| Revision as of 14:18, 7 October 2011 edit206.186.8.130 (talk) →Found http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:EEML last night: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:31, 7 October 2011 edit undoThe Last Angry Man (talk | contribs)1,667 edits Reverted 3 edits by 206.186.8.130 (talk): Rollback suspeted sock. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| Well, I love Russian poetry, but never read this before! <small>( Google translator failed miserably trying to translate this) </small>] (]) 00:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | Well, I love Russian poetry, but never read this before! <small>( Google translator failed miserably trying to translate this) </small>] (]) 00:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::Re: ":This is an online news site, something like grani.ru or lenta.ru." No this is not. It is a self-pub of Sergey Melnikoff, minor Runet celebrity famous for being famous. There's no, as far as I know, editorial oversite. However, my knowledge of the Melnikoff's editorial policies is irrelevant. Onus to prove that something is a reliable source lies with someone using the source. By that way, was it you who brought it? I noticed quite a lengthy discussion on the Tambov uprising "discussion" page about book sourced back to Melnikoff's pet project. However, I did not want an edit war, so I just sourced the book to some less scandalous source. Re: "Using ipvnews should be discussed on the case to case basis". In case you did not notice, '''I did just that'''. I've kept it in Soviet Story and couple of other places where it is used as a hosting for clearly attributable materials. Yes, an interview with B.A.B. might be sourced to the ipvnews, if you '''love''' "a news site" with editorial prefaces like "Russian Federation became the BIGGEST EVIL ON OUR PLANET" (http://www.gulag.ipvnews.org/article20080221.php) or if there's no other choice. However, even in this case there's a possibility that Melnikoff could publish an interview selectively (he is very passionate about his cause and, to the best of my knowledge, there's no oversite). Sort of "Alamo defence", when one is trying to find a source but has no other sources. I much prefer to source it to something, I dunno, less scandalous. As I did with Trepashkin's letter. As you can see, we are very close in our editorial views. And Russian is my native tongue, by the way.] (]) 13:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Holodomor == | == Holodomor == | ||
| Line 52: | Line 51: | ||
| :::I would rather not comment there. I know all the users involved and do not think they can agree about anything. This mediation may serve only one purpose: as a step for a future arbitration. I am sure that at least one side has this goal in mind. They hope to "win" because another side was sanctioned before. Of course there is nothing wrong with going to arbitration, this is a legitimate procedure, but I would strongly advise all participants from doing this and being involved in battlegrounds. P.S. If I talk with someone, it does not mean he is my "proxy".] (]) 13:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | :::I would rather not comment there. I know all the users involved and do not think they can agree about anything. This mediation may serve only one purpose: as a step for a future arbitration. I am sure that at least one side has this goal in mind. They hope to "win" because another side was sanctioned before. Of course there is nothing wrong with going to arbitration, this is a legitimate procedure, but I would strongly advise all participants from doing this and being involved in battlegrounds. P.S. If I talk with someone, it does not mean he is my "proxy".] (]) 13:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Yes, sorry, that was probably a bad choice of words. I wasn't trying to insinuate anything there. Even if some parties do see this as a stepping-stone to arbitration, myself and the other two mediators are clear that we do actually intend to resolve the problems on the page. Let's wait for all the participants to submit their statements and see how things go. All the best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 13:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | ::::Yes, sorry, that was probably a bad choice of words. I wasn't trying to insinuate anything there. Even if some parties do see this as a stepping-stone to arbitration, myself and the other two mediators are clear that we do actually intend to resolve the problems on the page. Let's wait for all the participants to submit their statements and see how things go. All the best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 13:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| == Found http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:EEML last night == | |||
| What can I say? Wow! Just "wow"! I now understand your intricate familiarity with wiki rules (you and your fellow Listers spent so much time violating it). It is intersting that Sander and Vecrumba (your fellow listers) were the only ones, except you, jumping on me. Despite the fact that edits touched some most sensitive areas of Soviet history, only Listers were able to magically and "absolutely independently from each other" (I dunno, can you believe in this "independence" yourself?) jump into an edit war and connect me to an account dead for 3 years. What's more, cursory comparison of (1) Checkuser page (2) RJ's talk page and (3) The List reveals that The Listers were the only ones fishing (moderator's definition) for bans on the guy/gal or warring with him. | |||
| Well, I'll be busy for a next little while reading about your secret society. And one more question? Where can I find complaints the RJ's bans were based on? ] (]) 14:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:31, 7 October 2011
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
As discussed earlier, I'm continuing to remove references to selfpub site from WP.
