→Alexander Litvinenko: new section |
Per Honor et Gloria (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
Please stop deleting sourced content just because you do not agree with it, you are violating [[WP:NPOV]].--[[User:Miyokan|Miyokan]] ([[User talk:Miyokan|talk]]) 07:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
Please stop deleting sourced content just because you do not agree with it, you are violating [[WP:NPOV]].--[[User:Miyokan|Miyokan]] ([[User talk:Miyokan|talk]]) 07:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
==Franco-Mongol alliance== |
|||
Thank you for your support regarding the AfDs related to the [[Franco-Mongol alliance]]. A few editors are actually putting a lot of efforts into deleting a lot of the referenced material from the [[Franco-Mongol alliance]] page (all from reputable and published sources) in favour of a highly restrictive and dismissive point of view. Your help is appreciated. Best regards. [[User:PHG|PHG]] ([[User talk:PHG|talk]]) 11:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:15, 20 January 2008
Welcome!
Hello, Hodja Nasreddin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Russia Portal, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist.
Again, welcome! Alex Bakharev 00:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Fd
Sorry, but I think we might both have been working simulataneously on images of Fd's. These articles really need a biophysicist. Best,--Smokefoot (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for intervening. Please correct whatever you think should be corrected.Biophys (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holiday season and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 07:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules (this discussion is over)
Well, I would very much like to meet an administrator. I've been harrassed, lied about, insulted and continually reverted by a trolling Wikipedian, but no administrator will take action. Nor will they do anything about serious problems with a number of articles I and another editor have flagged up. So, please report me to an administrator so I can actually speak to someone instead of being met with a wall of indifference.--Conjoiner (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I only wanted to advise you and your opponent. I have no desire to report anyone. Such cases can be reported to WP:3RR noticeboard here. Biophys (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding your comments on the 3RR notice board, I was warned not to revert by you and Míkka not to engage in reverting. I took this on board and in fact have not made any edit to any article since let alone revert anyone's edits, while User:Ghanadar galpa has ignored you and Mikka and continued reverting. You can look at my contributions record. So why now push for me to be blocked when I have fully complied with these requests?--Conjoiner (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I did not suggest to block you. I only told at the noticeboard that Mikkolai has made a technical mistake by blocking User:Soman instead of User:Relata refero (he left a notice to Relata but blocked Soman). Sorry for misunderstanding.Biophys (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's OK. It seemed to me that you were saying that it was unfair for User:Ghanadar galpa to be blocked and not me. I just wanted to make clear that I had not made any edit since you told me not to continue reverting, to set the record straight. Sorry if I made a mistake.--Conjoiner (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, I left a message at 3RR noticeboard. Please do not take it personally. It seems there are two groups of Indian users who revert each other. This is not good.Biophys (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that it is the result of frustration that one particular editor is not taking the talk page seriously and instead has engaged in persistent personal attacks and ad hominems, while unilaterally reverting while calling others' edits "Communist vandalism". It has made it impossible to improve the article or edit it, hence the reason for the revert war. In my opinion, the disputed articles should be frozen until there is a consensus on the talk page, developed through moderation by neutral parties. That way, those who are unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion (and I must stress that, apart from this one editor, the discussion between opposing editors has the potential to be productive - Otolemur crassicaudatus appears to be fairly reasonable) will effectively exclude themselves without causing further problems in the article itself.--Conjoiner (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, I left a message at 3RR noticeboard. Please do not take it personally. It seems there are two groups of Indian users who revert each other. This is not good.Biophys (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's OK. It seemed to me that you were saying that it was unfair for User:Ghanadar galpa to be blocked and not me. I just wanted to make clear that I had not made any edit since you told me not to continue reverting, to set the record straight. Sorry if I made a mistake.--Conjoiner (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I did not suggest to block you. I only told at the noticeboard that Mikkolai has made a technical mistake by blocking User:Soman instead of User:Relata refero (he left a notice to Relata but blocked Soman). Sorry for misunderstanding.Biophys (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding your comments on the 3RR notice board, I was warned not to revert by you and Míkka not to engage in reverting. I took this on board and in fact have not made any edit to any article since let alone revert anyone's edits, while User:Ghanadar galpa has ignored you and Mikka and continued reverting. You can look at my contributions record. So why now push for me to be blocked when I have fully complied with these requests?--Conjoiner (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- But his edits look more or less reasonable to me. Could you please follow WP:AGF policy and try to find consensus with User:Ghanadar galpa?Biophys (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- You obviously have not seen his deliberate misrepresentation of the texts he has quoted to push his POV - he has quoted articles to support his arguments regarding the CPI(M) before the party even existed, made claims about texts that did not stand up to scrutiny, made libellous remarks about someone contrary to Wikipedia policies, accused editors of anti-semitism and made references to their supposed politics and ethnicity, claimed that opposing editors were paid propagandists, etc. He has been repeatedly warned, eg [1], but seems to ignore such warnings. (If you want me to list the links, I can do so.) And now you tell me to assume good faith? I can't debate with someone in good faith when they so blatantly attempt to disrupt debate and aggressively antagonise people, but neither can I stop them from being involved. Whether he changes his behaviour after his block has expired will determine whether one can debate with him in good faith.--Conjoiner (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do not buy this. No need in any further "proofs". It is enough that I have seen this: [2]. First, you have violated WP:3RR rule trying to repetedly delete a sourced text, which was relevant to the subject of article (or at least one can reasonably argue that it is relevant). Second, you just refused to assume good faith and refused to debate the problem with your opponent. Finally, it was User:Ghanadar galpa who came first to Red Terror page followed by Soman and you. I do not blame anyone of WP:STALK yet, but this looks really bad. Now I believe this incident is over, and please let's stop this discussion, since it leads to nowhere.Biophys (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
