→Bäckman: sp |
Nanobear~enwiki (talk | contribs) →Bäckman: remove personal attack |
||
Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
|On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#October 12 2009|October 12, 2009]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know?]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Embassy of Russia in Copenhagen]]''''', which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page <sub>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]])</sub> and add it to [[WP:DYKSTATS|DYKSTATS]] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know? talk page]]. |
|On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#October 12 2009|October 12, 2009]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know?]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Embassy of Russia in Copenhagen]]''''', which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page <sub>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]])</sub> and add it to [[WP:DYKSTATS|DYKSTATS]] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know? talk page]]. |
||
|} [[User:Mifter|Mifter]] ([[User talk:Mifter|talk]]) 21:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC) |
|} [[User:Mifter|Mifter]] ([[User talk:Mifter|talk]]) 21:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Bäckman == |
|||
Please [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Russians_in_Estonia&action=historysubmit&diff=320007151&oldid=320005398 stop pushing your POV] representing Bäckman as a mainstream reputable source. [[User:Vecrumba|<font style="color: #a12830; font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]] [[User_talk:Vecrumba|<font style="color: #ffffff;background-color:#a12830;"> ♪ </font>]]</font> 13:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:He is a scholar. Radical maybe, but his opinion on the discrimination of minorities in Estonia is valid and confirmed by other sources, such as Amnesty International. [[User:Offliner|Offliner]] ([[User talk:Offliner#top|talk]]) 13:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:: If you properly positioned Bäckman by prefixing "Conspiracy theorist and fringe polemic..." then his statement would be properly positioned. Such positioning would also confirm it does not belong in an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Please feel free to start your own blog. |
|||
:: I don't go editing the Putin or Politkovskaya articles to include Bäckman's contention that Politkovskaya was murdered to smear Putin. And why? Because it's crap. This is typical of your dredging for any anti-Estonian pronouncements you can find no matter who it comes from and regardless of reliability and certainly never providing balancing opinion, such balancing being introduced as evidence of me "edit warring" in the current proceedings, including regarding said Amnesty International report, which has been widely pilloried by reputable sources intimately familiar with the Baltics. WP is not your personal Estonian attack forum. [[User:Vecrumba|<font style="color: #a12830; font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]] [[User_talk:Vecrumba|<font style="color: #ffffff;background-color:#a12830;"> ♪ </font>]]</font> 13:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:05, 15 October 2009
Archives:
Paulkint
OK, you win. His first posts to the article were also his first contributions to Wikipedia, and I thought they deserved some forbearance out of our desire not to be hostile to newbies. But it has become clear since that he is simply on a vendetta against the possibility of interstellar travel. I (obviously) think is unverifiable and POV. I've been standing aside lately (partly due to other responsibilities) but agree it is time to rein him in. Sigh, Wwheaton (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Ossetia
How does one join? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just sign in the list of participating editors: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ossetia#Participation. Offliner (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Synth
Re: Your revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia&diff=311458062&oldid=311455183 (rv - including this quote is WP:SYNTH, since it doesn't discuss "ethnic cleansing")
There is not WP:SYNTH, since the connection is explicitely made in the source quoted: "THERE is growing evidence of looting and "ethnic cleansing" in villages in the area of conflict between Russia and Georgia.
The attacks — some witnessed by reporters or documented by a human rights group — include stealing, the burning of homes and possibly killings. Some are ethnically motivated, while at least some of the looting appears to be the work of opportunistic profiteers.
The identities of the attackers vary, but a pattern of violence by ethnic Ossetians against ethnic Georgians is emerging and has been confirmed by some Russian authorities. "Now Ossetians are running around and killing poor Georgians in their enclaves," said Major-General Vyacheslav Borisov, the commander in the Russian-occupied city of Gori." --Xeeron (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Some frank words
You are not doing your own cause a favor by your actions at Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia. You might have noticed my absence of editing on that page during the first week after that article's creation (despite the fact that I obviously noticed it and it is in a field I am interested in). Or you might have noted the absence of my vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 genocide of Georgians in South Ossetia. Both are due to the fact that I am not entirely convinced that we need that article.
