This is an archive of past discussions about User:Russavia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You recently applied an NPOV tag to the Allegations of state terrorism by Russia The was no matching discussion on TALK page. The edit summary may try to explain your point.
The correct way is to identify what was done in the edit summary. It would make it easier if you added a short comment in TALK explaining why the change was made. If all editors followed this method then a valid discussion could take place. Right now if some editor disagrees with your tag - or does not understand your rationale - the only recourse is to delete you tag thereby starting a revert war. Bobanni (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't get it. The results I see do not seem to be anything but what I would have expected. Perhaps you are logged into google and get a different set of results? Or could the results be different in the Australian version of google (I had this kind of problem with someone else before)?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Try this. If that doesn't work, basically, the Voice of America (you know the bastion of US propaganda *cough* news), printed this story, but it was initially printed under the title: "Obama to Face Strained US-Soviet Relations After Taking Office". Old habits die hard I think, or have I missed something major during the week? Reminds me of a particular Simpsons episode, if you know the show, you'll know which one I mean? --RussaviaDialogueStalk me17:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Aeroflot Hammer and Sickle logo.svg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Aeroflot Hammer and Sickle logo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You nominated Image:--ScoutsChris3.jpg and Image:--ScoutsChris3.png for speedy deletion under CSD I3: an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission" which either was uploaded on or after 19 May 2005 and has no fair use rationale, or is not used in any articles. However, the license on the articles state that the image is available under GFDL, so this speedy deletion criteria doesn't seem to apply. Did you mean to nominate the image for deletion under a different criteria? Mike Peel (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't check what CSD I3 was. I have re-done the IFD request, under the reason that the uploader doesn't own the copyright to the image, so that they are unable to release it under any licence. If there is PD involved here, that needs to be demonstrated with some evidence, and then PD tags can be applied to it. --RussaviaDialogueStalk me18:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, this article needs attention. The Aircraft inventory section gives conflicting statistics based on the sources. Do you know any government source, or the Navy website itself lists the exact numbers of the aircrafts. I can't read Russian. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Since you are an active contributor to Artem Borovik article, you might be interested in what's going on out there. Strange things, I would say. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. It appears that Biophys has stalked me and waited for me to be blocked (albeit for 48 hours, back tomorrow) and has undone many changes done by myself. He is going to have some questions to answer, but answering questions is not one of his strong points. Such as the the question on the Artyom Borovik article which has gone unanswered by himself for a couple of months, despite being asked of him almost half a dozen times. Things he is also going to have to explain is the changes he made on Russia–NATO relations; an article he has never edited himself. He makes the idiotic claim that I removed sourced material in that article, and also removed the Original research tag which I placed, due to the majority of the article not being referenced, and in some places it is outright innaccurate and not supported by the sources; not to mention some was referenced to blogs and wikinews-type sources. Note on the article talk page how another editor has commented on the blog sources, and now Biophys is saying he will check them later. Perhaps he should stop stalking my edits and checking the reasons why information was removed, before acting in a vandalist type of way. He also completely removed information from Valeriya Novodvorskaya. He has used all sorts of arguments in trying to remove said information in the past; even claiming that sources are not reliable sources for quotes of hers, even though they are referenced to her own fringe party website. He also reverted a heap of changes I made to Alexander Litvinenko poisoning, include the POV tag that I placed due to Scaramella and Berezovsky being omitted as suspects; Litvinutko made the accusations against Scaramella himself!!!! As noted in this diff, he has done one change too many; note the Dead link which I placed, because Mosnews.com is no longer available. Notice also how he has removed the assertions of the Russians regarding their own constitution. Biophys is acting quite disgracefully with all of this stalking and changes to edits. --RussaviaDialogueStalk me23:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
13.12.2008, Москва 11:30:35 В столице Объединенных Арабских Эмиратов (ОАЭ) г.Абу-Даби в ночь на 13 декабря 2008г. в возрасте 65 лет скоропостижно скончался чрезвычайный и полномочный посол России в Объединенных Арабских Эмиратах Андрей Захаров, сообщили РБК в МИД РФ. По некоторым данным, причина смерти - остановка сердца.
