User talk:Hodja Nasreddin: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:59, 13 July 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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry for intervening. Please correct whatever you think should be corrected.Biophys (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Меня интересует достаточно большое число семейств, но я в основном пишу в русскую вики. --Daniil_Naumoff (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even in English WP, we have relatively few papers on protein families and individual proteins, partly generated by a bot [1]. 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)[reply]

Bosnian Mujahideen

Remember Victor Bout? Read Golitsyn. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Litvinenko

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)[reply]

Please discuss this matter at the article talk page. As I explained, everything you want to include has been already included in the article and summarized in Introduction. Once again, this discussion is closed. This is not a proper place for content disputes.Biophys (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Now I see what's the problem. You said about yourself that you are "a member of the KGB Internet troll squad" - [2]. Biophys (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Perhaps there are some problems with your articles. But I believe you can sort this out yourself. There was no need in AfDs.Biophys (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Bloch (diplomatic officer) on List of Soviet agents in the United States

Your edit summary said the following:

this article is not a biography of a person. Hence BLP rules do not apply.

Please reread WP:BLP, especially the sentence that says

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles

Fact of the matter is, Felix Bloch is still alive. Thus, BLP applies to every mention of him in the encyclopedia.

You also said:

The statement is completely supported by the cited source.

I do not disagree with that. However, take a look at what the statement actually says:

Felix Bloch, U.S. State Department economic officer in Vienna (1981) probably blackmailed by Soviets into supplying information; not prosecuted quite likely because Robert Hanssen warned the Soviets about the investigation into his activities.

That is not nearly enough to include him on a "list of Soviet agents". If it were a "list of people who may have been Soviet agents", then it might be a different story, but there have never been any official charges or any admission by any parties that he was an agent. His inclusion in this list makes the de facto claim that he was a spy, which the sources do not support.

This is a serious BLP concern. I am removing him from the list again per this concern. Unless sources can be found to incontrovertibly establish that he was in fact a spy, he cannot be in a "list of Soviet agents".

If you have any questions, let me know. Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 13:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is encyclopedia. If he qualifies as an agent or not should be established by reliable secondary encyclopedic sources, not by courts or FBI. I am not sure if you familiar with his case (and his BLP article is in poor shape). This case has been described in a book "Spy handler" by former KGB officer Cherkashin. Bloch repeatedly received phone calls from KGB "illegals" who warned him that FBI is watching for him. So, I think he qualifies as a Soviet "agent" by WP standards. So, I will try to improve his BLP article at some point.Biophys (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a source which definitively establishes that he was an agent, then yes, he can be included in that list. Otherwise, no he can't. WP is an encyclopedia, but BLP exists because of legal concerns, which are tantamount. - Revolving Bugbear 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O'K I checked the book by Cherkashin and modified his BLP and the list accordingly. The book leaves no doubts that he was actually a spy, although I am not very good in understanding those spy stories.Biophys (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning Regarding Repeated Violations of WP:BLP (this discussion is closed)

You need to read WP:BLP which states:

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space."

Contrary to your assertions on my talk page, it does not mater that there is no article on Fr. Victor Potapov in Wikipedia, nor does it matter that he made these comments on a talk page. The fact that he made accusations which allegedly are based on a book also does change the situation. If the book even makes the accusations he claims, the book does satisfy the "extraordinary claims" requirement in the verifiability section of Wikipolicy. Anyone can write a book and make an accusation, but if you are going to call a respected figure at the Voice of America a KGB agent, or a crook, or accuse them of engaging in illegal activities, you had better be able to present more evidence than "some guy named Gennady said...". Your repeated posting of libelous material about living persons is contrary to Wikipedia Policy, and it needs to stop. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text in question

First of all, let me repeat the disputed segment of text at a talk page'. This is not something I claim. That was written in a published book.

You claimed that all Preobrazhensky' views are "lunatic fringe" because he suggested that Potapov is a KGB agent. I have checked a recent book by son of Arkady Shevchenko who knew Potapov. It follows from the source that Potapov is not only a KGB agent, but a criminal crook. The book tells that Potapov was engaged in a private "marriage business" of finding young Russian brides for wealthy Americans. Surprisingly, the wealthy Americans have died soon after the marriages. It follows that Arkady Shevchenko was one of Potapov's victims: he died soon after all his estate was transferred personally to Potapov and to the second Schevchenko wife. This second Shevchenko' wife was found by Potapov, and she was indeed a KGB agent, acording to the book. Perhaphs all other women ("chekist lastochkas") supplied by Potapov were also from the same "kontora". The book: Gennady Shevchenko, Escape from the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs, link. see Pages 284-292; 314-339.

Assessment of the source as highly reliable

This book is not self-published. It is published by a respected publishing organization, «Центрполиграф». It is sold in a large number of copies. It is writted by a person who holds PhD degree, author of 70 published scientific papers, and a former high-rank diplomate of his country. He writes about life of his own farther, Arkady Shevchenko. That is something he knows very well. Of course he might be wrong as any other source. That is why WP rules tell us: "verifiability, not truth". I have no idea if he right or wrong. I only cite the source.Biophys (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So... just to be clear here... you are asserting that Gennady Shevchenko accuses Fr. Victor of being a KGB agent, all the while working for the Voice of America and actively campaigning against religious persecution in the Soviet Union, and that he was engaged in criminal activity, and was an accessory to murder, and embezzlement. Now if I am able to verify that this book does not assert these things, would you accept without disputation a permanent ban from wikipedia as a punishment for your misrepresentation of this source? Also, it should be noted that this article in Russian, about Gennady's recollections of his father mentions Fr. Victor, but without any negative connotations. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'No, Shevchenko did not tell "Potapov was a KGB agent". That was suggested by Preobrazhensky and implicitly supported by information in the book by Shevchenko. What I have written was my summary of the content from Shevchenko book. That was a talk page, not WP main space. I suggest that we stop this discussion immediately because it is completely irrelevant. We do not have any articles yet about Potapov. Sorry, but I have more important things to do.Biophys (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarch Alexius II

I am giving you both this same message. It think you are making great headway, the article looks much better then it did a couple hours ago. Try to concentrate on adding good content and let me worry about getting the balance and being the bad guy. Keep up the good work, if you two keep going like this your going to finish this article and make it a Featured article. Jeepday (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a suggestion at Patriarch Alexius II#Propose Protecting this Article that I think is workable. It changes the rules a little and should significantly reduce conflict. I would like to invite you to review the proposal and participate in the creation of a great article. It will stop edit warring by restricting work to the talk page in part because reverting another editors comments on the talk page is counter to WP:TALK. Jeepday (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Att

Hey can you give your personal opinion on the current discussion on the Second Chechen War? You seem like an unbiased person and currently other users seem to be absent, including hanzo who seems blocked. Users keep trying to declare the war over, yet they don't adress a specific event for such change. It's turning in a long-winded discussion with Ceasar again.

cheers - PietervHuis (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at some point, but one should try to minimize the disputes with others. This is like a mine field you do not know about. For example, you now have a content dispute with User:Alaexis and User:Miyokan. The both users claimed themselves to be "paid members of the KGB Internet troll squad" (see [3] and [4]). The "KGB trolls" userbox was constructed by two other users who are currently banned from WP for WP:CIV problems (one of them was User:Vlad fedorov who together with User:ellol filed a bogus RfC about me). I have no idea if the claims by Miyokan and Alaexis are true, but I assume everything in their favor per WP:AGF policy. After all, KGB still exists only in Belarus, being replaced by two successor (FSB and SVR) agencies in Russia. But I would like to minimize my interactions with these users as much as possible and even asked one of them not to follow my edits. Sorry if my help is insufficient.Biophys (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's some info, all help is welcome. Maybe I've been playing things dumb, all I care about is that I'm not on my own with these guys. I'll try to avoid them in the future - PietervHuis (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. Just looking at my edit history you can see what is going on right now.Biophys (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talbott

He Biophys, I think the Tretyakov accusation is fine for the Strobe Talbott article. After thumbing through the book it looks like he spends quite a decent bit of time on the subject - and considering the US government paying this guy, it isn't just hearsay. If I can get to the book again I'll try to get Talbott's reaction to the claims, which I'm pretty sure he denies. Joshdboz (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be great to add more material about this and include his reply per WP:NPOV.Biophys (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your admission that you strongly believe bombings were work of the Russian government (this discussion is closed)

