Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hello, Muscovite99~enwiki, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.
Sorry for being late in coming back to Misplaced Pages:
AAS stands for Acta Apostolicae Sedis, which is the official organ of the Vatican containing all official papal documents. some but not all encyclicas are available online at the Vatican Website in the papal archieve under Pius XII. for ex. Google Mystici Corporis or go to Misplaced Pages Mystici corporis and you will find the link. Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
RE Communism: The Vatican as in the case against Nazism, issued in the thirties condemnations against communism. Pius XII took issue with certain communist ideas and ideologies in specific speeches and radia addresses. The Vatican condemmed the hostile actions of communist but usually not individuals. Exceptions were individuals guilty of acts agaisnt the life and liberty of Chruch representatives who in turn were excommunicated. Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Do not remove views simply for they are different from yours, as you did here. That prevents a normal discussion of complicated issues. Whether you agree with them or not, views you erased are shared by a large number of Russians. Regards, ellol (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Insertion of copyvio content.
Your reinsertion of copyvio content into the article Putinism, as you have done here, is not allowed. It is a copyright violation, as it does not comply with the non-free content criteria for materials on English Misplaced Pages. The book cover can be used on the article on the book, in order to illustrate the book, only, not on other articles, and especially when there are free alternatives available. I, frankly, do not care if other editors have suggested to use a book cover, it is obvious they are not familiar with WP:NFCC, and if they are, they should know better than to suggest such things. Do not reinsert it again thanks. --Russavia09:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Also, in looking at your recent edits I have noticed that you are not using edit summaries. Please read Help:Edit summary, and start using edit summaries in your edits. Thanks --Russavia09:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Putinism
Please, answer, do I understand you correctly, that if there was an article Shit in Russia you would put all attention to the amount of shit annually produced in the country, while totally ignoring sanitary services and technicians? ellol (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I can explain. Annually tons of shit are being produced and 99% of it is cleaned away. "This belongs here, that not" logics looks exactly like claiming the mentioned article is about shit, rather than about cleaning. What results in POV pushing, nothing to do with reality. ellol (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Everything you are saying is totally meaningless to me: you employ marginal opinion of a complete unknown on the subject that is neither negative, nor positive: it is practically the YedRoss official line that Putin is top dog. What is the trouble here with you? Also you cannot use such ropey English that you use: it is just totally ungrammatical.Muscovite99 (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Mind your business: reversions are due to the WP Policies as designated: you cannot dump all sorts of tabloid rubbish in the article.Muscovite99 (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
As about "tabloid rubbish", yes, I agree. Every article unwanted by certain people usually comes through three stages: (1) nomination for deletion; (2) deletion of sourced materials, and (3) insertion of irrelevant materials (the "garbage" you are talking about). Another innovative approach is Deletion by merging. Biophys (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Seemingly, whether the info is "tabloid rubbish" is in this particular case determined not by the actual credibility of this or that information, but on personal feelings.
See "Putin is in charge": the first source cites deputy director of Center for Political Technologies A. Makarkin. The source isn't considered "tabloid rubbish".
Now go to "Medvedev and Putin have power": the source considered by Muscovite "tabloid rubbish" is a quotation of deputy director of Center for Political Technologies S. Mikheyev .
The logic can clearly be seen here, where the "innovative deletion by merging" was quite logically supported by Biophys. (Igny (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC))
You know a lot about Russian wikipedia users, and some of them also operate here. Is anything I should know about this? Thanks.Biophys (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Usually they use the same nicks, hence it is easy to make your own judgement. Very few are capable of (or seriously interested in) editing here: you can see some guys' contributions on the Discussion page of Putinism. One thing, though, that i strongly suspect (i haven't any proof of course) is that the last chap who has edited Putinism (with all these preposterous "Introduction" subsections within a subsection) is the same person who is registered as "Olegwiki" in the RuWP: just a lot of similarities in style, ideology and very poor language (his Russian is not much better) -- kind of mildly leftist (pink), pro-Russian nationalistic doctrinaire pushing his own views in all possible articles. I should not be surprised if "Mikheyev" (the guy he quotes in that ludicrous subsection - http://news.km.ru/mixeev ) is actually him. By-the-by, do you have any idea what is that tabloidish site (km.ru) that opinion is sourced to? It is kind of Communist youth publication, i guess. By the RuWP standards, his opinion should be expunged as he is not even a кандидат наук in the relevant area. Then, his sole opinion should not merit the whole subsction along with (and before!) the dominanat experts' opinion. Think there's a host of violations there now.Muscovite99 (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Unlike you, I do not conceal my personality. Perhaps I'm just not afraid to express my position on numerous questions? ellol (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Ellol, as ever, i cannot see your point. I suggest that you yourself tone down all these "Introduction" pretenses: it is a small section within a small article. What's all this posturing for? You are just making the article's subject even more ridiculous and grotesque than it is, let alone it is downright confusing: WP articles' intros are their leads, not a tiny subsection. Mikheyev ought to be deleted per WP:FRINGE. I absolutely do not mind such opinion but it has to be from a qualified mouth, or at least off the pages of a major publicaton; a tabloid site featuring an opinion of a complete nobody - that's what it is. Things about this duo ARE changing as we speak and you could actually come up with some representative opnion on the matter, if you tried.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