Hi! I have removed the original heading, as it is likely very inflammatory. I suggest you consider another one which doesn't seem (without reading the content) like a personal attack on Jimbo. I will also watch over this page for a while so there isn't too much fall out from your original choice. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem, it was done to get the attention, as when I have raised these issues as described they have fallen on deaf ears. It has certainly gotten some attention, even though of course there is no personal attack on Jimbo involved or insinuated. --RussaviaDialogueStalk me22:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... Well, it would be a shame that the content was ignored simply because someone took exception to the header - you were just lucky that one of the more jaded sysops (me) took the time to review the text before considering what action to take. Best of luck in trying to get a debate on your concerns regarding the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Russavia. Could you please explain what do you want? If you want this pedophilia accusations to be removed from Litvinenko article, I am with you. I removed this thing myself, do you remember? Why bother busy people like ArbCom members and Jimbo with such things? G'day. Biophys (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Biophys, what I have posted on Jimbo's talk page actually has nothing to do with you, in the sense that I am not asking for anything to happen to you. But rather it is a question being raised, and a valid one at that, in that at least 3 admins and 2 arbitrators have been advised of a potential WP:BLP violation (I say it was a violation), yet all 5 of these people have totally ignored it. I am wanting to know why issues are ignored by editors who are supposed to be familiar with what I regard as the key policy on WP. Nothing more than that. --RussaviaDialogueStalk me16:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
You just reverted the segment about the alleged pedophilia to your old version. You do not tolerate even a couple of minor changes that I made a few hours ago. Fine, lets keep your version. You are welcome to delete this segment altogether. So, what BLP violation are you talking about? Are you talking about your version? Perhaps that is why no one pays attention.Biophys (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Russian Business Network
hi, you reverted me for original research, I didn't do the research it was already done netsececuritytech .com has been identified as a site being used by RBN and even refers back to the wiki article. on http://www.mywot.com/
I did try to be informative. was it too many sources by including a link to the whois for the malware sites?
I kind of struggle to see what isn't original research if you can't dig out the available information and reference it.
The December 2008 issue of the WikiProject Australia newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. This message was delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Page 60. Note SS-Galisia does not have tanks which was attacked by Soviet Second Air Army.
I’ve warned specific editor which reinsert hoax about “The Galicia Division bore the brunt of a fierce assault by the Soviet Second Air Army, who in only a five hour period on July 15 flew 3,288 aircraft sorties and dropped 102 tons of bombs”
История второй мировой войны. 1939–1945, т. 9, М., 1978 p.82 mentioned what Soviet Second Air Army over 4 day period (from 13 July has ) 3,200 aircraft sorties to support advancing troops of the 38 and 60 Army. Jo0Doe213.159.244.137 (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Defending Jo0Doe?
I wrote this on an admin's page as Jo0Doe has been shopping for a block reversal:
He has been repeatedly disuptive and uncivil over a period of many months. He was given a "last warning" by an admin back in June: [2] "Assumptions of bad faith, sterile edit warring, incivility is not the method to push your views into the article. In fact if your opponents were a little bit less noble they could easily arrange a permanent block for you just on the pattern of behavior...Consider it is a last warning, next time I would have to use my block button." Yet despite this warning he continued in such behavior. The mess on the talk page of this article is very revealing: [3]. Out of dozens of examples just within the past couple of weeks we can look at this section heading, "A hoax": [4] in which Jo0doe essentially accuses another editor of being a liar (so much for civility, assumptions of good faith, etc.). He then takes up a lot of time by making numerous accusations that are then debunked in the conversation, being uncivil along the way. For example, he objected to the phrase "The Division's prime organizer and highest ranking officer, Dmytro Paliiv, had been a leader of a small legal political party in pre-war Poland, and many of his colleagues had been members of the pre-war moderate, left-leaning democratic UNDO movement [4] [5] that before the war had been opposed to the authoritarian Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists" by claiming that the source in the reference (Armstrong's Ukrainian Nationalism, published by Columbia University Press, page 170-175) did not describe UNDO as democratic moderate etc. I tried to explain to him that wikipedia articles ought to be understandable for the general public and so a brief description of UNDO is warranted so the reader knows what it is. Jo0doe replied with his rude sarcasm "So - you engage in OR and fix it through Armstrong - charming." In reposne I added references to UNDO's democratic nature, from another source (Snyder's recent book published by Yale University Press) as well as from Armstrong himself (page 18 of the same book). This eventually led to this lengthy conversation: [5].
We see how much time was spent (wasted) on one sentence. This pattern is continuous and is one of the reasons that Jo0doe was banned from the topic of Holodomor. It's called tendentious editing.