You have admitted that you strongly believe that the bombings were orchestrated by Russia, declaring your bias for all to see [5], so please cease your deletions/manipulations/hiding away of the counterargument as you are violating WP:NPOV.--Miyokan (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you just accused me of "manipulations". That is a bad faith accusation. There is absolutely nothing in the link you provided to justify that I am doing any kind of "manipulations". Your statement is also offensive because you suggest something that I have never said or even thought: that bombings "were work of Russia". One (me) must be extremely stupid and unfair to blame a country of something like that. But your statement implies just that. Perhaps that is because you think that Russia and FSB are the same. Biophys (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously "Russia" refers to the government and the FSB/GRU are government institutions. You can try to deny it all you like but the proof is there for all to see - Caesar, do you really believe that Russian apartment bombings were not committed by FSB and GRU spetsnaz? That was highly proffesional job and clearly something extremely damaging for the Chechen cause (small Chechnya can not win a war with Russia - everyone understands that). The more you and Miyokan are trying to prove this to be a conspiracy theory, the more it is clear that the involvement of FSB was real.--Miyokan (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I did not tell that Russia organized this bombings. FSB is not Russia, Patrushev is not Russia, and Russian government is not Russia (just like W. Bush is not the USA). Yes, I told: the more you are trying to prove this to be a conspiracy theory, the more it is clear that the involvement of FSB (not Russia!) was real. O'K, let's consider this as an ordinary crime, and ask all standard questions in such cases. (1) Who was caught red-handed at the scene of the crime? FSB agents while planting the bomb. FSB agent Romanovich was also caught. (2) Who was the beneficiary of the crime? Only Putin who was elected. Who was the loser? The Chechens. (3) Who had technical capacities to commit such sophisticated and technically advanced crime? Only FSB or GRU sptesnaz. (4) Who tried to cover up the traces of the crime? FSB did (the arrest of Trepshkin who identified Romanovich). (5) Who are alternative suspects? Gochiyaev who called himself to police to warn about the bombs (so two bombings in Moscow have been prevented). If I was a juror in the court, I would vote that FSB guilt was proven "beyond the reasonable doubt". So what? Everyone has certain POV, which is fine.Biophys (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you giving me an original synthesis, the point is that you have admitted that you believe the bombings were the work of the Russian government, thereby you cannot be trusted to create a balanced article so please stop your deletions/manipulations/hiding away of the counteragument.--Miyokan (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP rules and recommendations. They tell that everyone (including you and me) has certain points of views, which is not a problems as long as person follows core WP policies, that is WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:Verifiability. I follow all these rules in WP articles. Talk pages are a different matter. Here synthesis is allowed. So, all your accusations ("manipulations", etc.) are completely groundless, So far you did not provide any evidence to support your claims.Biophys (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are the proof, such as your removing all the counterarguments from the lead under the guise of "Restoring deleted "Criticism and support section" per WP:NPOV. Sourcing and NPOVing official investigation part." [6]. I have reinserted the counterarguments that you removed from the lead per WP:NPOV and don't worry I have left the "criticism and support section".--Miyokan (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you provided wrong diff ! Here it is: [7]. Everyone can see that I included all your arguments in "Criticism" section". Now I suggest that you stop your groundless accusations immediately. Please use talk page of the article to discuss this. All your further accusations here will be deleted immediately per WP:CIV.Biophys (talk)

I said you removed the counterarguments from the lead. You removed the counterarguments from the lead while you left the 'support' arguments there, a clear violation of WP:NPOV from someone who has declared they believe the "support" theory. Please don't lie, you completely removed the Washington Times quote - According to The Washington Times, "most dismiss the involvement of the Russian government in the apartment bombings as an unsupported conspiracy theory though it has received widespread attention".^[1] and you changed the sentence from have been decribed as a conspiracy theory to discussed claims by Satter, Litvinenko and others as a "conspiracy theory". Furthermore, you repeatedly removed the fact tag from this sentence - "The construction of the bomb was identical to the devices used in other bombings." - this remains unsourced. The apartment bombings were not the sole reason for the invasion of Chechnya, stop inserting false information, it is a fact that the War in Dagestan was also a reason, stop deleting this fact.--Miyokan (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Since you reverted me three times here, I will let this stay on my talk page. You said: "Please don't lie". What a language. Biophys (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pfam box

Your thoughts would be welcome here... User_talk:ProteinBoxBot#more_identifiers Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I replied.Biophys (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biophys. A nice start has been made to include protein domains and families. This initiative has resulted in examples that hopefully encourage users to extend these. As you seem to be involved in a project for the creation of such articles, I would like to indicate a minor format problem. Some articles, such as Endonuclease/Exonuclease/phosphatase_family or Glucagon hormone family, contain a Pfam_box showing references and links. In this Pfam_box a link to PROSITE is present, however, it does does not show, because the format is in minor case. If the line Prosite = PDOC00598, present in that box would be corrected to PROSITE, the included link would correspond to the template and become visible in WP. This has been corrected now in most of the current articles, but I don't know if a large number of new articles may be created by the same (semi-?) automatic procedure? In that way the propagation of this minor problem might simply be prevented. Thanks, I like these articles. Stone geneva (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to send you some program-generated files with semi-preps of protein family articles? The problem you are talking about can be easily fixed I think.Biophys (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ru:Критика Владимира Путина

I suspect you do not take part in the Russian Wiki, but this may be an exceptional case. A bunch of лубянских сосок are trying again to remove the only article that truly meets all the NPOV requirements. Please vote. (See the tepmplate).Muscovite99 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have here Criticism of George W. Bush and other similar articles. We can have Criticism of Vladimir Putin as well. So, any arguments that such article violates WP standards simply "by definition" are wrong. I hope you have a copy of this article to perhaps translate it to English and create it here? Possibly we should do it, especially if it is deleted in Russian wikipedia.Biophys (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think i shall place it (before it gets destroyed) on the Discussion page of Putin's article, it can be archived or something.Muscovite99 (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I go there, they will blame you of canvassing the vote. All your steps are traced. They know who we are in real life, and they read emails. Of course both articles in Russian wikipedia about Putin have to be deleted, especially in light of publications like that [8]. This is time of change. To change the team, they have to "cut off all tails" including the arrests of most notorious mobsters who worked for Medvedev-Putin, replacements of many team members, and so on.Biophys (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, the best WP editor on Chechen subjects was banned a couple of days ago, and many good users from Baltic States and Romania have recently been notified [9]. Also note this situation and remember what kind of "Welcome" you have received in English wikipedia.Biophys (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of making a Criticism of Vladimir Putin page as well, if somebody starts it I will help expand it - PietervHuis (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will think about it.Biophys (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am more interested in other subjects. However if things go sour, I will go ahead as always. Perhaps a more encylopedic approach would be creating an article like Presidenship of Vladimir Putin to discuss his great "successes" per this review by Nemtsov and Milov [10]. Biophys (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They just deleted this article in Russian WP, although more people voted to keep. This is sad. It looks like Russian WP is doomed. But everyone is very welcome here. Biophys (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Quite frankly what you call "canvassing the vote" is widely practised in the Russian Wiki (by way of simple notification of a pending discussion) and i have never heard of any reprisals because of that. The article has been deleted. But i have archived it on the Discussion page (Russian) and it has already been by and large transferred by other people into the main article (the official reason for the deletion was "Deviation of Opnion" argument -- something quite opaque and recondite i could never really get my head round). Thus, the result at this stage is arguably worse for putinists.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, when i pointed to the admin who actually deleted it that there is a similar Bush's one, he promised "to look into it" (See on ru:Обсуждение участника:EvgenyGenkin. So the Bush-bashers should be trembling.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they must delete "Criticism of W. Bush" in Russian WP because he is such a good friend of Putin! Also consider this. Bush started war in Iraq. Oil prices jumped, and Putin with his friends got billions. Of course this is not conspiracy but only a stupidity on the part of US administration (someone said: "this is worse than crime; this is a mistake").Biophys (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to your question

Apropos Starik, I haven't read the piece, nor am i generally interested in fiction. But i can refer you to 2 sources that seem to shed some light (or rather more darkness): [11] and [12] -- both are Dubov's interview (look for the highlighted bits). What he says essentially boils down to: he is the personified idea of statehood and the actual prototype does not really matter as he was personally of no consequence.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So, you do not know. Please note that Russian government requested extradition of Yuli Dubov because he knows and writes too much, just like Litvinenko.Biophys (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, there was a mastermind behind the "1999 plot", and obviously that was not Putin. I thought about Filipp Bobkov [13]. He fits the profile. As Albats said, "Among Bobkov's special talents is a knack for fomenting ethnic and religious conflicts and staging acts of terrorism as pretexts for KGB crack-downs in the name of preserving "order".