Your insistence on ascribing very dark motives to editing from two different computers (clearly identified at your first request as being done by the same person, as in http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:206.186.8.130&diff=prev&oldid=454142155), is noted. It is not appreciated, naturally. 216.66.131.87 (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Done. I've kept couple of references related to the site gulag.ipvnews itself (for example, Kashin article or Dukov's writings), as those are pieces about the site, not based on the site. Perfectly acceptable, in my view. My work here is done for now. It would be a shame if you continue your attempt to link investigation cases from 2006 to my edits. But this is your choice. 216.66.131.87 (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is an online news site, something like grani.ru or lenta.ru. It tells it has an editorial board. What it publish is not necessarily "the truth". But it is sufficiently reliable to source statements made by people. For example, I am sure this interview with Boris Berezovsky can be quoted using this site as a source, this is famous novel by writer ru:Зазубрин, Владимир Яковлевич, and this is photo of publication in 1924 about "proletarian sex". Using ipvnews should be discussed on the case to case basis, but that would be also the case with sites like lenta.ru.Biophys (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Рабы, своими мы руками
- С убийцами и дураками
- Россию вколотили в гроб.
- Ты жив, - так торжествуй, холоп!
- Быть может, ты, дурак, издохнешь,
- Протянешь ноги и не охнешь:
- Потомству ж - дикому дерьму -
- Конца не будет твоему:
- Исчезнет все, померкнут славы,
- Но будут дьяволы-удавы
- И ты, дурак из дураков,
- Жить до скончания веков.
- Убийством будешь ты гордиться,
- Твой род удавий расплодится, -
- Вселенную перехлестнет;
- И будет тьма, и будет гнет!
- Кого винить в провале этом!
- Как бездну препоясать светом,
- Освободиться от оков?
- Тьма - это души дураков!..
Пимен Карпов, 1925
Well, I love Russian poetry, but never read this before! ( Google translator failed miserably trying to translate this) Biophys (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Holodomor
Hi there, this is Mr. Stradivarius from the Holodomor mediation. I saw your comment on Vecrumba's talk page - if you feel strongly about the issues, might you consider adding yourself to the mediation? I think it would be better to air all the issues out on the mediation page, rather than "mediation by proxy", as it were. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius 02:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, I do not feel strongly about the issues, and I did not edit this article for a long time. Whatever you decide in mediation would be fine for me. I commented to Vecrumba only because I know the subject. Do you think my involvement in mediation would be helpful? If so, I can leave a few comments there. Biophys (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. It's completely up to you if you participate or not. I think we have good representation of both "sides" in the mediation, and there are plenty of knowledgeable editors involved, so I don't see any problems in proceeding with the current list of editors. I think, in the interests of transparency, that if you want to comment on the content it should probably be done on the mediation page; I do realise, though, that if you don't want to get involved with the mediation itself then there is an obvious logical problem there. Speaking for myself, I would say that as long as the mediation process can continue smoothly, then a few talk page comments on the content are no problem whatsoever, but that if you want to comment in more detail then joining the mediation is probably a good idea. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 04:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would rather not comment there. I know all the users involved and do not think they can agree about anything. This mediation may serve only one purpose: as a step for a future arbitration. I am sure that at least one side has this goal in mind. They hope to "win" because another side was sanctioned before. Of course there is nothing wrong with going to arbitration, this is a legitimate procedure, but I would strongly advise all participants from doing this and being involved in battlegrounds. P.S. If I talk with someone, it does not mean he is my "proxy".Biophys (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, that was probably a bad choice of words. I wasn't trying to insinuate anything there. Even if some parties do see this as a stepping-stone to arbitration, myself and the other two mediators are clear that we do actually intend to resolve the problems on the page. Let's wait for all the participants to submit their statements and see how things go. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 13:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would rather not comment there. I know all the users involved and do not think they can agree about anything. This mediation may serve only one purpose: as a step for a future arbitration. I am sure that at least one side has this goal in mind. They hope to "win" because another side was sanctioned before. Of course there is nothing wrong with going to arbitration, this is a legitimate procedure, but I would strongly advise all participants from doing this and being involved in battlegrounds. P.S. If I talk with someone, it does not mean he is my "proxy".Biophys (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. It's completely up to you if you participate or not. I think we have good representation of both "sides" in the mediation, and there are plenty of knowledgeable editors involved, so I don't see any problems in proceeding with the current list of editors. I think, in the interests of transparency, that if you want to comment on the content it should probably be done on the mediation page; I do realise, though, that if you don't want to get involved with the mediation itself then there is an obvious logical problem there. Speaking for myself, I would say that as long as the mediation process can continue smoothly, then a few talk page comments on the content are no problem whatsoever, but that if you want to comment in more detail then joining the mediation is probably a good idea. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 04:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)