Another example, misusing a source: [6]. Etc. etc. Clearly, Jo0doe's response to the ban was not to change his ways and learn from it but to continue to engage in the same behavior but on different articles, leading to the block. Faustian (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to add something: I'm very patient, and indeed was awarded a barnstar by Irpen for my patience in dealing with JoODoe (see my user page). I was also able after some big clashes to come to an agreement with Kuban Kazak, and edit cooperatively with him. The fact is, JoODoe is the only editor with whom I have have such a problem. At the same time, JoODoe has such problems with very many editors. But at a certain point one must realize that wikipedia is not about repetitive, endless sterile arguments over every sentence. He really poisons the atmosphere, and thus deserved the block.Faustian (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice try with Austrian “officer approach” (put other in misconception by distort the matter of dispute) while my “hoax notes” (A hoax is a deliberate attempt to dupe, deceive or trick an audience into believing, or accepting, that something is real, when in fact it is not; or that something is true, when in fact it is false.) was related to edits
[8] referenced through John A. Armstrong. (1963). Ukrainian Nationalism. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 170-175 and
Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in its work on the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and UPA
So actually what appeared now in article – indeed it was proven as true that almost all actually does not appeared at pages 170-175 of Armstrong, and there no Institute of History concluded that "the SS… Still I was unable to defend WP:reliablity on facts and figures [9] see page 60 of the book – and see my at least 3 desperate attempts to make WP as a reliable source. [10][11]
So – no mentioned info at pages 170-175 as claimed,
No Institute of History of the Ukrainian conclude
does my proved by facts claim was false? -
So editor have book and have been warned to fix article text per scholar text – so no effort exist only game was placing around irrelevant to article topic UNDO) – while nice “facts” SS Division primary organizer was an UNDO – no Himmler no Alfred Rosenmberg – but UNDO officer – charming WP:Fringe and “unique gem” in WP:reliability crown .
As regards Holodomor – see my concern - [12] and see recent – [13] – am this can be called a wp:TALK violation (and rest)? See the “perfect” collection of “famine-genocide” causes – Causes_of_the_Holodomor –which in fact completely contradict with Holodomor article. So adding an economical, demographical and statistical data in “English” WP called WP:TE – while using an SS members apocrypha with “Jewish Elements” for WP articles – it’s a ‘productive editors” way. So – I hope there is something wrong in approach. 213.159.244.137 (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Jo0Doe
Jo0Doe, just a word of advice, as you are blocked, it's not advisable to keep posting as you aren't supposed to do that; I don't know if you are aware of that. Just leave it with me, both of you, and I will reply in the morning, just busy on another thing at the moment, ok. --RussaviaDialogueStalk me14:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
My name is Dimitri, I'm the author of this Article. First of all, I do not consider it at all "being considered for deletion". It contains authentical information (gathered and sorted by myself), all necessary references and sources. So I don't know why it has to be deleted and I insist in keeping this Article on Wikipedia pages. Moreover, if you delete this Article, so delete all the same Articles (Terminated destinations) which exist in each Article devoted to this or that aircompany. It would be fairly... To whom Russavia the date 1992 "doesn't tell ... anything", I will explain: it is the date when Aeroflot became an aircompany of Russian Federation, not of Soviet Union. I hope now it tells a bit the reader... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Не знаю, как Вас зовут, а потому начну просто, без обращений. Я категорически против того, чтобы эту статью удаляли. Она соответствует всем критериям Википедии: начиная от формы (надоело переделывать её под ежедневно меняющиеся параметры) и заканчивая содержанием (информация аутентичная, ниоткуда не сворованная, сам лично переработал ТОННЫ макулатуры, облазил все возможные форумы, связанные с авиацией, вышел на людей в Аэрофлоте, курирующих сеть сейчас, все ссылки необходимые вставил). Что ещё надо? Если уж чем-то не устраивает статья и её необходимо удалить, то сделайте милость, удалите и все остальные аналогичные статьи: на странице каждой авиакомпании, представленной здесь, статья "Terminated destinations" присутствует, но почему-то ни у кого из англоязычных "редакторов" не возникает мысль, скажем, вычернкуть British'ей, например, или Delt'у, ну и т.д. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs) 23:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Salut! Still keeping silent? Nothing except insulting posts? I see... --Dimitree 00:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)
So, nothing to say except 'blaaaaahhhhh'? I see.... --Dimitree 03:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)
comment
Since you read my comment on biophys' page, try those two documentaries I linked him. You might find them interesting. As for me "laughing" about the term putinjuchend, there's nothing behind that really. The incident when members of this youth movement threw a flying penis at Kasparov also made me laugh. Grey Fox (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Removal of templates from images up for discussion