It is through Bobkov's KGB network, and the Most Bank's financial clout, that the "Moscow Narco- Group" was able to become (in Yasmann's words) "a bridge between [the Soviet] regions and drug lords in Italy, Romania, Colombia, and Cuba. These former KGB officers thus took control of, and expanded, the drug route from Afghanistan via Chechnya and Russia to Western Europe and the United States. [14]; that is a reliable source and [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39b935443c08.htm that is probably a blog]. As you probably know, the top FSB brass controls narcotraffic in the country, so Gen. Bulbov and two his colleagues (who were recently poisoned) went too far in their wiretapping efforts.Biophys (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, Gusinsky was a KGB collaborator in Soviet times [15]. That is why he hired Bobkov. But who was really the boss? This is also very interesting: [16]. Just a few random sources [17], [18], [19], [20]. A BLP article Filipp Bobkov? Biophys (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, it was he who established Anti-Zionist Committee of the Soviet Public, who supervised transfer of Communist Party money abroad through Col. Veselovsky, who was behind the Pogrom of Armenians in Baku, and who was dismissed for poor "wet job" during Storming of TV in Vilnius! Nice "Starik". (Генералу Ф. Д. Бобкову не раз приходилось бывать во многих "горячих точках", принимать непосредственное участие в урегулировании конфликтных ситуаций (Тбилиси, Нагорный Карабах, Фергана, Сумгаит, Баку, Алма-Ата, Орджоникидзе, Грозный, Фрунзе (перечень далеко не полный). I also like his private army in Media Most. Vladimir Gusinsky said about him: "I would hire the devil to provide us security". He was wrong. One can not hire the devil.Biophys (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is: [21] [22] People called him "brain of the KGB". Russian source: версия С.Юшенкова; из его статьи "ПРОЩАЙ, СВОБОДА СЛОВА?" в газете

"Демократический выбор" (N 48 (72) 27 ноября 1997 г.):

"Некоторые аналитики предполагают, что именно Ф.Бобков разработал

операцию по устранению Коржакова с использованием своего рода

приманки в виде коробки из-под ксерокса с сотнями тысяч

долларов. Лишь немногие журналисты потрудились задать простой

вопрос - а зачем нужно было выносить доллары из Белого дома

таким примитивным способом? Ведь даже 500 тысяч легко помещаются

в средних размеров кейсе. А ответ чрезвычайно прост. Необходимо

было, чтобы служба Коржакова "клюнула" на приманку. Итог хорошо

известен." Biophys (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is something terrible [23]! Biophys (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you tend to read too much into the fact that such and such was a KGB snitch. In the SU any one of any minor significance (such as a waiter in a restaurant or a doctor) was one, for the system demanded total covert control over everything and every one. In the early 1990s the roles of the same people often changed drastically. Yes, "The Sysytem" (or The Committe, as some refer to it) made a kind of a comeback, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that this "revanche" had been engineered and planned from the beginning of Perestroika (not necessarily by Gorbachev himself, but definitely by the KGB hardcore such as Kryuchkov). In fact, the latter made an abortive attempt at revanche in August 1991 -- and it could well have succeeded had he been a bit more dicisive (i remember the atmosphere in Moscow on Aug 19 very well - the turnaround happened only after people learnt that Yeltsin was at large and in the White House, and not arrested as was originally planned, as we now know). It did happen any way -- as that is what russian populace requires: a quasi-feudal state with omnipotent oligarchy and disenfranchised hoi polloi (serfs). Russia to-day, in fundamental socio-economic ways, is very much like its early XXth century precursor, the only diffeerence being the elite is not structured on the basis of Law but on the basis of criminal "notions". So i tend to think that Kryuchkov would fit the bill (Starik's). It may be no accident that when putin became the fsb chief, he virtually put him back in the employ as his personal "consultant", and by credible accounts, he was indeed frequently seen in the Lubyanka on Putin's watch there, maybe chatting in the fsb chief's lift, as it is recounted by berezovsky -- to evade eavesdropping.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand corectly, August putsch failed because Kruchkov's subordinates refused to follow his orders. Thus he hardly was respected by anyone later. Oh yes, he told to Putin how it is important "to be wise". But I do not know why exactly the KGB special forces and Dzerzhinsky division refused to follow Kruchkov's orders during the coup. I have seen some explanations (including book by Albats), but they do not look convincing. Could you recommend something to read about it? Perhaps some mateials of Ponomarev Comission?Biophys (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I indeed was shocked looking at the photo of this evil man with Rodion Schedrin, a husband of Plisetskaya. So, that is why Yevgenia Albats did not want to disclose the list of Bobkov's "trusted contacts" in her book? It seems I still have some patriotic feelings... Perhaps this story supports the idea about "serfs". Consider this. Plisetskaya was a daughter of an enemy of the people. Her farther was shot; her mother with baby brother spent years in Gulag and barely survived. Still, she entertained NKVD thugs, Stalin in Kremlin, and many other Soviet leaders. Of course, that was behind the "iron curtain". But how did she manage to become a friend of Bobkov [24] and Putin?! She claimed that Putin is a great leader in reply to receving a few awards from him. Her brother (cousin?) German has been declared a non-person for writing a poem about stampede during Stalin's funeral. What had he written there? "Kogda v Kremle konchautsja vozdi, v pod'ezdax dveri vyshibaut ludi. ... Smelei vpered, svobodnye raby, dostoinye Xodynki i Truby! ... Vpered, vpered istorii tvortsy, vam mostovoi dostanutsja torsy". He was a free man, not a serf while writing the poem. But the price he paid was very high, thanks to the KGB and Bobkov who posed as a "friend" of his sister.Biophys (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were more than 11 million of KGB snitches in the USSR, according to a source. Dubov certainly kept in mind Bobkov. Kruchkov did not serve in Russian army during WWII. "Starik" and Bobkov did. But what difference does it make? This is fiction.Biophys (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i have been away from here for a while. No, it was not the case of alpha men failing to obey kryuchkov's orders. By all the available sources, the story looks pretty much the other way round: kryuchkov never gave the order though it had been awaited. You can read here [25] (the section entitled ЕЛЬЦИН АРЕСТОВАН?). THAT is the biggest mystery of the whole plot, though the explanation is probably very simple -- there was no plot (as many people actually maintain) and everything had been tentatively pre-agreed with Gorbachev and the arrests were not part of the deal. Kryuchkov surely could have done it but that would have meant he was a real conspirator for which he hadn't the balls. Artistes (and i herein include famous athletes as well) in the SU and Russia are not what their counterparts in the West are. That's one of the things ordinary people in the West fail to appreciate. They can only become famous here if they carry out their political duties, which essentially is enobling the political regime of the day and its criminal ways; many of them are downright snitches as well. This is just part of the job discription.Muscovite99 (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see. "Альфа" в четыре утра окружает дачку еще не проспавшегося Ельцина в Архангельском. А через час лично товарищ Крючков отзывает ту "Альфу". Was it really the case?Biophys (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Bandurist 04:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment will be appreciated

There is a discussion going on whether the Zaporozhian Sich was indeed destroyed. Your comments in this matter will be appreciated. Thanks. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slight correction on the dispute, its not weather the actual Sich (fortress) was destroyed, but weather the Zaporozhian Host was destoryed. --Kuban Cossack 17:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for asking, but I can not help here.Biophys (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A comment

Thanks, youre doing a great job as well. No I'm not a history student, but I'm actually considering studying it at university next year, or the year after. Yes the copyright stuff was because I was too lazy to provide rationales, it's fixed now. How come you speak Russian? Do you have Russian ancestry or something? Cheers - PietervHuis (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I lived in Russia most of my life and only recently came to the United States.Biophys (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet POWs

Since you replied at a related discussion, perhaps you could comment at Talk:Siege of Brest (1941)?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked fast and made a brief comment, but I have to run.Biophys (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There is a long discussion (here and the section below it) about Pyotr Gavrilov and whether he was imprisoned or not. Could you look into Russian language sources and see if there is any bio or material that could clarify that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left my comment here [26]. At least three Russian sources (two of which are certainly reliable) claim about his imprisonment for 10 years as a well-known and indisputavle fact.Biophys (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, please feel free to ask me about such translations in the future. I would translate and evaluate reliability of the sources (as time allows), but I do not want to argue with Irpen and some others, since this is simply waste of time. They bring unreliable Soviet/Russian propaganda sources (such as writings by Krivosheev) and dismiss all reliable secondary Western sources as outdated (e.g. books by Robert Conquest in Holodomor article). That is why a majority of Russian history articles in WP are Soviet propaganda or total mess, and they will remain such forever. Happy editing, Biophys (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Digwuren

