Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:48, 23 September 2009

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Misplaced Pages documentation, there's also Misplaced Pages:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Another good resource is Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mathematics. Enjoy! Oleg Alexandrov 21:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you ever check your talk page?

Почему не ответил на мою реплику? Делать ошибочные правки в статье про войну с Грузией ты готов, а до собственной talk page руки не доходят?

Ты понимаешь, что участие абхазских военных в войне с Грузией - это самая настоящая fringe claim не поддержанная никем, кроме русских пропагандистов? Я написал, что Итар-тасс сообщило об абхазских солдатах в Кодорском ущелье - разве этого недостаточно?Keverich1 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Абхазская военщина

Технически, не существует такой вещи как Вооруженные Силы Абхазии, поскольку не существует такого государства. Статья в википедии с соответствующим названием сама по себе не является доказательством обратного

...И почему вы отменили все мои правки. У меня ушло немало времени, чтобы их сделать. Вы взяли и перечеркнули мой труд. Я категорически против!Keverich1 (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome

Hi Oleg, I am relatively new here, but will try to contribute as much as I can.

Relax, do no more than what is fun. :) Oleg Alexandrov 04:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see you are from Moldova... I am actually from Russia, currently at MSU.

Right. Actually I am ethnically Romanian, with poor Russian. Oleg Alexandrov 04:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My twin's name is Oleg. So strange... Igny 03:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coincidences do happen. :) Oleg Alexandrov 04:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please vote on list of lists, a featured list candidate

Please vote at Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics. Michael Hardy 20:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Spasibo

Hello Igny, I just wanted to express my gratitude for your effort to normalize the conversation here. I’ve seen it before on that page and I really appreciate that. Thanks, Kober 19:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Stalingrad documentary film

If you wish to see the two other parts of the documentary film you can find them here. http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Stalingrad+osa The narrator speaks Finnish however, so I belive that the only thing you can understand are the interviews of Soviet veterans. Also, the documentary lasts nearly three hours, so you better reserve some time if you are planning to "take a look". Regards, --Kurt Leyman 05:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Gagliardo--Nirenberg--Sobolev

Hi Igny. I would like your help if possible on the GNS inequality. I am onaraighl and I am the one who edited your article, but I am an applied mathematician and not an expert here.

It's just I have a problem with the GNS inequality if you don't subtract off a constant term: taking u=constant\neq0 on the open unit disc would satisfy the conditions of the theorem, yet gives constant\leq0, which seems to be a contradiction. I have spoken to some of my professors about the GNS inequality and consulted the functional analysis book by Kantorovich, and they all say that you need to subtract off the mean of the function in the GNS inequality.

I would dearly like it if it were the case that you did not have to subtract off the mean, since then some estimates that I am working on for the Cahn--Hilliard equation would work out a lot nicer, yet I just don't see how you can do that.

Also, perhaps the article would benefit from a discussion on the optimal constants for the bound, which clearly depends on the domain in question.

Thanks.

Hi again Igny. Thanks for reference - very useful. I can see where the compact support comes into the proof now. So the variant of the GNS you provide is restricted to functions that are C_1 on the whole of R^n, but with compact support. This limits one to a narrow class of functions indeed.

I have checked the literature and GNS applies to broader classes of functions:

• C_1 functions with the norm of whose gradient is finite - see http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/590313.html.
• Functions defined on a compact, open domain of R^n with Lifshitz boundary. The function need not be C_1 on the whole of R^n then - it can be zero outside the domain in question. Then you have to subtract off the mean. See Kantorovich, p. 338.
• Periodic functions on the n-torus. Then the mean is subtracted off. See Gibbon and Doering, appendix I. This latter case is a generalization of the Poincare inequality.

These variations also go by the name of GNS and maybe merit a discussion??

Thanks again for the reference, and for the article on wikipedia. I have fixed my estimates now :-)

Mathematics CotW

Hey Igny, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 21:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren is back!

I see that you have had an encounter with User:Digwuren at Allied occupation of Europe. He has been away for a week, but is now back at disrup doing constructive edits. The only solution to this "dispute" I can see is a community ban. -- Petri Krohn 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been having problems with this guy too!! Shotlandiya (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

Hi Igny. It could be nice if you could use the edit summary more often, especially for edits like this where it is not clear why you removed the link. Thanks. You can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Oleg, I am sorry for my laziness regarding the summaries and thank you for keeping an eye on the articles. The reason I deleted the link was that the Russian and English versions of Kolmogorov theorem were about different theorems by Kolmogorov. The Russian version actually refers to the Kolmogorov's result regarding Kolmogorov-Smirnov test rather that Hahn-Kolmogorov theorem (Igny 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Cool. :) Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Kernel density

Hi Igny. I reverted this edit because I don't think it is correct, and because you did not explain why you made the change (please do that in the future). You can reply here if you have comments. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigma was superfluous because there is parameter h. Regards, Igny.