Chris, you are not a new user, you know how WP operates. You know that it is the WP:BURDEN of editors who wish to add info to provide sources, which is not what you did at Scouting in Russia. And you also know full well that the removal of templates from images/articles up for discussion is also not on. What you are doing comes under WP:DISRUPT. Please stop, because I do not wish to bother an admin for an editor who has been around long enough and should know better. --RussaviaDialogueStalk me14:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The image discussions were archived, which means they expired without change to the image. You are still ticked off at me about Scouting in Russia. You were finally able to source your claims, so I stopped reverting your unsourced edits. You can stop wikistalking me now, it is in very bad faith. I have no wish to have a dialogue with you for any reason. Leave me alone as I have left you alone. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
In regards to Scouting in Russia], the claims that Dagestan, etc issue their own postage stamps was unsourced in the article, and if you read WP:BURDEN, the burden is not upon myself who removed those claims, but is rather on the editor who wishes to insert material. That is a key part of WP:V, which is policy on WP, and by which I am fully able to remove unsourced claims in any article. In regards to the images, one can see that the discussions are still very much open, so the removal of the IFD notices is entirely inappropriate. And don't accuse me of stalking you, such an accusation does not sit too well with myself, particularly as there is no evidence of it, and it is entirely childish to even insinuate as such. I won't waste my time posting this on your talk page, due to the message you have at the top is so childish as to not be funny, and not in the spirit of conducting conversation. So I'll leave it at that, except to say that if WP:DISRUPTIVE editing like that occurs in the future, I will alert an admin to it, as you have ignored a reminder on this in the past. --RussaviaDialogueStalk me04:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Guys, please calm down. There's more here than meets the eye, but yes, the burden is on the inserter to verify claims and removals should not be done without a valid reason. I suggest everyone take a deep breath and take a break from each other/this topic for one week. Then come back and shake hands and edit on. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Request to relook at AfD closure
Hi Stifle, can you please go over the AfD which you closed as "No consensus" for Putinjugend, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Putinjugend. There is some confusion amongst editors who voiced their opinion to keep this, as to whether this is a disambig page or an article. You will note, that, for example, I voiced my opinion to redirect (instead of a disambig), but once it became clear that some of those who were voting for keeping were of the opinion that this would be an actual article, I changed this opinion to delete. As you can see from Putinjugend as it stands now, this has got to be a first that the disambiguation is referenced. Has this occurred on WP before? Apart from being a WP:NEO, it is one that is used in English as a pejorative; we are not here on English WP to document German usage of German terms, but rather English usage. Note in the AfD that I have used Google results as an indication to show that this is not widely used term in English, but is rather used by a very small minority in a pejorative way, and if it were in article, it would be removed as per WP:UNDUE, something which I have already done. And it is a term that if was used (and especially linked to) in an article outside of the disambig page would also be removed as per WP:UNDUE. You will also notice that in referencing the disambig page, that they have utilised almost every WP:RS which utilises the term; this demonstrates that this is surely a protologism, and hence we shouldn't even have a space for it on WP.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, it does make me wonder if some of those who voted keep for Putinjugend, would also vote keep for eSStonia (эSSтония/эSSтонии) using the same arguments they used there, e.g. It's a wellknown term and it's not up to Wikipedia to decide if it's a correct name for Estonia or not., wikipedia should be a neutral protocol of realities, actually used terms etc. and not decided by individuals' displeasures., This term is used in mass media. Besides, the article seems to be well sourced., eSStonia is a well-sourced and widely used term. As wiki is not censored it should have its place., etc, etc, etc. You can be sure that those people would be the first to come in with their Delete votes because it is a political pejorative neologism used by a small section of the world to describe modern-day Estonia; much like Putinjugend is used by no more than 1% of the world to describe these organisations. It has nothing to do with neutrality as they portray in the Putinjugend discussion, but everything to do with pushing WP:FRINGE views and presenting them as the majority, and normal, view. You can check for yourself Google results for eSStonia, эSSтония/эSSтонии. Those results show that eSStonia and its Russian equivalent is used on a much wider basis, than is Putinjugend, but is eSStonia were ever to be created, it would rightly be deleted as an WP:ATP/WP:NEO, yet, a term which in English usage is used as an attack is allowed to stay. What about Baby killers linking to Vietnam veterans, would that be an acceptable redirect/disambig page? Especially as the term is very well documented in relation to the protests against the Vietnam War. Would that be an acceptable redirect/disambig?