ArbCom are voting to apply discretionary sanctions across EE articles. Martintg (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

litvinenko assass

In the documentary that I linked you to on the apartment bombing page they speak about the assassination of litvinenko as well. I looked on the wikipedia page for litvinenko and I wondered why theres no information about the fact that radiation followed the main suspect around everywhere up to Russia. I don't know much about the case though, just noting it. - PietervHuis (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. This should be mentioned in the introduction and later. You are welcome to improve this article. As about your other questions... That massacre is well known, although I am not sure about the exact place. This needs to be better sourced. Both links are not quite reliable, although I would not dismiss them completly. I can find better sources in a couple weeks (too busy now). That place in the image is near the village of Dombay, first place I ever came to the mountains. Since then, I did a lot of hiking and mountaineering trips, some of them at Western and Central Caucasus - from Bezengi Wall to Krasnaya Polyana. However I have never been in Chechnya - not a good place for tourists (my friends had some trouble there).Biophys (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on TonB-dependent receptors

Don't you just hate when a protein doesn't get recognition for itself, but for the fact that it works with some other protein that was found first? I know I do....anyways, I've opened up a section for discussion since you disputed my merge of the receptor and plug domain articles. I'd appreciate getting your input. Thanks! ju66l3r (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I replied. May be I will try to improve this article in a couple of weeks.Biophys (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over Kosovo independence

This page is currently the subject of a deletion review. Those interested may participate in the discussion. While the discussion is in progress, this page may be edited, but do not blank, move, merge, redirect this page, or remove this notice from the page.

--Hereward77 (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Orlando Figes

Thanks for pointing this out to me. The protection had slipped my mind; of course, the danger of further BLP violations is greatly reduced now that significant time has passed. I have dropped the article back to semi-protection, which should automatically expire in about 2 months (though I hope to remember to check back before then and remove it if all is okay). - Mark 08:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will try to improve this article a little and put it on my watch list.Biophys (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan edits

I wanted to drop you a private line (as much as posting to a user talk page is "private") to point out that I think you are misunderstanding primary sources for citation versus secondary sources. While the wiki-policy governing this can be found here, the nutshell of the point is that you and I cannot cite outselves, as we are primary sources of information: I saw that band, I saw the car accident, I ate the last piece of pie. Secondary sources are of the observational (the band was seen) or notable (I am in the band). Anything that can be reliably, notably (observationally and) neutrally cited is a secondary source. As Gorby was able to be a part of the process that has since been discussed in books, he is notable because he was a part of those events. He is more notable than us, and therefore on equal (if not superior) footing with those who wrote about events that he personally participated.
I wanted to point out the mistake you were making here, so as not to embarrass you in the article discussion. If you have any questions about other wiki policies, please do not hesitate to ask. We are all in this together. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you taking about? I made around 12,000 edits here, and I know about WP:NOR. What I told at the article talk page was not my opinion at all. That was a summary of certain points made by Yegor Gaidar in his book (I provided some exact pages and can provide more). We usually do not cite directly the sources but provide summaries. This is all as usual. As about "Gorbi" (if he is relevant in Reagan article at all), he is a primary source about himself, however notable he is.Biophys (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing

Sure thing. Your Russian background should really help your case on those issues. My advice to you would be to take it slowly: I looked over your edit on Russian presidential election, 2008, and keeping in mind that the other user reverted it because he called it "conspiracy theories", I've come to the conclusion that your best bet is to get rid of the second half of the paragraph, leaving: "The fairness of the election, however, is disputed,[3][4] with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) boycotting the election because "the Kremlin refused to give its observers visas"[5]" The other is probably best left to the specific section as not to start a firestorm, and I would add it in there. Seeing as the "Election fairness" section is quite lengthy, your revison is in line with WP:LEAD, which recommends mentioning one thing from every section in the lead. Hope that helps, and thanks for your help with the Ronald Reagan article! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I'd check out some other articles that aren't watched constantly, like Soviet Union or some of it's sub-articles. That way, you can usually add material that goes unchallenged (and it seems like you are the kind of the guy that is truthful). --Hap

Thank you for advice!Biophys (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! Also, as the Reagan debate seems to be winding down, and we will (hopefully) be inserting content into the article soon, it is probably best if you start finding the exact page numbers in Gaider's book for everything we are citing it for. And doing so will also strengthen your arguments. Great job so far, Happyme22 (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. 1. Yegor Gaidar Collapse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia, Brookings Institution Press (October 17, 2007), ISBN 0-815-73114-0, Chapters 4.7 and 4.8. I suggest to cite pages 190-205 in Russian edition (ISBN 5-8243-0759-8). This is about all economic and political statements I cited.

2. Peter Schweizer Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union, 1994 (ISBN 0-87113-567-1). This is about agreement of Reagan with Saudis.Biophys (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I copied them over to the Reagan discussion page, where I have proposed yet another version. Thanks for all your help! Happyme22 (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Stop stalking me. From the Ronald Reagan article to the Russia article to the Second Chechen War to Terek Cossacks. What is your angle - do you want to start a war?--Miyokan (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming here to talk. Unfortunately we have a significant overlap of interests because we are both Russians - I mean the culture and the country of origin. All my non-science contributions in WP were about Russia-related subjects. I am also interested in US-Russia relations since I currently live in the US. But if you want to minimize our interaction, we can do that. I am mostly interested in subjects related to Russian/Soviet secret services, propaganda, and political repressions (and now would like also to contribute a little to Cold War subjects). If you and your friends (those who you recently sided with - the "barnstars", etc.) will not "interfere" with me on those subjects, I would also not "interfere" with your and their edits on any other subjects. "Not interfering" means not making any edits that you or me would object. Talking at the article talk pages or making non-controversial edits, which do not cause objections, are always welcome. Also, I will not edit any new articles that you and your friends would create, and vice versa. Is that acceptable?Biophys (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We both know that you didn't just suddenly decide to check the Ronald Reagan or Terek Cossacks articles. I don't see how the Russia, Second Chechen War, and Terek Cossacks articles relate to "Russian/Soviet secret services, propaganda, and political repressions". I cannot control my alleged "friends", we do not collaborate together. Also, you have your own "friends", (Pieter, Doopdoop, Happyme22). I generally do not interfere in your edits but lately you have been interfering in almost every one of my edits, now spreading to the Russia which is my main area of interest here and which I have invested a lot of effort in and completely overhauled. You do not see me on the Vladimir Putin or Russian apartment bombings articles, they do not interest me much, but if you want to continue antagonizing me I can come back there and then some.--Miyokan (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you do not want my good will offer? Your threat is understood. BTW, have you seen this nice video on youtube about Medvedev as "Shurik": Dmitri Medvedev: the beginning. I really enjoyed it.Biophys (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Fine, I can limit myself to talk page in article Russia if that is what you want.Biophys (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very clever.--Miyokan (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there's further proof, you just can't help yourself can you? I suppose it's beneficial for you to protect your "friends".--Miyokan (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your stalking accusations are unwarranted. I did not make a single edit in aricle Ronald Reagan, and I edited previously many articles about Second Chechen war and Cossacks, including Decossackization. A lot of things in this war and Cossack history are related to repressions in Russia/USSR.Biophys (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence speaks for itself. You showed up out of the blue on the talk page of the Ronald Reagan page where I was involved in a dispute. Your edits on the article came right after I edited them and usually consisted of reverting me. From the Ronald Reagan article to the Russia article to the Second Chechen War to Terek Cossacks. You showed up out of the blue immediately after I edited these articles, articles that you had either never even edited before or had not edited very long time.--Miyokan (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no any evidence. Anyone can check that I made zero edits in article Ronald Regan. At the article talk page, I made a few comments mostly about this article content, which is not WP:STALK.Biophys (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Miyokan should relax, as I explained it to him at his talk a couple of days ago. I am sure Biophys does not have time to do all the work he wants on the articles he already chose, let alone look for other people's articles. If he occasionally follows Miyokan, it is best to not make a big deal out of it. --Irpen 08:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Biophys (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is whether the editor is being followed to cause him annoyance (not allowed even if the edits of the stalker actually improve wikipedia), to make a WP:POINTy edit (never allowed), to correct problems due to the editor being a problematic one (eg. chronic copyvio uploader) (encouraged activity) or to satisfy one's curiosity (may be OK if not very persistent and kept in check).

