User talk:Alex Bakharev/Archive23

Tomb of the unknown rapist

I have gained some new insight into the problems with Eastern European subjects. It seems to me that there exist an almost limitless amount of sources for what I would call hate speech. On the other hand Wikipedia is not censored and all material that can be sourced with "reliable sources" can be included. The problems arise when editors want to include their favorite part of this hateful material in Wikipedia. I do not think all, or in fact any, of this material should be included in Wikipedia. If we allow it, we will just fight each other to death, or be all banned from Wikipedia.

I did something dangerously bold today. I created a new template {{Hate}} for marking content that may contain hate speech or that may be seen as offensive to some nationality or ethnic group. The intent is to invite less involved editors to review the text and search for neutral expressions without loosing the factual content. The first article marked is Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park). All the marked article are now in the hidden category Category:All articles with possible hate speech. At present this is just a bold experiment, the technical details are still missing. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Seems like a great idea to me! BTW I have started Wikipedia:Ethnic_and_cultural_conflicts_noticeboard#Pejoratives_for_the_Soviet_War_Memorial_.28Treptower_Park.29 section trying to do exactly this - to get help from the neutral people to solve the particular rapist problem Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I've also asked an uninvolved admin to look at this. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Alex, given that Petri Krohn runs a blog site (use Google translate) that publishes what many consider to be archetypical hate speech that is offensive to a particular nationality or ethnic group, in this case Estonian, I don't think he is well qualified to judge. This template should be speedy deleted (under either G10 or T2), as it is inflammatory and would constitute a personal attack to label someone's presumably good faith edits as "hate speech" via this tag. Martintg (talk) 10:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Petri, please note that you are under no obligation to confirm nor deny if this blog is yours or not. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You are kidding right? Just scroll down the blog site to see who the participants are, written in black and white: "Petri Krohn". Martintg (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ever hear of WP:OUTING? I was banned for 2 weeks for allegedly partaking in this activity. Why should it be any different here? You are walking on a thin wire here Martin. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, you are now technically in breach of general provisions of the Digwuren arbcom, in which it is clearly stated: 8) All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. This applies both to the parties to this case as well as to any other editor that may choose to engage in such conduct.. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As Alex is well aware, the nature of Krohn's blog and what it reveals about his true sentiment has been previously aired on WP:AE. Martintg (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the latest entries in the Petri Krohn-Leena Hietanen blog is entitled 'Estonian Fascism in Finland'. This title perhaps makes Alex recall some booklets in Russia during the 1990s, e.g. 'Yevreyskiy fashizm v Rossii' etc. Curiously, the anti-Estonian tandem seems to list Iivi Masso as one of the evil Estonian fascists - rather surprising, given which politically correct lefty she used to be. Well, perhaps her travels in Finland have broadened her mind :). --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, risking violating WP:BEAN I should note that anybody could start a blog signing as Alex Bakharev, Miacek, Marting, Russavia or Vladimir Putin. Usually, we check facts the other way whether somebody logged as wikieditor recognizes a blog like his. At any rate unlike wikipedia articles blogs are not suppose to be neutral. Many people express in their blogs extreme or even trollish viewpoints but still are able to contribute in neutral manner to the mainspace articles. If we ban all people expressing unusual viewpoints from wikipedia not many editors would left. I, personally, for banning people involved into vicious offwiki attacks on wikieditors but even this is condered controversial, the consensus being that that said offwiki stays off wiki. I was not able to fully understand the Fvirolainen-fasismi-suomessa article on the blogspot even with Google's help but it does not seem to attack wikieditors. We also have Russian Fascism disambig and no users have problems with it Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment

Geez Sasha, when I went to edit your talk page earlier, it said it is almost 300k in size. You probably should do some archiving here ;) You can always have a bot do it, ya know?! --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Done Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

File:BelalakayaKarach.jpg

Western Caucasus

Happy editing in the coming New Year!Biophys (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot! And all the best for you in the 2009 as well (I have returned to my desk only now, so being a little bit late) Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nazi crimes in Estonia

Sorry to be here again, but could you have a look at this: Nazi crimes in Estonia. I already took up the issue at User talk:Lucasbfr#Nazi crimes in Estonia, but I know my Wikipedia friends would love to come and chat about it here too. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well the article was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user, so the deletion was legit. If you want to check the article for possible POV and inaccuracies I could restore it to your userspace. When you finish you can move it back to the main space. is it a good idea? Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A claim has been made that Poetcourt1 (talk · contribs) and Belarus2 (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of Roobit (talk · contribs). Until today I had no way of knowing if this claim was true or not. I could not figure out who this sockmaster could be. Roobit admits that he writes from Estonia, as do the two socks, but denies being the sockmaster. The issue was finally solved today, Partisan1 (talk · contribs) is now claimed to be a sockpuppet of Bloomfield (talk · contribs). At the same time it seems clear that Poetcourt1, Belarus2, and Partisan1 are the same person. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I have somehow lost the plot about this article. The article was deleted as a POV fork, not because the subject is not notable, etc. I could restore it and make a redirect and you can pick it up from there. Is it good? Or I could restore it to your (or Bloomfield's) userspace, you could edit it there and move to the mainspace then the article is ready. Is it a good proposal? Alex Bakharev (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is moot. The article was recreated as Holocaust in Estonia - now a terrible mess. The issue I want cleared is wheather it is right to accuse Roobit for Bloomfield's socks. I now see that there is a related discussion going on at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Long-term socks & evasion of accountability, but I do not know how to proceed. Besides, all of this banning / sockpuppet accustion business seems to be politically motivated, and I do not think I want to get involved. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not know what to do about it. Roobit was blocked by Moreschi for soapboxing and POV-pushing not for sockpuppeting. So even if the puppets are not his the reasons for block would stay. Personally I would never block anybody indefinitely for the first soapboxing/pov-pushing offense, but Moreschi seems to have different rules on the matter Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The account User:Roobit has (so far) been the worst soap-boxer and troll I've ever encountered here on wiki. He was indeed blocked for once and for all by Moreschi, since no other sysop had had the guts to take any action (although Roobit had been reported numerous times). Nazi-style nationalist hatred accounts should have no place in Wikipedia. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. Roobit may have had foul mouth, but his efficacy was quite limited, and his attention was usually focused to two or three articles at a time. There have been trolls who have been actively, in near real-time, attacking dozens of articles at once. There have also been more prolific hoaxter soapboxers than Roobit.

