list for the RSFSR heads of government and state could be included (just as the already existing similar lists for the USSR), but in brackets near the list of Russian Prime Ministers, not in the main timeline of leaders in the upper line of the template. Grey Hood   Talk  12:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging
Have you seen this pov pusher?  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he's causing pov problems in your sphere of interest, and mine too :(  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  05:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome!
I'm happy to be of assistance! --John of Lancaster (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andrei Gromyko
The article Andrei Gromyko you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Andrei Gromyko for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply
Tuscumbia ( talk ) 15:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! :) One thing I also noticed was that there were excessive wikilink tags to other articles. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 18:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will follow your advice. --TIAYN (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Leonid Brezhnev
I've started a discussion on his ethnicity here.  freshacconci  talk talk  18:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Template:Infobox The X-Files episode/doc
Template:Infobox The X-Files episode/doc, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Infobox The X-Files episode/doc and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Template:Infobox The X-Files episode/doc during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ivan Ivanovich Dubasov
You might be interested in expanding this article. He was the author of multiple Soviet banknotes and the creator of the and of the Lenin Order, among other achievements and contributions. --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Transportation in the Soviet Union
Hi there. Can you think of any reason why I shouldn't move Transportation in the Soviet Union to Transport in the Soviet Union, given that we have Transport in Russia, Transport in Ukraine, and the like?--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

the head of party was the leader of Ukraine, not the head of state
How does that make any sense? Probably, only in the Soviet perspective. The head of a party is elected only by the members of that party and not by all residents of Ukraine. So, explain me how such person could be the leader of Ukraine. On the other hand, supposedly and democratically, the head of state through elections was representing the interest of all people. However, and, of course, in reality I totally agree with you that the head of state position was purely nominative and was not electoral. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * True. I wanted to make template that would represent the history of a certain position not much who was more important. The modern day parliamentarism in Ukraine appeared in 1917 and the chairman of the Rada, whichever it was, played far not the smallest role in the government. I guess, whoever would be interested, one may find more information in that regard at the Ukrainian SSR article. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Premiers of the Soviet Union
I appeal on you to stop with your disruptive reverting on this article. I worked very hard yesterday in order to improve it, and I won't back down on this issue. Your version is just poorer than mine. As for numbering, if you read article you'll see this part: There have been thirteen premiers. So, why I can't add the numbers? Please, stop all of this if you want to avoid edit war and breaching of 3RR. --Sundostund (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Man, why are you so angry? That word (FUCKING) which you posted on my talk page was REALLY UNNECESSARY! With that kind of words, I must say that you are completely unable to cooperate with other users on WP. I'll wont post new messages to you, nor I'll respond to yours, because I didn't came to WP to be insulted, but to improve articles. As for stubbornness, it's also one of my characteristics, so if you want to engage in an edit war with me, I'm here! --Sundostund (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Anatoly Lukyanov
It was originally written that Lukianov was Deputy Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR from 1988 to 1990. This is not correct. The presidium was abolished on March 25, 1989. From then on Lukianov was Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Soviet (At the same time Mikhail Gorbachev was Chairman of the Supreme Soviet). I have unsuccesfully tried to include the information about Lukianov, but didn't know how to do it. Mbakkel2 9 Dec 2010 00:18 (CET)

Nomination of Ellen Kristin Dahl-Pedersen for deletion
The article Ellen Kristin Dahl-Pedersen is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ellen Kristin Dahl-Pedersen until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jayron  32  17:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

All-People's Government
The Soviets never used this term. I don't know from where you picked it. The usual terms were "The Soviet Government" or "The Party and the Government". "All-People's Government" sounds awkward if translated into Russian. It also has little meaning: the government was supposed to represent the laborers, not the all people, it was elected indirectly, not by an all-people vote. Now there is a term "All-people's elected President", because he is elected by direct vote. But the Soviet government was not called so.--MathFacts (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Gennady Yanayev GA nomination
Just to let you know that I have reviewed your GA nomination on Gennady Yanayev and placed it on hold pending improvements to several issues that I have noticed. Please see Talk:Gennady Yanayev/GA1 for details. –MuZemike 03:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Liberation
Thank you very much for your recommendations. Bahavd Gita (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