For example, now one of my dedicated fans follows all my contribs to RfAdm and votes the opposite way "for spite". This obviously not only demonstrates a deliberate intention to annoy but also compromises the integrity of RfAdm (I hope when my faithful shadow reads this, s/he won't even try to go 'round complaining about ABF). This is indeed ridiculous and I feel sorry for the guy/girl.

Anyway, I have no problem with being checked with a good heart and my thoughts are full of condolences to the rest of my stalkers for their pity life with no family, friends, love or any joyful activity. I don't think any of that applies here. That said, Biophys may, as a gesture, be a little more forthcoming to Miyokan about his intentions, if Miyokan doubts them. --Irpen 00:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you would probably agree that participating in article talk pages to discuss articles content is not wikistalking? Of course everyone knows very well what everyone else edits - that is why we all have edit histories. I am ready to be more forthcoming as you recommend. In fact I stopped editing anything at all at articles Putin, Russia, and Russian Presidential elections, 2008, which were frequently edited by Miyokan and two his recent allies with less than 500 edits. If you can convince Miyokan to do the same with respect to articles I frequently edited - that would be very helpful. So far he is not forthcoming (you know what I am talking about). If both sides do not show good will, this is not going to work.Biophys (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that Biophy stalked me to a page that he's never edited in before as well, Aging of Europe, with the sole intent to revert my changes without justified cause (falsely accusing me of POV..). This was following a few minor disputes in other articles in which we were both editing. Krawndawg (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STALK refers to disruptive editing only. Edits made by Biophys are constructive and so WP:STALK does not apply. --Doopdoop (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STALK also refers to tendentious edits and we all know that many edits of Biophys are indeed tendentious. I do not think that on that stage there is any case for the administrative actions but I would advise all the sides to be cautious. It is very tempting if you have a conflict with a point of view of an editor to look into the history of his or her contributions and counter the POV. It is a sure way to elevate a small manageable conflict into something big, disruptive and requiring an administrative or arbcom attention. Please avoid this Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that most of the edits (and I haven't seen them all) by Biophys are not tendentious. While these edits sometimes add a POV, this POV is supported by many Western sources. Because NPOV policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly, it follows that edits made by Biophys improve the article by adding a missing POV that is required for NPOV presentation. --Doopdoop (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stop this discussion as too tendentious. First, Miokan comes and blames me of wikistalking without any serious proofs. Then Alex accuses me of tendentious editing, again without any proof. But this is not an appropriate place to discuss accusations and provide proofs. Thank you all for your participation and advice.Biophys (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't deny stalking me then? Great.

You can make tendentious edits while still providing sources, which is exactly what Biophys does. His edits all pertain to the exact same thing; trying to make Russia and its leadership look like terrible heartless baby eating criminals. The majority of his edits revolve around opinions and unproven accusations.

find an opinion or accusation against Russia
post it and say "LOL LOOK A SOURCE!"
repeat"

Is that type of editing really helpful to wikipedia? In my opinion, no. In my opinion, it's nothing but the blatant spreading of propaganda. Krawndawg (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you accuses me of propaganda "against Russia". To the contrary, I like Russian culture, and I am interested in Russian history and politics. But I mostly edit articles about human rights in Russia, Soviet secret services, terorism and some related subjects. Those things are not pretty. Hence your impression. But your impression is wrong. I usually use best secondary sources on these subjects, like books by notable historians.Biophys (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I notice you and Miyokan try to portray Russia and its leadership as the best country in the world. All these allegations are false, his edits are fine and he's often willing to compromise. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. This discussion here is pointless.Biophys (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC), except this [27]. Biophys (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you find out...

See Talk:Prussian Nights. I couldn't find an answer on the English Internet. PS. Through I did not think to save the exact refs when I was writing the articles, some stuff (available on Google Books) noted that the issue of Soviet war crimes in Germany is yet another area which was distorted by Soviet historiography (although to be fair, such topics are commonly distorted by all national historiographies). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not really know about this poem and could not find it so far. a library by Bukovski, but these are different materials... will try to find.Biophys (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at the article talk page. Biophys (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

from ZASDCXZ

THANK YOU Happy Easter, PASSOVER Thank you for patience with my mistakes zasdcxz

Thank you too.Biophys (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked through a few interesting articles in Russian wikipedia:

ru:Участник:Smirik/Критика Путина

ru:Террористические акты в период президентства Владимира Путина

ru:Gunvor

ru:Работа Владимира Путина в органах власти Санкт-Петербурга (Ленинграда)

ru:Президентство Владимира Путина

ru:Выборы Президента России (2008)...Biophys (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ru:Государственная пропаганда в России Biophys (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing but surprising ?

Remember the quotes in Russian Election article, by Andreas Gross from PACE ? Amusing that non-Russia newspaper gives a different quote.--Molobo (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles about Russian elections-2008 are ridiculously unbalanced. One should include there a story about prosecution of all potential oppositioners prior to these elections to clean up the way for Medvedev.Biophys (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested

Political cleansing, Political cleansing of population. I guess this topic is of interest to you. Some smart-assess already try to delete it as "nonnotable neologism". `'Míkka >t 06:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. This is a good disambing page. But I guess this is not an issue any more, since you have removed the "Prod".Biophys (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Nuclear terrorism

Category:Nuclear terrorism, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification. Why did not you tell me first as a courtesy? Then I would had some time to improve this.Biophys (talk)

Human rights in Russia

The comment that I posted to the talk page was actually expressing the concerns of [[::User:81.154.142.49|81.154.142.49]] ([[::User talk:81.154.142.49|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/81.154.142.49|contribs]]), who had posted it in the body of the article. You may want to follow up with him.

Normally I'd be happy to help mediate things between you and ellol. At the moment, though, I'm very busy in real-life and probably wouldn't be able to do the matter justice. I recommend the fine folks over at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Canderson7 ^(talk) 02:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought that was your comment. Thank you for your advice, but I am too busy with other things at the moment.Biophys (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protein structure databases

Take a look if you have time, and let me know what you think. Would you have time to create a simple comparison table? Cheers, --Dan|^(talk) 22:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bombing suspects

I've established all the backgrounds and ethnicities of the terrorist suspects for the apartment bombings. It appears none of them were Chechen[28] and they were all russian citizens List of people allegedly involved in Russian apartment bombings (see how I added the ethnicities of the suspects).

So how did that work? In the introduction of both the apartment bombings page and the 2nd chechen war page it says "chechens were blamed", but in the end none of their named suspects was chechen!? In which way did they blame chechens for the bombings, can you find a source of a statement by officials about that? Cheers. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for work with these articles. Yes, the Chechens were blamed immediately, hundreds of them arrested in Moscow, military operations against Chechnya began immediately, and all of that without any investigation. But wait a minute... As written in the "Bombings" article, "Just a few days after the bombings, on September 23, the head of Moscow FSB Alexander Tsarenko announced that all Chechen perpetrators had been already apprehended. However, the people mentioned by Tsarenko turned out to be not Chechens but from Ingushetia and were later released as not having any relation to the explosions.". But that is not all. As you are telling, all other suspects and convicts also were not Chechens (and perhaps this should be reflected better in the article). But does it really matters? No, it does not. What does matter is propaganda. If TV in Russia tells the perpetrators were Chechens, everyone believes it.Biophys (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Popkov (also Gordievsky)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arbi_Barayev#Viktor_Popkov

Also guess you'd be interested in this.--84.234.60.154 (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at the article talk page. Perhaps you missed that, but according to Novaya Gazeta, "Agents of special services are among organizers of Politkovskaya assassination. However someone saves them by disclosing secret materials of the criminal case". ^[2]. The traces of the killer lead to a gang that was led in the past by Maxim Lazovsky ^[2], an FSB officer who allegedly organized a bombing in Moscow in 1994 and was later involved in Russian apartment bombings ^[3] . Biophys (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the Beslan page you added "On the third day of the standoff, Russian security forces stormed the building using tanks, thermobaric rockets and other heavy weapons.[5]"

I believe it, but is this already an undisputed fact? I thought there were many versions of the events, or does this not have any doubt? - PietervHuis (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously they stormed the building. What weapons did they use was described in this section. Perhaps there was in the past a controversy what caused the first blast, but I do not see any disputes with regard to types of weapons used by Russian forces.Biophys (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok it's fine then, thanks. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the pointers on War crimes. Have left an apology note at the discussion page. Prashanthns (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deletions of old talk pages

Hi! I am not deleting talkpages with any content at all; see the recent exchange between myself and Baseball Bugs here and here for the boring, technical explanation. east.718 at 12:20, April 13, 2008

Copyright

Hello. You recently reverted a series of edits that I made in the Second Chechen War article. It seems you are unaware of how copyright laws work, and how copyright policy works on wikipedia. Please see this FAQ for a better understanding. It says: "The fair use clause of copyright law is much more liberal with regard to text. Facts cannot be copyrighted, and limited use of copyrighted material can be done without requiring permission from the rights holders for such things as scholarship and review. Don't copy entire paragraphs from news stories, for example - that's way beyond what is allowed."