However, there has been a notable push to remove all sources and analysts overly critical of Russia from all topics related to 2008 South Ossetia war (and maybe other Russia-related topics that I am not interested in as well). This is done by quoting various wikipolicies, like WP:FRINGE (made to exclude crackpot theories about UFOs and such) or WP:SYNTH (made to prevent synthesis of different sources), in cases that are not covered by the word nor spirit of these policies. In all cases, it is hard not to conclude that these policies are (ab)used to remove material that has nothing wrong with it, except portraying the wrong POV.
I don't like the current state of the article either, but the way out is constructive editing, not citing random policies to remove material. Please don't sink to the level of other POV warriors. --Xeeron (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think there is a valid reason for removing Borisov's quote from Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia, as I have explained. I think it's WP:SYNTH (but not WP:FRINGE). In any case it could be easily replaced with something by the HRW. But I don't feel like doing many improvements on that article, since I don't recognize its independence. I don't agree with the removal of Felgenhauer from the main article, since his opinion (credible or not) was quoted by so many sources. But it could perhaps be replaced with something more recent and more scholarly. Or maybe it's best to do nothing before the report comes out and hopefully reaches a clear enough conclusion. Offliner (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the main article, I agree with you. Once the EU report is out, I hope that we can considerably shorten that section, replacing many or all analyists statements with one or two summary sentences. I was prepared to do nothing in that section and wait for the report, but unfortunately, someone else did not want to wait. Regarding the ethnic cleansing article, it is in a miserable state and I can understand why you do not want to work on it. Yet simply removing statements (and I disagree with your SYNTH assessment) will only make it worse. --Xeeron (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion
I suggest to create an article on informational war against Russia, see the ghits. (Igny (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC))
- I've been thinking of creating something like that for a long time. We could include material about the anti-Russian lobby in the USA or about Berezovsky's activities (he is the grandmaster of media war). I think Tsygankov's book probably has some good info about the former, but I haven't had the change to read it yet. What kind of content did you have in mind for the article? Offliner (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is also interesting. In reporting about the Caucasus, the Western media seems to focus solely on crimes committed by Russia, completely ignoring what the terrorists are doing, although the terrorists have killed much more people. It's interesting to compare this to Western media's reporting about the Afghan war. There, the media seems to unanimously agree, that the Taliban are evil, and should all be killed, and they are very symphatetic towards NATO forces' attempts to do this. Such material could be discussed in an article about Anti-Russian media bias. Offliner (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the article can pretty much include any attempt to distort/insult Russia's public image by raising frivolous and baseless claims/accusations about the country, its political elite, and definitely its history. All the scholarly sources discussing the matter of organizing such a campaign of discrediting Russia have to be included. Any examples of Russia's blunders on this front are also welcome. Also I would really like to connect this information war to the edit wars on the Wikipedia. I am still looking if there are scholarly articles connecting the two, but I do not have a lot of time to put too much effort here. (Igny (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC))
- This is also interesting. In reporting about the Caucasus, the Western media seems to focus solely on crimes committed by Russia, completely ignoring what the terrorists are doing, although the terrorists have killed much more people. It's interesting to compare this to Western media's reporting about the Afghan war. There, the media seems to unanimously agree, that the Taliban are evil, and should all be killed, and they are very symphatetic towards NATO forces' attempts to do this. Such material could be discussed in an article about Anti-Russian media bias. Offliner (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you please explain this revert [1]? First, you have never edited or took any kind of an interest in this article before, yet, all of sudden you decided to revert me. Can you explain why? Second, please note that I did not remove any tags - in fact, with your revert you removed the POV tag that had been placed there by another user. You also removed a request for citation tag. Hence your edit summary please do not remove tags before the dispute is settled seems to apply to your own revert rather than my edit. Perhaps more importantly, you also removed very notable and well sourced information that the subject of the article published in a Holocaust denial journal. Can you explain why you removed this information, that this person published in a Holocaust denial journal? Finally, you also removed some external links, but I guess that's the least of the problems here. I appreciate and await your response.radek (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm looking for new articles where to edit. However, that edit may have been a mistake. I'll look into it. Offliner (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Drama
Offliner, I would strongly suggest you refrain from posting to or about Piotrus and the others about the mailing list affair, when they evidently see this as harassment. This will only create more wiki drama. The matter is being looked into; there's no need for you to stir up a chorus or play the prosecutor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Fine, I guess I got a bit heated. Still, I strongly think that when an admin is involved in this kind of stuff, a temporary desysop while awaiting the results of ArbCom's investigation (which can take very long) is a correct measure. And BTW, I have every right to ask questions since the matter involves me (according to Bakharev they have waged a campaign against me as well.) I'm going to demand more information about this later, if ArbCom doesn't make the evidence public. Offliner (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
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 have been named as one of the parties to this case. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.