3rr
3rr does not apply to reverting obvious vandalism from ip's that disrupt wikipedia to make a point. See Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Exceptions[3]. Not to mention that this ip has been banned several times by admins[4], and therefore the edits are illegitimate anywayGhanadar galpa (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right if that is an obvious vandalism. But such things [5] are not considered by admins as obvious vandalism, no matter what you or me might think. Note that you are reverting a registered user, not an IP. Therefore, you expose yourself to blocking for 3RR violation. In your place, I would revert myself back and tried to improve this article by providing more sourced content, editing some other parts, etc. rather than making blind reverts. Reverts are bad. Anyone can look at your edit history and see that you just came back from the block and making a lot of reverts (this is contentious editing). You can take a look at my block log and see that I was also blocked in the past. You must adapt rather than stubbornly revert.Biophys (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously, many users found themselves banned from WP for one year. Continue this behavior, and you may be banned for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, which is pity since you are a productive editor and and it well may be your opponents who are actually doing the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Biophys (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately, from what I'm seeing, this particular case seems to be a clear cut case of tag-team edit warring to introduce inflammatory content that violates several wikipedia policies, not just the one against vandalism. Policies such as No Original research,Disruption to make a point, and others. Overtly tendentious and unencyclopedic edits should be dealt with ... overtly. I backed out of the Communist revisionism of their article, since I clearly see a systemic pro-Communist bias generally on wikipedia and that is not a case of overt vandalism, but part of a larger pattern of socialist trash touted in this place in the name of "Neutrality", but this case is not that case. This case is one of overt and ganged-up vandalism and POV pushing. Please explain to me where you see any equivalence between this situation and the previous one.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are right - in theory. But in practice there are groups of users who claim "collective ownership" of certain articles (which is of course against WP:OWN policy). Therefore, there is a significant bias you are talking about. I think you need some patience. Mark unsourced statements as [citation needed] before deleting them, insert undisputable information to articles, use RfC about the articles, try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (although this is often waste of time). I do not really know any good solutions here.Biophys (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC) There is a good advise though. If you are alone against a "gang", leave this article to the "gang" and write down something else.Biophys (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately, from what I'm seeing, this particular case seems to be a clear cut case of tag-team edit warring to introduce inflammatory content that violates several wikipedia policies, not just the one against vandalism. Policies such as No Original research,Disruption to make a point, and others. Overtly tendentious and unencyclopedic edits should be dealt with ... overtly. I backed out of the Communist revisionism of their article, since I clearly see a systemic pro-Communist bias generally on wikipedia and that is not a case of overt vandalism, but part of a larger pattern of socialist trash touted in this place in the name of "Neutrality", but this case is not that case. This case is one of overt and ganged-up vandalism and POV pushing. Please explain to me where you see any equivalence between this situation and the previous one.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Glycoside hydrolase
Обратил внимание на появление статьи Glycoside hydrolase family 1. Есть ли планы написать статьи по всей сотне семейств гликозидаз? --Daniil_Naumoff (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you want, I can send you wikified Pfam and Interpro files (or their parts), so it would not be difficult to create such articles about other families of glycosidases (I think there are around 40 of them in InterPro/Pfam). Are you interested in any specific protein families? No, I do not have plans to make myself these articles any time soon.Biophys (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- У меня периодически возникало желание написать статьи про некоторые семейства в русской википедии, но пока я ограничивался лишь статьями про конкретные активности. А вообще мой взгляд на проблему неплохо отображает этот рисунок. А Вы как-то с этим связаны по работе? --Daniil_Naumoff (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I am not doing anything with glycosidases. What protein families are you interested in? If you want to be involved here, I can make stubs, and you would develop them further. But that would be English wikipedia.Biophys (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Меня интересует достаточно большое число семейств, но я в основном пишу в русскую вики. --Daniil_Naumoff (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Even in English WP, we have relatively few papers on protein families and individual proteins, partly generated by a bot [6]. I do not think such specific scientific articles make a lot of sense in Russian WP. Such articles are hardly interesting for general public. All students and specialists know English and can read it here if there is anything to read.Biophys (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Меня интересует достаточно большое число семейств, но я в основном пишу в русскую вики. --Daniil_Naumoff (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I am not doing anything with glycosidases. What protein families are you interested in? If you want to be involved here, I can make stubs, and you would develop them further. But that would be English wikipedia.Biophys (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- У меня периодически возникало желание написать статьи про некоторые семейства в русской википедии, но пока я ограничивался лишь статьями про конкретные активности. А вообще мой взгляд на проблему неплохо отображает этот рисунок. А Вы как-то с этим связаны по работе? --Daniil_Naumoff (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Bosnian Mujahideen
Remember Victor Bout? Read Golitsyn. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop deleting sourced content just because you do not agree with it, you are violating WP:NPOV.--Miyokan (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Franco-Mongol alliance
Thank you for your support regarding the AfDs related to the Franco-Mongol alliance. A few editors are actually putting a lot of efforts into deleting a lot of the referenced material from the Franco-Mongol alliance page (all from reputable and published sources) in favour of a highly restrictive and dismissive point of view. Your help is appreciated. Best regards. PHG (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)