If you check my edits, there were no copied paragraphs from sources, only sentences and collective facts. You also reverted a number of other changes that were not related to that at all. Please be more careful when reverting in the future and make yourself more aware of policies before disrupting the flow of useful information. Thank you and happy editing. LokiiT (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LokiiT, its best not to even copy sentences into articles. There lies a slippery slope to even more more sentences being taken. I would suggest re wording them all and leaving the source. Since you have reverted 3 times aperently you obviously have the time to do it. Would this not solve all of the probloms? БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 04:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BonesBrigade. I'm not sure what you mean I reverted three times, I reverted only twice, and I believe the initial removal of that paragraph was a mistake anyways. But I will take your advice and reword the paragraph. Thanks for your input! LokiiT (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LokiiT, please see my reply on your talk page.Biophys (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know for a fact I have broken no copyright laws nor have I broken any policies. But please, if you think I'm wrong do not hesitate to report me! I am no lawyer after all. LokiiT (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, and I am not going to report this incident. I only warned you because you appear to be a new user (are you?). Some users do not know this and get in trouble.Biophys (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novaya

More about Novaya's research into the assassination [29]

This is dated May 24, 2007. This is probably old Baisarov story (see this), possibly a fake.Biophys (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better look this. Biophys (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may also find this and this interesting. Biophys (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This guy was also suspect for a while[30] - PietervHuis (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this R Physicist?

I may have thought you had already commented. Sorry about that and thanks for bringing it up. I put your comment back on the project page. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was surprised by such heated discussion of an insignificant scientific article.Biophys (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, taken aback, it's utterly un-notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Political repression in Czechoslovakia

I have nominated Category:Political repression in Czechoslovakia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 22:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, let's delete it as an underpopulated category.Biophys (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reply

No problem, and I agree that it's always good to be as forthcoming as possible. Hypnosifl (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help

Thank you Biophys for all your help with the nuclear winter article. I personally don't think any more information will satisfy either of them over there. I'm a little too new at this to know exactly what to do from this point. I guess I'm just going to stop for now. You've helped out immensely and at the least I've learned a lot about how wikipedia can be very biased as long as enough people have the same view and that I should check the discussion pages whenever referencing an article. At least I was able to successfully add content to A-5 Vigilante in my time here. Thank you again. :) HommieDaKlown (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What subjects are you interested in? Please feel free to ask any questions. Some topics one can edit without any problems; some people here are really nice; but some articles are collectively "owned" by a group of users, which is against WP:OWN policy.Biophys (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you do not know, there is WP:Dispute resolution process. If you want, you can bring there your dispute with Nuclear winter article. I just did not want to do this myself - it takes too much time.Biophys (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are also things like that, but this is far beyond a problem with one article.Biophys (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Pete Earley seems to be a very interesting author[31],[32], [33] [34], [35]Biophys (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

Just want to draw your attention that some ostensible new-comers (i amnot quite sure they really are) have recently started to turn Putin's intro section into a cherry-picked glossed-over and grossly un-NPOV version of the article.Muscovite99 (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I had a lot of trouble with this newcomer in other articles. Putin will stay forever. He only needs to legalize his billions.Biophys (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert to unreliable sources

I must ask that you refrain from reverting contentious material sourced only to polemic right-wing Web sites which are in no way considered to be reliable sources. FCYTravis (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any explanations why this particular source is unreliable per WP:Verifiability?Biophys (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a polemic right-wing Web site run by someone who is noted for making things up to fit his "vast left-wing conspiracy" view of the world. It's unacceptable to source anything except for DTN's opinions to DTN. Find good sources for this material, such as non-polemic newspapers, magazines, academic journals, Soros' own Web site, etc. Using DTN is like using whitehouse.org as a source for attacks on Republicans. FCYTravis (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue this discussion at the talk page of List of projects supported by George Soros.Biophys (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

communist propagandist in "October Revolution" article

See Talk:October Revolution and other edits of this editor. `'Míkka >t 06:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see that. Your suggestions? Biophys (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor genocide question

Hi - you recently added a section to this article titled 'Russian position'. You may not have noticed that there was a section "Russian position on the Holodomor Genocide" which is sort of a summary of your section. Could you reconcile these sections and use the best of both. Thanks Bobanni (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please correct yourself whatever you think should be corrected? I have no objections to reduce or modify this.Biophys (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vasili Mitrokhin

your recent change to Vasili Mitrokhin states he never served as an intelligence officer and you therefore remove the "spy" categories.

The article itself however contradicts this, explaining how he served both abroad and under cover (see Vasili_Mitrokhin#Military).
It also strikes me that his smuggling of material and then defecting to the West is by itself pretty much counts as being a spy of iteself...
It is common for people to think of Cold War defectors as spies (especially KGB officers); even if the above 2 points didn't apply, i would say that an overly prescriptive/pedantic definition of a spy is unnecessary, IMHO, to helping people find information.

Keen to return the categories.r (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting me.Biophys (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, the system works! Glad i wrote rather than rudely revert. Thanks. r (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arb

The violations were noted by Travb, not Giovanni33. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really familiar with this story, but the comment was signed by Giovanni33 [36]. "Users who endorse" - Giovanni33, and I do not seen any other signatures there.Biophys (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because Travb wrote it and Giovanni endorsed. Its also why you have the comment below Giovanni's name, because he endorsed before Travb finished updating. --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Understood. I have corrected my statement.Biophys (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian Revolution of 1918

Hi, thanks for voting. But Ukrainian Revolution of 1918 is a copy-paste duplicate of Makhnovism (apart from leaving out the POV tags), so I don't think a vote to merge or keep makes sense. Please have another look and reconsider your vote. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-05-03 03:00 z

I have checked. This is not an exact copy.Biophys (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're right. Would you be willing to merge this article into Makhnovism right away? The differences are minor, so it shouldn't be much work, and I'm sure it will improve the other article. That would clear the way for deleting the content fork at Ukrainian Revolution of 1918.

Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-05-03 07:49 z

I think Makhnovism should be deleted but this article kept.Biophys (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 23:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Unfortunately, I do not know this user well enough. So, I would rather follow "wait and see" approach for now.Biophys (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet troll squads

I found this fascinating. Since the only reasons given here were "I dont like it" or bad title, I am curious as to why you don't recreate it with a different, more acceptable name? Ostap 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is article Internet brigades.Biophys (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC) See these userboxes [37] and [38]. There are others like that.Biophys (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I find this very interesting and thought provoking. Ostap 21:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you can read Russian, also look here (a claim about "CHK-Pedia"). They did not post anything though.Biophys (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles there - links on the left, for example this one, a well known story by a Chekist writer from 1920s. Author was executed of course.Biophys (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you might look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying case.Biophys (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THANK you!