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) 01:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Greetings, considering that this issue is involving quite much the Military history WikiProject and few of its well-known and active members, I invite you to make a statement supported by diffs/other evidence regarding the activities of the group involved,on this page. Thanks and best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good enough, we will keep an eye there then. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Have no fear, I am here!
When I see scare tactics and gross injustice, I act on it. You're testifying in a trial, I'm going to be there too, soon hopefully. Meanwhile, here's the counter-argument to Alexia Death:
Alexia Death went ahead and claimed that hacking is a crime. While that is the stereotype, it is a wrong stereotype. If a person hacks into another's computer, but does not alter any data, nor disclose any information unrelated to illegal activities, that is not a crime. The US and UK operates on a Case Law basis. Perhaps Alexia Death can find a single case, where mere hacking, without the release of any information, except that used for illegal activities, was found to be a crime. It does not fall under criminal law, nor tort law.
Another argument advanced by Alexia Death, who wants to kill the truth, is that if the case goes forth, it will encourage hacking. A counter-argument is in order: if this case is does not go forth, it will encourage both, hacking and formation of illegal Wikipedia groups. If this case is not investigated, it will give a blank check to the formation of illegal Wikipedia groups. It will lead to not merely a single group being formed, but multiple groups. These multiple groups will begin to fight each other, ignite a major war on Wikipedia; here hacking will not only be used for gather information on illegal activities, but also for sending worms to each other's computers, catching innocent victims in the crossfire. To prevent the innocent from getting hurt, Wikipedia must investigate this case.
No e-mails have been released. No personal information has been released. No legal information has been released. No crime has been committed. What's the harm of investigating, what appears to be a blatant violation of Wikipedia Policy? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, and thanks for your support. It looks like a member of the secret email list leaked their archives to Alex Bakharev (or some other admin). I don't know who it was, but I'm almost convinced that there was nothing illegal going on. It was a public email list with many members -- not private communication between two persons. At worst, the rules of the email list have been violated ("please do not give these emails to others"), but not the law. I believe this is similar to posting someone's real name on wiki; it's not nice, and it's against Wikipedia's rules, but not illegal.
- At the moment I think ArbCom is examining the evidence, and I'm sure there will be sactions against some of these users. Offliner (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, here's some more stuff:
- Criminal Law requires a "guilty mind". Mere hacking cannot, in and of itself, produce a "guilty mind", as a "guilty mind" requires "guilty actions" that are "intended to cause harm to another". Furthermore, a civilian can act under "legal authority" to relay the messages to the proper authorities. Tort Law requires there to be damages to the plaintiff. However one cannot collect damages on illegal activities. "You hacked the banked accounts that I robbed" - is not a proper Torts claims. There is no violation of Contract Law, because there is no Contract (K). "Don't give this data out" - is not a K, as it is too indefinite to be enforced. The only way that Russavia and/or Wikipedia can get in trouble, is if some information that is unrelated to the illegal activities of the group is published. Furthermore, illegal activities caught by illegal means do not enjoy any rights, unless the legal rights of the persons are disrupted.
- For instance, say cops without a warrant break down a crack dealer's door and destroy all of the cocaine. He cannot sue them for the destruction of the cocaine. However, he can sue them for destroying the door. However, if the door was open, or was opened but still usable after it was opened, he cannot sue them at all. Naturally, I will continue, to the best of my abilities, to ensure that no legal threats, or scare tactics, get this case thrown out. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- As for leaking, the arguments still stand. It's not a crime. Well, then I shall wait for more information to unravel. This has the potential to become very interesting. I might even find out whose sockpuppet Samogitia was. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
New account
Hi, Offy. I don't have access to my old user account at User:PasswordUsername, as my computer had serious hardware malfunctions earlier this month, and I still don't have the machine working correctly. I'll still be able to do some things intermittently from another place, but I don't have my old user access since I never had e-mail enabled (though I've gotten myself an e-mail account for this new user space). For now, I'm Anti-Nationalist, which in all likelihood will probably be my permanent identity, since the odds of recovering the old machine are pretty slim. (I will be adding more evidence for the Arb case.) Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, it's good to have you back :) I'm sure you will have some good evidence to present and I'm looking forward to your comments. Offliner (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the welcome back. I'm developing the evidence page–what I've got so far is the tip of the iceberg, but you can glance at it at User:Anti-Nationalist/EE evidence. The 'net access is kind of hard to get at, so feel free to add this to your own evidence or link to it at your own discretion if you think it might be helpful and I don't get around to presenting it by the deadline (though I'm very sure I will.) Best, 01:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
Thanks for giving me the Barnstar. Much appreciated.