Thanks, that makes sense. And again, it is good if you summarize what you changed, and especially, why you change something. That saves time and effort in the long run. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the list

Hi Igny. Just wanted to say thank you for removing the named fatality list from 2007_United_Kingdom_floods. Maintaining the thing was horrible, and not something I wanted to do anymore. If you need backup over the removal, please give me a shout: my talk page is the best place. Kind regards, Anameofmyveryown 01:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Probability articles

Hi, Igny!

I notice that you've been doing quite a bit of rearranging of articles about probability, like Donsker's theorem and empirical process and Glivenko-Cantelli theorem, among others. That's good.

The difficulty I have is that sometimes your command of English idiom is not quite perfect. I know that has to be tough – especially with words like "the" (which has no equivalent in Russian). Anyway, I'm going to put some effort into making those articles read more smoothly, and I just want to give you a heads up before I get started in earnest.

I can see that you know the math extremely well (better than I do, no doubt). I just want to make the articles easier for native English speakers to read.

Thanks for all your good efforts! DavidCBryant 23:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my English, I appreciate this. The thing is that I have all these math books lying around and all these lecture notes which I kept from my college, it is my dream to organize it all in accessible form and Misplaced Pages is perfect for that. I just wish I had more time for that. (Igny 00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

2008 South Ossetia war

Please avoid removing edits which are properly quoted and sourced, as you did with this edit. We should avoid original research and peacock words, especially when direct quotes are available and were sourced.  Frank  |  talk  15:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe you also violated WP:3RR rule in this article. Please be more careful in the future.Biophys (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This Igny guy continues to remove properly quoted and sourced edits in the article about South Ossetia war.Keverich1 (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on 2008 South Ossetia war. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety 03:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You may like to note

User_talk:Tiptoety#A_follow-up --Tovarishch Komissar 01:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

Notice: Under the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

Tiptoety 02:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits at 2008 South Ossetia war

Could you please leave an explanation for this edit at the talk page? As discussed there, the version you reverted to is not backed up by the sources given. Additionally, you reverted to a version with double citations. --Xeeron (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I just undid an unexplained revert of my edit by an anon. (Igny (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Well, you reverted not only that part but a huge part further down in the article as well. I'll change it back now. --Xeeron (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2008 South Ossetia war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. CIreland (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on November 23 2008 to 2008 South Ossetia war

Igny (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

while I admit I participated in the edit war, I did not violate 3rr

Decline reason:

I can count at least four that you explicitly labeled as reverts yourself in that 24 hour period, and you're admitting to edit warring. If you have any specific questions on our editing policies, please feel free to ask. Kuru 17:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Oh, I did not realize that I did another revert in that 24h period, oh well.(Igny (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

Madoff talk page edit

Greetings. I noticed your response related to one of my comments on the Madoff talk page. You were correct. We are all on the same page here regarding this point. Don't mean to sound ungrateful or overly nitpicky, but it's generally considered impolite (or worse) to alter another editor's talk page comments. No problem here, as in this case it was all a misunderstanding, but wanted to give you a heads up that this is the kind of thing that can land you in trouble in different circumstances. Cheers!Notmyrealname (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

Could you take a look at this and drop your opinion there: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Phone_Call_to_Putin_(2nd_nomination) Offliner (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion of article

this your edit is a deletion of valid WP:BLP article. If you have any concerns about content forks, etc., you are welcome to nominate this article for deletion. Unilateral deletions is not the way to deal with controversial articles. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Phone call to Putin

Hi Igny, you may want to list the move request over at WP:RM so that it receives wider visibility than the usual editors in this area. And your previous move was not unilateral as is claimed, it has the support of numerous editors. --Russavia 23:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't be lazy please

Digwuren did the right thing and separated his potentially controversial and the un-controversial edits. All with proper comments. Yet you reverted all of them together. I would not make a big deal out of that, had the same thing not happened before (maybe by different editors, I don't recall) and always in the context of POV wars. So please have the curtesy of reading the edits you revert and keeping your reverts to what you really want to revert. Don't create extra effort for other editors by being lazy. --Xeeron (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah the old make a legitimate edit after a controversial edit which looks like a futile attempt to escape detection by the watchlists. Not the first time either. May be I was not clear in my summary, but I did not think that his "un-controversial" edit was correct either. (Igny (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

What is wrong with the "had"? --Xeeron (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with just "left"? (Igny (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Check Past tense. When 2 events occured in the past, one before the other, the first is described in Past perfect simple, not simple past. So simply left is grammatically wrong. --Xeeron (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I can tell you only one thing. Reporting someone to WP:ANI is not a good way of resolving disagreements. I wanted to retire from political subjects as I explained on my talk page (because of problems at work). But you just do not let me. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This particular issue has nothing to do with politics, and actually has little to do with your personally. I raised the question of making unnecessary edits to redirect pages at where I think was an appropriate place after I asked an advice from Tiptoety. It only affected you simply because you were the one who was doing this particular trick, which, I admit, annoyed me at some moment. If you notice I did not participate in your edit wars on the article about apartment bombings. The only thing I did was to split the conspiracy theories, and I actually care less about the subarticle title. However, I honestly asked you to stop this trick with redirect pages, and when you continued, I felt I had to take some action to stop you and others who abuse this trick.