Surely you will understand that recalling Nazi history/names and applying it to modern-day people/organisations is surely inflammatory, and the arguments by many to keep the article (for that is what most of them regard it as) have nothing to do with neutrality, but pushing of a WP:FRINGE view and presenting it as anything but. For if neutrality was what it was all about, they would have said keep, but move to Pro-Putin youth movement...funny that this is a neutral term, but one which none of those saying its all about neutrality would ever use, as it is much easier to use Putinjugend, which of course is anything but.
While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
I think the article changed quite significantly between being nominated and the closure, and many of the deletion !votes were predicated on the article being non-neutral and/or offensive, which it does not appear to be.
There's nothing to stop you from suggesting a move, redirect, or merge on the article talk page, but there was no consensus in the deletion discussion to delete the article, and as such I must decline to amend the closure. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I hate automated messages in the real world, and I won't use them on a project which is supposed to be collaborative. Having said that, you too seem to be of the belief that this is an article, not a disambig page, which are two different concepts. I will simply just take it to WP:DRV instead, as the concerns have obviously fallen of deaf ears. --RussaviaDialogueStalk me22:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Putinism
My attempt to appeal to administrator [14] about the deletion of crazy conspirological article Putinism has no result. How do you think is it possible to delete this crazy article from Encyclopedia at all? It is very strange, as for Encyclopedia to be the source of propaganda of such theories (that each Russian is working in FSB and so on)...--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
It's my own opinion that Putinism is real, but not in the way that it has been presented in the article; what is presented in the article is basically a mish-mash of information put together as WP:SYN, and reads like it was written by the CIA agents. You will note that it has been raised on the talk page whether Andranik Migranyan's views should be presented in the article; whatever the reason for this question, I believe it has been raised as it is about the only thing in the article which is not part of an attack on Putin and his persona and his policies, and doesn't fit in the with CIA view of the world. In other words, Putinism was not destined by some to become a WP:NPOV assessment of what Putinism is all about, it is merely supposed to be yet another Criticism of Vladimir Putin. You will note that the article written by Andranik Migranyan is about the only source in that entire article which is devoted to Putinism, and which even attempts to explain what Putinism is, how it came to exist, etc. I wouldn't say no to putting Template:NPOV over the entire article, for it is highly POV, the lead especially sets the article up for an attack piece; unfortunately, due to the sources which are used it won't be deleted as an attack page. Add more referenced Russian POV to the article, and I don't mean POV of those on the fringe in Russia such as Albats, and the like, but from mainstream Russian society. Unfortunately, this article is not a priority of mine at the moment, but if you can add detail to it, try to NPOV it out somewhat, I have it on my watchlist and will keep an eye on it. --RussaviaDialogueStalk me18:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but this text
Former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy shares similar ideas. When asked "How many people in Russia work in FSB?", he replied: "Whole country. FSB owns everything,
I would agree that it is a WP:FRINGE view, unless of course more sources can be found which share his sentiment in relation to Putinism. Frankly, I believe such information is great for such articles, because it shows the people to be absolute nutcases...they are great people really, they are basically nobodies who mean nothing in the overall scheme of things, but their own self-importance makes them come up with nuttery...it's great stuff really because it shows them at nutjobs. But then again, his comments have nothing to do with Putinism anyway. Looking at it a little more, I'd also be inclined to slap a big Template:OR on top as well, because of WP:SYN problems. --RussaviaDialogueStalk me19:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Now, Biophys reverted again. However, I think that it is better to preserve this article in such edition. Now it is obviously that it is crazy conspirological article, that is why it is better to pursue the deletion of this article instead of editing it. I think that me, you and other persons of sound mind have to rise the question about deletion of this article instead of trying to edit it. There is no such phenomena as "putinism" because "ism" is a kind of ideology, but there is no ideology as a matter of fact during Putin's presidentship. All the sources about "putinism" links to mentally abnormal persons which distributes their conspiracy theories that each Russian is working in FSB and so on. I think that you have to find other users, interesting in deletion of this article, and we all have to rise the question about deletion.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