Paraphrasing
Hi Offliner, could you please convert the quote you use here to a paraphrase of what was written? Daniel (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Daniel (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is funny. Now I see Poeticbent has reposted the quotes in his evidence section: [2]. Offliner (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's been handled. The only other thing I need you to paraphrase is the quotes in the "Early June edit warring" section. Please be careful to be very general and not use the same words as the quotes; it's better to describe what was said in ambiguous terms rather than definitive ones when paraphrasing, as a general rule. Daniel (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is funny. Now I see Poeticbent has reposted the quotes in his evidence section: [2]. Offliner (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Daniel (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Re. Põhja Konn
Offy, I'm sorry but I haven't had the privilege of really taking the time to familiarize myself with this user's contribs. I'm really busy with looking over more evidence (I've gotten a first peek at the secret archive just around an hour ago) and have really limited time I can devote to devoting my evidence for this ArbCom case as it is, as the computer I'm on is not even mine. Since Diggy did discuss coming back as a sock persistently, I think there are various things worth looking into, but I don't want to rush to judgment, since I honestly have next to no familiarity with this user, the pro-Digwuren coincidences on a number of articles notwithstanding. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's okay. I think the evidence I posted at ArbCom should be enough to get him checkusered. Offliner (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Having looked again, I very much agree with you. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Redundant cat
Taken care of. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:30, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
Team member sock?
This user, [3], is likely to be a sock of the Digwuren team. He revert-warred against me at the Soviet Story article where I removed his poorly sourced and unsourced material, patiently explaining to him the different policies on talk, about which he's been more stubborn than anyone I've seen. From his latest comments there re. Bernard Shaw, it seems he's well-aware of the relevant policies regardless. He's also shown the same exact interest in articles that were closely followed by members of the mail cabal, and seems to be a SPA for the Soviet Story (a Martintg-made article) and a few other things they'd have cared about. I very much doubt it's an authentic user, but it could be an account of some other crazy nationalist. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that this is a suspicious account. Someone should do something about it; also, the Konn account should be CheckUsered immediately, but this seems to be taking time. Offliner (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up
Hey Offy, I have posted at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Another_query_to_clerk_or_arbitrators concerning what appears to be some overlap of our evidence that is being presented. Would you have any objections to this? Anyway, I will see you at the talk page on that issue. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 14:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Something funny
Is this interesting? [4], [5] and [6]. ;-) Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
ITN for 2008 South Ossetia war
--BorgQueen (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Space institutions
Okay, but by former do you mean [:Category:Soviet and Russian space institutions]] because the other one refers exclusively to Russia and not the Soviet Union. Maybe this category should be renamed Soviet Space institutions and kept along with Category:Space industry companies of Russia as they do not refer to the same thing.
- Whoops, I meant we should use the latter, i.e. Category:Space industry companies of Russia. I think renaming Category:Soviet and Russian space institutions => Category:Soviet space instutions is a great idea, and then we can keep the both cats. Offliner (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry I forgot to sign in previously Tec15 (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
YYYY-MM-DD numerical date format in footnotes
Hello, I think you commented on this issue earlier, and you may like to know that there is now an RfC under way on this question, at Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal_on_YYYY-MM-DD_numerical_dates. -- Alarics (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Russia
As a member of WikiProject Russia, you might want to take a look at how WikiProject:Russia rates the Battle of Tskhinvali. I think it's at least High Importance, possibly top, as a major military victory after the two Chechen Wars, I think it's crucial for Russia. I'm working on Ossetian ratings at the moment. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Jacurek and IP edits
Jacurek is from Canada and so is the IP, aren't they? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)