I regret about your situation at work. I can only think that you are not in academics, otherwise you would have tenure by now, although tenure does not always stop troubles at work. (Igny (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I work in one of US Universities. I used to do research rather than teaching. Hence no tenure. Are you a student or a teacher at Moscow State University?Biophys (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I am in one of US University too. Slowly working on my career, far from tenure yet. (Igny (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Good luck! I have seen your notice that you came from the MSU. Splitting off this article was logical. However you should be really familiar with the subject beyond reading the newspapers. One thing I disliked most was this your edit - let's not debate formalities and WP policies; this is all about our different personal values. I do agree that you think as a majority of Russians. That is why I am more happy in the US.Biophys (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That was american MSU not МГУ.(Igny (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Sorry. I see. That was Michigan State University.Biophys (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Biophys' move trick

Looks like Biophys did his move trick again: . Note that the disambig page is completely incorrect as well: how could "Soviet Union and state terrorism" refer to "Terrorism in Russia"? Offliner (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

While I am not surprised, I want to give him the benefit of doubt. This particular edit, if Biophys' history of edits is set aside, looks like a legitimate one. (Igny (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

If you believe that was a trick you should try to speedy delete the disambig page, citing your reason. (Igny (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

Historical Truth Commission

Certain editors at the Historical Truth Commission article want to use the formulation "in conjunction with the creation of the Commission, the Kremlin is drafting legislation that will criminalize criticism of the Soviet Union" in the article as a fact. But this is not true. What the law criminalizes is falsification of history. The formulation they want to use is obviously biased, especially when stated as a fact and without attribution (or a source.) What do you think of this? Offliner (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Integration by parts v2.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Integration by parts v2.svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude you are like so provocative

I mean damn, you actually want logic to prevail in article instead of mob rule. Dude, that's like so uncool. You gotta go with mob rule, I mean the mob knows what's best for itself, look how well Somalia is doing! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

I don't know if you should be listed as "involved party", but you might be interested in this: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Eastern Europe. Offliner (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous

Take a look at this nonsenseWP:AE#Beatle Fab Four Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

1RR limit

Under the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren I am placing you on a one revert per week limitation for all articles covered by that Arbitration case (Eastern Europe, broadly defined). You are prohibited from making more than one reversion per week per article, not including obvious vandalism. A reversion is any edit that substantially restores the article to prior content, whether or not it is a reversion in the purely technical sense. All reversions must be discussed on the article talk page. Violations will result in escalating blocks. You may request to have the 1RR limit reviewed or lifted after 6 months. This limit is imposed following evidence of prolonged edit warring, the Arbitration Enforcement complaint made here, and as a result of the recent disgraceful edit warring at at Nashi (youth movement) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the inclusion of Category:Anti-fascist organizations. While no editor violated the 3RR rule (4 reverts in 24 hours) there were at least 23 reversion of the category between June 11 and June 21, without a single comment by anyone on the talk page. The list of editors and reversions makes a prima facia case for tag-team editing; whether it was organized or spontaneous is irrelevant, and it is not required that I prove anything one way or the other. It's time to edit cooperatively and use the talk pages to discuss disputes.

Thatcher 03:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Vacated. Thatcher 10:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Igny, thank you for noticing wrong diff. Congratulations! Do not you feel great not to be restricted and labeled as a "violator"? I am sure you was not the one. I also feel much better. Thanks to Thatcher.Biophys (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think it is less about being a violator of some ambiguously phrased policy/rule, it is more about individual responsibility of the group actions. Clearly WP lacks individual accountability but I have no idea if there is anything what can (should?) be done about that. (Igny (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

Editing survey

Hi Igny. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic current events articles on Misplaced Pages. I have noticed that you are a key contributor at 2008 South Ossetia war. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below. An explanation of my project is included with the survey.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=kLMxj8dkk_2bls7yCBmNV7bg_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It's a good question. I send a not to those who reply to try to make sure it was them responding. So far there hasn't been any trouble with this, but it's something I have thought about. lyonspen | (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ref Desk

Thanks for all your help - but I still think we're missing something: 70.169.186.78 (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thus "E"? 70.169.186.78 (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks that way. (Igny (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC))

Cheer Up

Наше имя - короткий удар штык-ножа, Что вгрызается в тело упруго... Бээмдэшки взревут на крутых виражах, Прорываясь сквозь слякоть и вьюгу.