This was nominated for deletion as an attack page (G10 speedy deletion) by User:Martintg. I have a great deal of respect for both the Russian and Estonian peoples, but I had to concur that this was an obvious attack. --Orange Mike | Talk22:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion by who? I'd like to know who is stalking my edits. Additionally, it is also obvious that I am working on it, and it is encyclopaedic; fully referenced, with more to come. --RussaviaDialogueStalk me22:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I've already raised the issue of inappropriateness of raising such serious accusations without any good basis. However, I just realised that Russavia's signature has an explicit invitation to stalk him. Am I missing some sort of grand joke here? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος!15:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Some great joke? No, not at all. Because my edits have been stalked over some period of time now, I thought I might as well change it to "Stalk me", so that those who are doing the stalking will have no qualms about what it is they are doing. As to your raising of the issue, I am now preparing this, off-wiki of course, and will be filing my complaint in due course. I have had an absolute gutful of the bullshit in this arena, and it will stop, for once and for all, so please don't raise the issue of how inappropriate it is, for if I state something such as this, not wanting to get involved in bullshit, then mark my words, I have very, very, very good reason to state that others have and are stalking my edits, and some have been quite WP:DISRUPTive in the process. What? Who? Where? When? Well that will be known in due course. --RussaviaDialogue15:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
You recently merged Eurasian Economic Community and Collective Security Treaty Organisation into CIS. EurAsEC and CSTO are distinct entities with different roles, and there is enough notability and material in order to keep them separate. Although you may have followed WP:MERGE, these merges were not discussed, and in unmerging them, it has created a lot of work in order to get the articles right. I don't know why, for example, you have removed external links and the like. I see that you have also been approached by others, and you commented that you don't care. Please bear in mind, that whilst we assume good faith with these merges, they may be seen by some as a little WP:DISRUPTive, given that they are not merges which were discussed and for which consensus to merge does not exist. In future, please discuss merges before doing so, so that we needn't have to undo controversial merges. Thanks, --RussaviaDialogue13:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Можно говорить и по-русски :-) Эти статьи достаточно коротки. И Евраэс, и ОДКБ вырасли из соответствующих договоров СНГ. Если статьи расположены по отдельности, СНГ производит впечатление организации, не ведущей никакой деятельности. Вы вполне можете выделить эти статьи отдельно, но в этом нет особого смысла. Практически все ссылки из external были включены в references, за исключением тех, которые вели на русские сайты, не имеющие английских версий. Мне было все равно в отношении того банка. Но не все равно в отношении статей об СНГ. Зря воспринимаете меня, как разрушителя. Если взять в качестве примера статью про European union, которая достаточно хорошо проработана, она составляет 138кб. Статья про СНГ - 30кб, Евразэс и ОДКБ - по 10кб. При слиянии статей я проделал работу по улучшению читабельности и убрал дублированную, на мой взгляд, информацию. Если вы считаете, что я убрал что-то лишнее, это можно было восстановить уже в статье про СНГ, а не тупо делать undo. У меня нет большого желания вступать в полемику, но я считаю, что это объединение хорошо послужило статье про СНГ, и дробить ее на части просто глупо. Emilfaro (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Whilst the articles may be short in content, you will notice the EurAsEC article has an expand request on it. There is a wealth of information out there on EurAsEC and the CSTO which can be added into the articles. Unfortunately, articles relating to Russia/CIS are somewhat underdeveloped, unless of course there is something to be critical of, in which case you can be sure they are full of all types of criticism, but EurAsEC, CSTO, CIS, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and other such articles have a lot of room for expansion, as they are all notable entities in their own right. So the way to do it is to expand the articles on an individual basis, but remember there is no time limit on WP to get it done. Merging notable entities in their own right isn't really the way to do it. --RussaviaDialogue14:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
These organisations are really much more projects of CIS, than anything else. Not every member participates, and this marks the split of CIS, and causes misunderstanding. That's why these articles are unlikely to be expanded any time soon. Because activities of EAEC, CSTO and CIS are the same. I'll wait a bit, and then leave a proposal for articles merger, if they don't spontaneously start expanding :-) Good luck! Emilfaro (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Aeroflot Hammer and Sickle logo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
