User talk:Vlad fedorov/Archive 5

new article
I do not have the text of the old article on Internet trolls, or of the process that deleted it, so I cannot compare. could you please send me the links--thanks DGG 04:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not have access to the deleted version of the article on internet troll squads either. I may have posted in the DRV, but I don't remember the article well enough to be able to recognize whether or not this is one and the same. If and only if the page is either the same article renamed or extremely similar to it, tag it with as a reposting of deleted content. I'm afraid that if he's completely rewritten it, you will probably have to drag it through AfD again. This looks to me to be a more substantive article, and though I am unable at this time to go check it thoroughly for quality and presence of original research as I am about to go to bed, 14 sources isn't bad. If it is as bad as the other one was but different, it is sure to fail AfD again anyway. I'm sure if you found an administrator he'd be able to offer more specific advice because he could see the article that was deleted. Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  04:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking to the Deletion review at  which in turn links to the AfD at  . An admin could undelete the original for discussion if it becomes relevant. As for me, my comment at the Deletion review was "Relist. We obviously did not have a proper discussion of this in the first place", and I still am of that opinion: the Deletion Review indicated that the content was being revised, so I all the more think a new discussion is in order. (I had not commented at the original AfD.) DGG 04:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for informing me about the case with the article about internet trolls. ellol 11:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is hopefully not a case of canvasing, I hope. CPTGbr 18:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL. See the talk page of ellol, where I have posted my message. But you are certainly trying to canvass your rigged votes by contacting Biophys, Ilgiz, Colchicum.Vlad fedorov 03:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are going out on a limb by accusing me of canvassing without presenting proof. You really have got some nerve. Also, doesn't change the fact that you were in fact canvassing, which is the only conclusion I got from Ellol's is more evidence that you canvassed. CPTGbr 03:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your personal attack recorded at my talk page. Please be more bold next time.Vlad fedorov 04:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way you may need to study the English dictionary to learn the meaning of the word "to canvass". I have contacted Ellol openly and ohh see here.Vlad fedorov 10:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely it is NOT a case of canvasing, LOL. Perhaps we are speaking different English languages, at least I see no other option to explain such strange reaction of user CPTGbr. ellol 08:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Large scale deletions without consensus
Wikipedia as a community has rules to prevent edit wars. One of these is the 3RR rule. If you wish to delete large passages of another editor's work without providing any references, it is more polite to discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page FIRST. If you do not, your excisions may be regarded as vandalism. Please proceed immediately to talk:GRU and discuss your point of view (POV) with fellow editors there before reverting this article again. If you do not, you run the risk of being blocked from Wikipedia. You may find that Wikiquette provides some helpful guidance. Thank you for your anticipated compliance.W. Frank 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have restored the comments that I made a few minutes ago and that you immediately deleted.
 * I find it illuminating that you now wish to censor my comments rather than respond to them.
 * I shall not respond here again (unless you undertake not to censor my comments) since that would obviously be a waste of my time. I have instead copied the comments that you deleted to the relevant page Talk:GRU.W. Frank 17:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't wish right now to discuss anything with a man who threatened me with blocking without any justifications. Vlad fedorov 17:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded by editing the text on a case of Alexey Galkin "confessions" received under regular tortures. Other edits would follow shortly. Please, enjoy!!! Vlad fedorov 08:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

internet brigades
Nominate it for deletion, and make sure to mention it is a POV fork of the other article. Make sure to provide all of the wikilinks. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  03:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not attack other users, as you did here.  Bl a  st  08.04.07 2127 (UTC)


 * I don't find this to be a personal attack. If you think it is, please proceed immediately to the administrators noticeboard without spamming my talk page.Vlad fedorov 10:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, I just wanted to say, don't be really disappointed about the dispute. For really many people Russia is still the land of bears and drunk muzhiks playing balalaikas. And we can't really do anything with it.

Just a thought. Perhaps the article Anti-Russian bias in western mass media could be started. But it's a demned hell of the work. there would be hundreds of links and sources. This could be done some time in future, however. ellol 06:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

advise
Vlad, I realize you feel strongly about some topics but please never ever call other contributing editors vandals and never ever break 3RR. If someone's edit needs reverted, chances are other users will revert. 3RR rule is there for a very good reason. Please keep reverts down. --Irpen 05:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Now please sit out your block, do some book reading and come back calm down and polite. You won't change the world or the methods of some editors' way to win content disputes. You need patience, persistence and reliance on the sources. --Irpen 06:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, please cut down on reverts. Stick to no more than 2 reverts per 24 hours and do not consider this a "quota". Further, please never ever call anyone a "vandal" except true vandals as per WP:VAND and do not call even those as such as this is useless and true vandals get blocked quickly these days. If you start your day from checking a set of articles and reverting each, you are on the wrong track. Please spend more time writing content and create a couple of articles.