TIAYN, I apologize, but could I ask for your help? If you could spare it, please do. I'm quite new to this Wiki stuff. I have a few problems: first, two of the URL's in my references are to long for cite web and won't fit in (one is a PDF). I organized them to look like it's using cite web, but they don't. Is it OK, or maybe there's some cite web template with more space? Secondly, I found an old poster of the film that I definitely can list under fair use, but when I upload it, it's huge (640x480) and I can't change the size. Any idea how to do it? And last, do I need to receive confirmation for rating the article as B-class and lower, or can I do it myself? Please forgive my cluelessness. Bahavd Gita (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't thank you enough. Yes, I would very much like you to copy-edit it. Many, many thanks! Bahavd Gita (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I know the plot section is too long. I made it so to demonstrate several of the points made later, like its importance to the official version of history a la the USSR and Yepishev's influence. If you think it's redundant, I can reduce most of it. Bahavd Gita (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll rephrase that right away. It means that the Brezhnev stagnation brought a quasi-Stalinist style, after the Khruschev movies (Ivan's Childhood etc.) that took the individul's POV. Bahavd Gita (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you once more. I'll put names near all the quotes and rephrase some other points. I'm sorry, but I'll have to revert some of your edits on 'cast'. Olyalin received invitations to play in several other films (not Ozerov's) in the 1960's, but never sent a reply because the managers hid them. Vlasov was not named on the set; Yuri Pomerantsev is credited as an extra. By the way, you might think the cast list may be too long, but it's for a good reason: there are plenty mistakes in other sources, especially with the German actors (Hardy/Hans-Hartmut Krüger is only the most obvious). With the Soviet cast, I included only the main fictional characters, but all the historical ones. Many, many thanks.Bahavd Gita (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll reduce the plot, no problems. The historical inaccuracies are important. Your lead section is too long and contains errors. The film was received overwhelmingly in a negative fashion, already in the 1970's (Liehm's book is from 1977), as a reversion to a semi-Stalinist propaganda; Even in the USSR, most art critics (I.e. Lazarev) viewed it negatively, listing it as important because it was huge in dimensions and representing the Brezhnevian view on the war's history. An arch-conservative like Yuri Bondarev had scruples when he worked on it (I didn't include it in the article, but he told it to Lazarev), helping to put Stalin in an almost positive role. I separated the critical response from the box office (where it failed, too) because of this. I'm renaming the sections again, sorry. Bahavd Gita (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the huge effort. I'll take heed of all your recommendations, and I'll expand the lead and change the historical inaccuracies. I apologize for dragging you into this without first making the article fit for an external editor, I see it's too vague. I'm rewriting it. Hopefully, in a week or two it would be OK for a review by someone else. Thanks once more! Bahavd Gita (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Galina Brezhneva
Thank you for improving it, it looks pretty good now. I was wondering though, if she was proven to be guilty of smuggling all those jewels why couldn't the police make any charges against her? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense now, thank you. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Dolgikh
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Vladimir Dolgikh. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Santana discography
hello,

it's been a while since you didn't comment on this nomination. It would give me great pleasure if you would function and help to promote to this FLC. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you look at this candidate one more time, please? I made their a suggestion and I hope you agree with this. Thank you very much.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you ignore this FLC. Bear in mind that all comments should be addressed and you also should participate to this candidation, not just leaving an "oppose" and leave a weak response. Like I said above, I left a suggestion, which you should agree or not (even if I think this suggestion was a joke). Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I will do it soon. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:Thanks
Actually, the article (Ministry of Justice (Soviet Union)) is quite good. The main spelling mistakes I saw (such as "organisation") were actually pointed out to me as British English. I am American and am not familiar with the British spelling of certain words. The other main problem is some dead links (words can be clicked on but lead to unwritten articles). As far as a picture, is there any of a Soviet Union court house, such as a Supreme Court? Also, a picture of a few of the ministers would be nice. Lastly, I noticed one of the citations is in Russian. Is it possible to translate at least the citation title to English to better help those users who cannot speak Russian? I have decided to change the GA status of this article to onhold, as I believe with these changes the article will be up to GA standards. Let me know when the article is fixed and I will reassess the article's status. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on the article. It is very good. Please let me know if you need any other GA reviews. I hope you do not mind me asking, but are you a native Russian from the Soviet Union? Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the article about transportation in the USSR. It was extremely well written and I upgraded it to "A" status (in addition to GA). If I have time I will look at the others you sent me. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Its no problem at all. I was looking at some articles and noticed the Soviet Union article is only "C" class. If you would like to do some small revisions and nominate that article for GA I would be happy to pass it. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll be waiting. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)