If you dislike "introduction", let it be "background". Before showing opinions on the event, facts must be explained. That's my principal position. ellol (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Muscovite. This is interesting. We have a number of new accounts that have been created, became very active, or changed their favorite subjects in the beginning of Ossetian war. These users were not newcomers when they first started editing in English wikipedia, based on their editing patterns. One can look at edit history of Ossetian war to identify some of them.Biophys (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Byophys, frankly, i cannot see here any one doing things that are practised in the RuWP by a few editors (they are all registered with their personal pages totally blank, which make their edits red on display in the edit history) - i mean routine monitoring of politically relevant articles and methodically deleting negative info and pushing some fluff such as Mikheyev's opinion ("Esp", "Sasha T"). As you could have seen from some of my previous links, they effectively give orders to some Ru admins (notably Mitrius). The latter would lead a campaign such as the one that was started against me last September. I am pretty certain that the real reason was my active editing in the Ossetia war-related articles - in fact presenting major western governments position straight from the official sources: most of the stuff was not in any Russian-language media at all. I could see that angered quite a few -- some of the guys being ordinary Russian "patriots". Things are now calming down: this silly chauvinistic wave has mostly gone, the country is now rapidly sinking in the slough of crisis that most people in Moscow has not felt yet, but even the latest official stats are awful: . Mind, as recently as last Dec the Stats were forecasting 5-6% growth for this year, though it sounded utterly ridiculous even then. I am almost certain Russia (as a current entity) will have disappeared by 2020 at best, most likely sooner that that. It is not so much economics, though, as plain demographics - in a generation ethniс Russians will be close to being a minority. Given the fact that there's no postive Russian culture (of course, i do not mean культуру - ballet and art), Russians are already pretty much a minority to all intents and purposes, with a number of republics being virtually independent (with no Russian population whatsoever, or having it as a minority): Ramzan, for expample, is doing absolutely what he wants not just in Ch. (where the Moscow writ does not run) but in the rest of the RF as well. You could add Vienna, but there's a difference: unlike in Vienna, in the RF his actions are being assisted by the local "organs". I'm inclined to say that in Russia now there is indeed a duumvirate, the persons in charge being Putty and Ramzan, with the latter quite likely to become solely in charge - he is the only person i can see in the RF nomenklatura who seems fit to manage the RF disintegration, perhaps even attempting a temporary consolidation. Sorry for a lengthy political brief.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
There is at least one contributor whose name also appears in red for a long time . I guess he is not SashaT (the latter is more similar to LokiiT in English WP). I thought that one could be "DeerHunter" from Russian WP, but I can be wrong. Thank you for political brief.Biophys (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The thing is i had been deliberately ignorant of personal politics in the WP: simply never had enough time to do this petty politicking there (i mean the RuWP). This might have changed just a bit of late because it had become a bit of fun as most of my "opponents" are hilarious clowns. Also, apparently, the order to oust me has been suspended for the time being. Which is also a bit of fun to me: petty criminals who give them orders are under those criminals who handle me as a real person in life. I've only just discovered something that may be interesting for you to read (you might have read this already): ru:Обсуждение Википедии:Заявки на арбитраж/Muscovite99#Вниманию арбитров.Muscovite99 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
it has become yet curiouser: after my complaint (See above) about ethics violation, I was blocked without any explanation (). Just Hilarious!Muscovite99 (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I am perfectly satisfied now that Esp is a staff kgb criminal doing this job full-time (censoring RuWP); he actually works standard Moscow time office hours. Though i think he's probably based in some provincial УФСБ (like СПб), judging by how thick and degenerate he is.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Putinism et al
By the way, what is that much distressing for you in Mikheyev's opinion? Would you like it better if I quote Pavlovsky instead? ellol (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ellol, there is absolutely nothing distressing in Mikheyev's opinion. I've already said all i could say on the matter. He is not known to anyone (the fact that he heads an institution does not lend any weight: i can become a head of an institute in a matter of a few days and print on my card whatever i wish with an inet address linking to a nice site about whatever). You have, i believ, violated WP:NPOV by putting his sole opinion along with (giving it a separate subsection) and before the opinion that is shared by practically every one now. Or shall i say - had been shared until February 2009: things are changing right now, which is a matter for the "Aftermath" section there (you can check my latest edits in ru:Медведев, Дмитрий Анатольевич and possibly transfer some to our article - but keep it short and tight, please; the refs there are mostly to English-language sources). Also, forgive me for some harsh words about your style, but the encyclopedic style (WP:BETTER#Use clear, precise and accurate terms) ought to be quite different (just read any serious enc. in any language): it cannot tolerate verbose ramblings about this side and that side -- it ought to succinctly present consequential data on the relevant subject. I mean all this expose on the RF Constitutional arrangements (who is President and who is PM) belong to different articles; a laconic mentioning of President being constitutionally above could be made, but not a lecture. Stick to the point, the point there being Putinism.Muscovite99 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you yourself seriously think that any one can take a 1999 philosophy grad with no background in government bodies, no books (studies) or publications in serious outlets in any way seriously for such matters. What can he possibly know? I've just seen you have made some changes there. They seem to be OK. I am not a fan of Belkovsky or Pavlovsky, but the plain fact is that they are well known names and they do represent powerful elite groupings; thus what they say matters in itself. I did not like "sociological data" just because in Enlish it sounds somewhat misleading, i fear. "Popular view" is what the subsection speaks of; "popular" in Enlish has other than (популярный) meaning - just in case you may not know.Muscovite99 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