Oh, and stay away from Piotrus' way. This an easy way to get blocked. I know this editor quite well and I will stand up to him properly and when really necessary. Hope you don't mind getting this piece of friendly advise. --Irpen 07:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing, if I may. Please do not paste extensively from outside sites to the talk pages. A link would suffice as people know how to click. Lengthy pieces of outside texts overload the talk pages and make the dialog harder as what editors say gets diluted by the kilobytes of external text. Additionally, copying of external sites may (or may not) be a copyright infringement. --Irpen 07:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As for your question, I am not the right person to ask about mediation since I have not yet seen a productive one. Reasonable users can talk and listen without the formal mediation and make a good use of talk pages. It is unreasonable to expect that mediation may help users who are not able to discuss things otherwise.

Now, may I suggest you cool off a bit. Don't worry about the articles so much. If the article is tagged as disputed, there is no need to revert war to have it your way at the same time. Tag says it all. Use talk pages. While there, please avoid (or at least minimized) personalized edit summaries and section headings. Concentrate more on content and less on the contributors. You do not have to respond to every comment at once or revert what you see as "nonsense" from the articles. A tag takes care of it.

You will find a great deal fulfilling to step aside for a short time and write some new articles. Wikipedia has many gaps. Filling them is a worthy undertaking. Cheers, --Irpen 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Przyszowice massacre
You might want to check the article now that it's sourced. BTW, feel free to add cite tags anywhere you see fit, there's plenty of sources to add if there's need to.  // Halibutt 21:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Just so you know, admins have to close on consensus, not on their own views - an AfD (while I dislike them being used in clearly contentious situations) is a very different animal to a WP:PROD or a speedy as people can legitimately object to the deletion and give grounds which others (often uninvolved people who just read a lot of AfD debates) can chime in on. Orderinchaos 06:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

reverted you
Most of your changes look good, although the Russian Concentration (oups, the C-word) camps were perhaps a bit inhuman even for criminals? Anyway, your total eradication of Chechen information looks a tiny bit suspicious...--Radh (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, that WP likes you to have sources, when you write anything, but I honest to God did not write the text in the first place and do not even have an opion about it. I reverted your revert only because you did not give any useful reason as far as I can see for your 1st revert and as far as I know WP likes you to give those as well.
 * If you still do not believe me, or if I continue to misunderstand you, I do not know how to express myself differently to clear up this mis-understanding.--18:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Very long philipics
Hi Vlad. You recently created an article of this name in "main space", but since it contains what appears to be a discussion rather than an encyclopedia article, it has been moved to User:Vlad fedorov/Very long philipics, i.e. in your "user space". Favonian (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry. Thx a lot. Forgot this wiki code. I use tiddlywiki now )) Vlad fedorov (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration
Cases are not about back-and-forth between editors; please stop personalizing the issues. Edits like this are unhelpful - not that you shouldn't point out that an edit is older, but please do so factually instead of demeaning other editors involved. Shell  babelfish 16:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Noted. You mean my second phrase was obsolete? Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Basically yes. I know it's a pain to keep dealing with disputes that have gone on this long, but if you focus on showing things to ArbCom instead of arguing with other editors there, it will all go much easier.  Thanks for helping. Shell   babelfish 17:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Your two proposed findings of fact cite a massive number of diffs that would probably be served better on the Evidence page in your section. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 04:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Question, how could I make it? Could you edit for me, to show an example? Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, the problem is that my Evidence is not covering every issues, is not organized neatly and is not broken into appropriate sub-sections, therefore I have to brings diffs right to the FoF's. Vlad fedorov (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well some of it seems to be duplicated. For example, on Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Evidence, you cite evidence from  Talk:Russian apartment bombings, which is also listed in your proposals at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop.  There looks to be more diffs in your proposals than evidence, and I can't tell which each is as easily as you can, so all I could really do is copy-paste.  You have the right idea I think - working some of it into evidence and leaving some of it there is nice.  Again, not a huge issue at this stage.


 * Additionally, you need to not make statements like "I remember communists were sentencing people to shooting for taking three ears from the wheat field." Comparing Colchicum to that sort of person is grossly out of line, and I suggest you strike it.  Do not do it again. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 13:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. Vlad fedorov (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Belarus
I am going to revamp and revise the article on Belarus. I would like your help in this. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:


 * is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution.
 * ,, and are banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 6 months.  At the end of 6 months, they may each apply to have their ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.
 * is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 1 year. At the end of 1 year, Biophy may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.
 * Consecutive to that topic ban, Biophys is restricted to 1 revert per week per article in the topic area for 1 year.
 * Russavia and Vlad federov are admonished for posting personal information of other editors.
 * Editors wishing to edit in the areas dealt with in this case are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 22:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Discuss this

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, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes 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. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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) 01:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed your talk page archives
Hi Vlad, I found your talk page while going through Category:Pages using the auto archiving notice template that contain a "/Archive" subpage, a category that I created to help me clean up Template:Auto archiving notice. I've moved User talk:Vlad fedorov/Archive 22 to User talk:Vlad fedorov/Archive 5, and then moved some messages that had been improperly placed in archive 2 to archive 5. Hope you don't mind. Graham 87 14:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please refactor
Your recent post to an amendment request (here) seems to be an attack on the editor rather than a comment on the request. Please refactor the post in less personal way. Shell  babelfish 21:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)