Thanks for restoring Putin's birthday ([39]). Kulikovsky (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union and India

Find some reliable sources and feel free to create an article titled KGB operations in India. However I will like to remind you one thing that during the Cold War, India was one of the closest ally of the Soviet Union within the Non-Aligned Movement. India had close military ties with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was the largest arms supplier to India and till date majority of the weapons of the Indian Army, the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy are Soviet build. The backbone of the Indian Air Force is aircrafts built by Mikoyan. During the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, the Soviet Union openly supported India and the Soviet Navy dispatched two groups of ships, armed with nuclear missiles to protect India from any possible American aggression. R&AW and KGB closely operated to counter CIA and ISI. During the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, India openly supported the Soviet Union. Till date, Indian politicians prefer Russian weapons over American weapons and during Putin's rule, India and Russia jointly developed the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile. The Sukhoi Su-30MKI is one of the most modern aircraft jointly built by India and Russia. Cheers. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree with everything you are talking about, but I am not going to create such article right now.Biophys (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Methinks, you could contribute some here [40].Muscovite99 (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend you not to be involved in a prolonged two-sided discussion at WP:ANI. If you look at my block log, I was blocked first time for a dispute there.Biophys (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what i said; No discussion with him there or anywhere. The guy is just a hoodlum.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An admin (see WP:ANI) called this "a content dispute". So, be it.Biophys (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC). This user and User:Sbw01f are promoting some questionable statistical data, which were probably doctored in Russia and sent to UN (Russia has 12 time less rapes than Canada - see Crime in Russia), and tendentious representation of these data (especially in maps by User:Sbw01f). For example, the cutoffs at GDP maps were chosen to show that Russia and Canada fell into the same category. See maps in List of countries by GDP (nominal) and in other similar articles.Biophys (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's some interesting detective work. FYI that rape statistic is reported rapes. All of Russia crime data is low for that period (late 90s). All that proves is that law enforcement in Russia was ineffective back then, which I don't think you will deny. And for the GDP maps, only one (out of 5 or 6) shows Canada and Russia in the same category. Then again, maybe I'm a KGB agent and so is sbw0lf. And maybe you're being payed by Berezovsky! It's a conspiracy! Krawndawg (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You said", see the Gospel of Matthew.Biophys (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA wow, why didn't someone show me this earlier. Paranoid much? For your information, Russia and Canada don't fall into the same category in any of the economic maps I've made except the above/below average one. Sbw01f (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I've appreciated some of the thoughtful and perceptive contributions you have made recently in relation to nuclear issues. Look forward to hearing more from you when you are back from wikibreak... Johnfos (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About "Racism in modern Russia. Hostility towards Caucasians/Muslims"

You ve deleted my changes ( I mean "Caucasophobia" " Russian-georgian conflict").Explain please.--MPB-152 (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that edit? I did not delete anything.Biophys (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Kulikovsky has been deleting my edits and references against wikipedia rules. Samstayton (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to Ostap at this talk page.Biophys (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Encyclopedias reliable?

Perhaps you could comment here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried, but my comments were hardly of any help.Biophys (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Garry Kasparov - New York 2003 .png

I've posted my objections to this image on Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_June_8#Image:Garry_Kasparov_-_New_York_2003_.png. I'd be happy if you would comment there. In the mean time, it might be helpful to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information about what exactly I am objecting to about the copyright status on this image. According to Jimbo Wales, we are to shoot first and ask questions later when it comes to media with dubious copyright status. I'm not going to delete the image, but I am going to remove it from the article until we can get clear authorization from the copyright holder to release it under the GFDL -- which we currently don't have. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A dispute

Would you deal with this person plz? Kthx. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I can see. This user is simply coming through various articles you have edited previously and reverts all your good faith edits as in this example. This is unacceptable.Biophys (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Please stay cool and do not make any uncivil comments.Biophys (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Please do not revert him more than one time in a single article. This all seems to be planned.Biophys (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user appears from nowhere and deletes specifically all your contributions in a number of articles. Why? Grubaya rabota, "ushi torchat" - as they speak. Now someone is watching and will report you to WP:ANI after next incident. You know the rest.Biophys (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Bentley

Do you have an opinion on other changes made by the person who removed the referenced material at Elizabeth Bentley:

Here at William Remington
Here at G. David Schine

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will look. I do not like when people remove citations from footnotes. It is better to have more verification, not less. We have a lot of materials that are completely unsourced. So, removing existing and relevant citations is not the most productive way to improve WP.Biophys (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to comment on the talk page of Lizzie Borden, it also concerns the formatting of references, and the placement of information in the article. I am a scientists also. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:INTERPRO

A tag has been placed on Template:INTERPRO requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling. It was intended for articles like Rhodopsin-like receptors. It is better to use a template rather than direct links (see a lot of links that begin from "IPR..." in Rhodopsin-like receptors). You are welcome to delete it, since no one uses it. Anyone can recreate this template if needed.Biophys (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

Have you seen this tool? Colchicum (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Thank you! That is enormously helpful. Now I can see what is important. Any suggestions about improvements of specific articles?Biophys (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix Anatoly Chubais? It is an important article and is a complete crap. I have started rewriting it but do not have time. I found it is wrong that Vladimir Kvachkov is longer than Chubais. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is really bad. Maybe later.Biophys (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His article is bad because no one likes Chubais (me including). As Yeltsyn said: "It is Chubais who is guilty". I opened book "Age of assassins" and found (page 270) citation of a note by criminal investigators from St. Petersburg made in 1997:

"We have obtained evidence of crimes - the use of an official position fro private purposes - committed by Putin, one of high-ranking officials in the president's [Yeltsin] administration, a member of the Chubais team".Biophys (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be a praise nor an attack piece. It should be informative though Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I will try to do something later. This is just to note that he was a strong supporter of Putin.Biophys (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few redlinks Mikhail Manevich, Valentin Yumashev, etc. As a biologist would you be interested in writing Natalia Bekhtereva? If you like the theme of KGB-Runet connections you might be interested in Nitkon (see [41]) Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tool counts the popularity of red links as well, by the way. Though I am not sure that it is helpful, because I think most people don't click on them. Colchicum (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Biophys (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Life in Putin's Russia. Biophys (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I am sick of WP. Better do something in real life.Biophys (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List_of_Soviet_agents_in_the_United_States#All red links should be sourced in the list

Have you finished referencing the redlinks in the list? Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not me who originally created this article. I deleted some of the names and sourced some. That was good faith work. So far, there was no cases when a name in this article could not be sourced. Unfortunately, I do not have any time to waste it on Russian NKVD agents. If you want to improve this article, you know what to do. Thank you for reminder. Biophys (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe I can eventually source this, but working in a hurry does not produce good articles, as you can see.Biophys (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Bursler

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Norman Bursler, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Norman_Bursler&printable=yes. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to operate under GNU Free Documentation License, exactly as wikipedia. Al least they claim so. Of course, I am not a layer. Biophys (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cold War

Hi - I thought this might be of some interest to you. One area you might want to expand is the influence of Solzhenitsyn on the Cold War (and human rights/Helsinki in general); also, the space race and scientific competition is only mentioned (Sputnik specifically, but no mention of the moon landing) - perhaps also areas you may wish to look into. Still, overall it's quite good, I think. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few random comments just to start from something. There are many more.Biophys (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I appreciate it. I'll look into the points you raised and see what I can come up with. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, on the Korea/Vietnam point, here's the situation. Plenty of sources say there was no direct military engagement. And depending on how you define that, it may be accurate. However, the Soviet role in both Korea and Vietnam was probably big enough that it merits a footnote. Here's what I found: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. Would you like to use these sources to write a footnote? Something like: "While no full-blown shooting war ever took place between the superpowers, Soviet involvement in Korea and possibly Vietnam saw direct clashes with American forces. In Korea, Soviet pilots engaged in every major air battle from 1950 on and inflicted heavy casualties on US/UN air units.^[1] In Vietnam, the Soviets provided weapons, advisors and ground-based air defense personnel".^[2] (Or: "The Soviets sent around 1000 pilots and additional aviation support personnel to North Vietnam, where they often sortied against American aircraft conducting air strikes".^[3]) How does that sound? Biruitorul ^Talk 20:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should keep in mind that the involvement of Soviet air forces (actually all "Korean" air forces were Soviet) was an important factor of this war. That was the only war after WW II when US had no air superiority. The beginning of the war was ordered personally by Stalin, and the war ended the day he died. Sorry, I have an urgent work this summer, and can not do anything serious here.Biophys (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I'll propose it on the talk page. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RS and Red Scare articles removing quote again

As I said in our last conversation, arguing about quotes in footnotes at one article serves no purpose. When consensus is reached at one article, RedSpruce moves to another article. We are now here. What is your opinion? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. That was an obvious WP:DE by RS. Such deletions served no purpose except disrupting your productive work in WP.Biophys (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, could you please look at List of Soviet agents in the United States and make corrections if needed?Biophys (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the list, we still can't find the full date of birth for Frank Coe, any suggestions? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have added two more biographies, oddly both stubs were deleted as BLP violations even though both were long dead. I was able to get the single sentence biographies from Conservapedia and expand them. See William Ward Pigman and Joseph Benjamin Stenbuck --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Which articles have been deleted? I think you are doing good work here.Biophys (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I will watch this.Biophys (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[48]. Biophys (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did it only once

I deleted other user's comments only once, and that was because he spoke provocational opinions not having to do anything with the article. He was asked by few people to stop it. I was explained before when i did the same mistake once that Wilipedia talk pages are not political forums and are ment for discussion only on the articles content. Log in, log out (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just keep this in mind.Biophys (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet brigades