Наше имя - "спецназ" - словно трассеров свист В южном небе над городом спящим. А восход над хребтом так обманчиво чист, Что не верится пулям свистящим.

Залит кровью поэтом воспетый Кавказ, В сердце ненависть врезалась жалом. Но дорогу ей грудью закроет спецназ - От беды нам бежать не пристало.

Здесь забыта любовь, и лишь кровная месть Распаляет безумием души. Президенты всё лгут, прочь отринута честь... Что им стоит присягу нарушить?!

Но последние силы собрав, мы идём - Трижды прокляты, преданы всеми... И в руках пулемёт захлебнётся огнём, Разрывая пространство и время.

Здесь без права на жизнь, без пощады война. С грязью смешана дружба народов... Но однажды - очнётся родная страна. Только мы не придём из похода.

1992.

There are times when everything seems hopeless. But if you keep on fighting, you will win. It was written in 1992. It was published after the 2008 South Ossetian War. Things change. Don't give up. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

empirical mean

(Sorry this is nearly a year old, but...) in talk:arithmetic mean#empirical mean I seconded Hv's objection to an unexplained redirect. Consider the situation of a Misplaced Pages user who is reading the article on principal component analysis or the one on empirical measure and encounters the term empirical mean but is unfamiliar with it. Such a user would likely click through the link and find himself inexplicably confronted with an article not about emprical means, but about arithmetic means.

Your reply to our perplexity was a suggestion to read about empirical measures. The first problem with that reply is that, residing as it does on a talk page, it will likely never be seen by our hapless user. A further problem is that even the article to which you referred us does not unambiguously define empirical mean. And the worst problem with your suggestion is that the empirical-measure article may well be where some of our hapless users encountered the unfamiliar term to begin with!

I'd fix the problem if I thought myself qualified, but I don't. So I'm appealing to you to do so. Could you please edit the arithmetic mean article to make clear (1) why any user expecting to land on an article about empirical means ends up here instead and (2) the meaning of empirical mean, or at least the relationship between empirical and arithmetic means.

Thanks in advance.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Response

At the article talk page you asked: "What do you think?". I do not "think", I know. How do I know? Because I study. As a professional scientist, I can tell after a critical study of the relevant materials that theory is proven. This is very simple.Biophys (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Did you study this question? What did you read about this?Biophys (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not studied that topic at all. I have studied the statistics enough to spot a flawed argument regarding the majority claims. Did you conduct a statistical study on the topic? (Igny (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

Unfortunately this has nothing to do with statistics, but it has everything to do with Russian history and politics, with standard KGB/FSB tactics, and with a lot of literature, including several books written about these events.Biophys (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Naturally, this attitude about the "standard KGB tactic" caused significant bias in the western publications, don't you think? (Igny (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

Sure, there is an anti-KGB bias in right-wing western media. But people like Satter (who spent 10 years in Moscow), Felshinsky, Pribylovsky, Yushenkov and especially Litvinenko know this subject first-hand.Biophys (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you dismiss the majority of ex-KGB/FSB officers who don't agree with their negative views? Such a small sample, a few individuals, versus thousands and thousands of officers who don't seem so disgruntled. How do you know these individuals aren't just being payed to say things like that by people like Berezovsky, who has boasted of trying to destabilize "Putin's regime" and discredit him? You have to admit that there is still no hard evidence to support these conspiracies. Just individual claims and circumstantial evidence. LokiiT (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Igny, please comment about content, not about contributor as you just did.Biophys (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I just welcomed a new contributor to the article but questioned his motivations for his controversial edit. Obviously I commented on his edit, specifically his edit summary, not on his personality. How is it not civil? (Igny (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think that was fine, I am not going to argue. Just be very careful please in light of the recent sanctions.Biophys (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith move protection

My apologies but I am unfamiliar with this term. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now read about this. I was unaware of the problem, although I think that had the re-direct page been deleted as I requested that the problem would not have occured. In any case I have responded on the article talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you email me

Igny, I tried to contact you via email but you don't seem to have email enabled. Would you be able to send me an email, as I would like to discuss some things in private in relation to the AN/I thread with you. Cheers, --Russavia 19:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You are receiving this notification as you participated in the administrators' noticeboard thread on the issue.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Donald Duck

Seriously, you are going to defend a guy who did a 17-revert spree? After multiple warnings? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't he plead temporary insanity? :) What you attribute to malicious intent could be explained by a psychological break down. But I did not look into his other edits, did he "vandalize" any other article? (Igny (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

I think what this secret group did can be described by Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system - they were deliberately using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Misplaced Pages and the process of communal editorship.DonaldDuck (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)