This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs) at 13:06, 7 October 2011 (→Holodomor: re: mediation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:06, 7 October 2011 by Hodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs) (→Holodomor: re: mediation)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 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 has been sanctioned already. 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)