While the first time I voted to keep this article, now unfortunately I have to change my opinion, since over the time the article failed to substantiate itself as a new concept. By no means this is a disrespect to your contributions to wikipedia. A suggection for a better place for the information you collected in described in my nomination. Mukadderat (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you suggest renaming of an article, you should not nominate it for deletion.Biophys (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest splitting it into several ones. Well-knownn Chinese govt intervention in internet has little in common with alleged russian "web brigades" Mukadderat (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is exactly the difference? They seem to be the same, as has been confirmed by users from China during previous AfD discussion. Perhaps the inclusion of CIA was questionable, but this should be established by consensus. So far, all three people who discussed the matter had come to an agreement that, yes, they belong there, and I do not see objections at the article talk page.Biophys (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not reverting you last time. I was reverting an occasional editor who jumped into the revert war: from false accusation in his edit summary I concluded that he has no idea what's happening here. I do believe that your information is useful, but I also continue to believe that it is badly misplaced. Mukadderat (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise approach

I have a suggestion of a compromise solution as follows

The article renames into Web brigades, which is a direct translation of the russian term.
The major content is about Russian issues.
Other countries are described in a section titled as, e.g., "Similar developments outside Russia". In this way you will avoid resorting to conclusions and generalizations, just presentation of facts, hence no OR.
Do not use the term "web brigades" for non-russian topics.

In this way you avoid all major objections: OR, WP:SYNTH and neologism. Since the phenomenon is definitely notable and expected, I am sure sooner or later articles in academic sources will appear and probably a good term will be introduced. When this happens and many content will be available, the topic will be split into per-country sub-articles, with one summary main article. Mukadderat (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we have a content disagreement here. This is very common situation. But such problems are not resolved by nominating an article for deletion, per WP rules. If you withdraw your AfD nomination, I am very open to discuss any issues.Biophys (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No; we have subject disagreement here. Internet brigades is your neologism. Russian term is web brigades. Your page was original synthesis from all over the world, which must be deleted. I insist the article restricted only to verified domain of the term application as supported by citations: Russia. I find it strange you don't want to start a new article strictly following wikipedia rules. Hey, you may even nominate it at WP:DYK as a new article! Mukadderat (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New guideline

Looks like we could use a WP:IDONTLIKEBIOPHYS page. Ostap 00:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I do not have megalomania. Let's call this simply IDONTLIKE Internet brigades page. You may also look at previous AfD of this article and its edit history.Biophys (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad deeds of the fathers...

You have been drawn back into the discussion in the Talk:Continuation War. (And permabanned User:Art Dominique seems to be back.) --Whiskey (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly courtesy notice to you, user Biophys: The history pages show that user Whiskey has a track record of providing false information on the Wikipedia pages.

He seems to feed you with false information as well. In contrary to user Whiskey's claim, there appears to be no record of such a user ever to have been 'permabanned' nor 'banned' from contributing on this topic, nor is there any record of that name appearing as a contributor under this topic either.

However, I spoke to two users who had participated on the discussions on the Continuation War Talk page, opposing false information provided by user Whiskey (Illythr). These users in question were banned for being puppet accounts of someone else's, although they were not, and although they had never even been in touch with each other in any form, prior to their bandings.

Those Wikipedia users have volunteered to talk to Wikipedia administrators to clear their cases, so that no other Wikipedia users would be accused of being them. I have their contact information available.

Dimitri Karpov (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will look. Actually, I only made a couple of comments at this article talk page. One of users inserted information that might be true but was not supported by any sources.Biophys (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it seems you are this user, although I am not going to prove anything. You must provide all sources as required by WP:Verifiability. All unsourced controversial information will be deleted.Biophys (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet in Putin’s Russia: Reinventing a Technology of Authoritarianism

Found this reference on the net. Did you heard or read about it ?

Also this might be useful [49] --Molobo (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This is a good source on Internet censorship in general. I am glad that you was unblocked. Hope to see you around.Biophys (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)here.Biophys (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Width of infobox generated by Infobox Law enforcement agency template

Please have a relook at some of the {{Infobox Law enforcement agency}} templated articles you have concerns about the width of the infobox in, setting a new parameter

| narrowerbox = Yes

and let me know what you think at Template talk:Infobox Law enforcement agency#A request.

I have not updated the template doc yet, until I can give you something along the lines of what you prefer.

Please note that making the infobox narrower will make it longer, as text get wrapped. Bit, I might also try auto reducing font sizes . . .

Regards. Peet Ern (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied. Good work!Biophys (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Ya Hendrik Lorentz was awesome, not just because of what he did but also because he always had a smile on his face. I'll re-add the collage sometime soon although I don't want to get into an edit war dispute with the guy who now thinks a picture of middle-aged poorly dressed random people is better. I just got back from a roadtrip all the way to yugoslavia (croatia/montenegro) so I haven't seen your edits yet, but I'm glad you and the Captain Obvious are still active. After a while wikipedia can get very boring and you can't find the pleasure in making edits, but then you just take a break.

PS. I would like to inform you that you are allowed to remove messages from your talk page. People aren't allowed to restore them WP:DRC but you seem to have had the idea that you may not delete them yourself. Not that you have to of course, you can also create an archive of your talk page or leave it like this but it gets bigger every day. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! What do you think about this? Biophys (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the famous circle of Russian patriots are pulling out Russian sources and insulting me with my weak knowledge of the Russian language you might be helpful at Chechens (as you're fluent). - PietervHuis (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It already eased down, but I'd love to know, how well sourced is that Russian wikipedia article on supposed "ethnic cleansing"? From what I've read this is far from proven and often used as propaganda. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at the article talk page. My best suggestions: (1) do not write anything about "genocide of Russians" (even though the genocide of Russian perhaps has been accomplished by the communists); (2) do not even discuss anything about "genocide of Russians" - this is waste of time; (3) use only books by notable historians if you still want to write anything about any genocides. P.S. I will be out of town during a part of next week.Biophys (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media freedom in Russia

I tried to rewrite the intro/lead of the Media freedom in Russia article but since I'm more interested in Ukraine my knowledge is not so big. The original lead was a bich of non-information + 1 soapboxing statment. It's hard to believe that some Russian editors believe there helping there country by downplaying things that are wrong in there country. I contected you since your edit's make sence! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Paul J. Saunders. "Russian Villain or Hero?". Washington Times. Retrieved 2008-01-29.
^ ^a ^b Agents of special services are among organizers of Politkovskaya assassination. However someone saves them by disclosing secret materials of the criminal case by Sergei Sokolov, 06.04.2008
^ Yuri Felshtinsky and Vladimir Pribylovsky) The Age of Assassins. The Rise and Rise of Vladimir Putin, Gibson Square Books, London, 2008, ISBN 190-614207-6;

[1] Paul J. Saunders. "Russian Villain or Hero?". Washington Times. Retrieved 2008-01-29.

[Agents-2] Agents of special services are among organizers of Politkovskaya assassination. However someone saves them by disclosing secret materials of the criminal case by Sergei Sokolov, 06.04.2008

[Assassins-3] Yuri Felshtinsky and Vladimir Pribylovsky) The Age of Assassins. The Rise and Rise of Vladimir Putin, Gibson Square Books, London, 2008, ISBN 190-614207-6;

[1]

[2]

[3]

Revision as of 22:56, 13 July 2008 edit Yulia Romero (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 67,555 edits →‎Hey ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:59, 13 July 2008 edit undo Yulia Romero (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 67,555 edits m →‎Media freedom in Russia Next edit →
Line 726:		Line 726:

	==[[Media freedom in Russia]]==		==[[Media freedom in Russia]]==
	I tried to rewrite the intro/lead of the [[Media freedom in Russia]] article but since I'm more interested in Ukraine my knowledge is not so big. The original lead was a bich of non-information + 1 soapboxing statment. It's hard to believe that some Russian editors believe there helping there country by downplaying things that are wrong in there country. I contected ~~your~~ since ~~you~~ edit's make sence! [[User:Mariah-Yulia\|Mariah-Yulia]] ([[User talk:Mariah-Yulia\|talk]]) 22:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)		I tried to rewrite the intro/lead of the [[Media freedom in Russia]] article but since I'm more interested in Ukraine my knowledge is not so big. The original lead was a bich of non-information + 1 soapboxing statment. It's hard to believe that some Russian editors believe there helping there country by downplaying things that are wrong in there country. I contected you since your edit's make sence! [[User:Mariah-Yulia\|Mariah-Yulia]] ([[User talk:Mariah-Yulia\|talk]]) 22:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)