Note that disagreement is only about the relative worseness of Roobit and certain other editors. I completely agree that Roobit's place is not here. 12:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Rest assured, Roobit had a long history. It's not like Moreschi banned him on the first offence; not like that at all. You see, Wikipedia has a policy: foul-mouthed newbies are not to be bitten. Only those newbies who will play nice and won't even as much as bark back can be bitten, or in some cases, banned. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Alex Bakharev, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again Alex (Brandtner), YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, Blinguen! The best wishes for you in 2009 as well. Sorry for being anachronistic, just returned from holidays Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Bulul1.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Bulul1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC) --Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The 50 DYK Medal

		The 50 DYK Medal
		Thank you for your many contributions to DYK. Yevgeny Ukhnalyov is especially interesting, and the image gallery is a nice touch. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! I have pasted the medal to my userpageAlex Bakharev (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Spelling

Excuse me, but you just left a message to me, about changing British Spelling to Incorrect Spelling. I think you may have got it wrong, as I didn't edit anything today/along those lines. thanks -86.138.11.93 (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Alex, I've left a msg for the IP user advising them to register to avoid seeing messages from 2007. And can you please archive your talk page when you get back from holidays. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 18:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

List of heroes

Hey Sasha, with List of Heroes of the Russian Federation (under development still in my userspace at User:Russavia/Hero), I have created 2 templates to try and get the article size down somewhat. The templates are {{HeroRussia1}} and {{HeroRussia2}}. I have substituted these in the list, as they are two of the most used "conferred for"s in the article, but it has only taken like 12kb from the total size (still up around 250kb in total, and the list is only half done). I remember you saying something like "a template for each letter joined by the umbrella list" is a possible solution in order to get the size of the list down somewhat, which would hopefully negate the need to split the list and preventing it from being FL eventually. Can you possibly demonstrate, in userspace I guess how this could be done? Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you know something about Konstantin Sokolenko?

I have just created a article about a kazak nordic combined skier: Konstantin Sokolenko, and i just wonder if you know something that i don't know that we can expand the article with. The Rolling Camel (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have done a short googling of Russian-language sources. All the information I have found is already in the article. Sorry. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice is needed

Dear Alex,
I need your advice. During last few days I experience serious problems with some WP editor, who refuse to accept logical arguments. I'v never been involved in edit wars, I am unwilling to start it and I have no idea how such problems are usually resolved in the WP community. Could you please advise me what my first actions should be?
Best regards
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, for the long delay, got a bad cold and mostly slept when I did not do my paid work. I think you have done the right thing: engaged into the talk page discussion and draw people's attention to the issue. I left some thoughts on the talk page of the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your proposal. I believe the problem will be resolved soon.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by 03:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC) at §hepBot (Disable)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny

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/SemBubenny/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/SemBubenny/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hey Alex I have created a Russian cosmism philosophy tag on profile page. I was wanting to know if you want to have one added to your profile page and or how to make the one I have already better. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 5	31 January 2009	About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans	News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on	Dispatches: In the news
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Vladimir Glebov

Hi Sasha, thanks for digging up some info on Vladimir Glebov. In relation to the addition and changes you made (in particular, there is no longer unsourced BLP), I have withdrawn the nomination, but I also do agree with you in that he still only appears marginally notable. Will see what does or doesn't come up from it in the future, and if it needs to be revisited then, it can be. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ivan the Terrible

Concerning this change. Alex Bakharev, although in the piece of text you‘ve added in the article there was some link, the linked text doesn't contain this information, so this piece of text remained unreferenced and thus should be removed. Please try not to add this piece of text again before you find an appropriate source for it. Thanks! 戦車 ^{besuch mich} 03:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. besides that adding “the“ to ”1525” is useless. Next time try to examine the subject properly before reverting.

• Moved and answered to the article talk page Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yevgeny Chichvarkin

Yevgeny Chichvarkin, good stuff, I had this on my list of articles to create, and saw it in our list of new articles. Is he connected to Mogilevich? Or is that only Nekrasov of Arbat Prestige? I could have sworn I saw something which made a connection with him, but perhaps I was just confused with Nekrasov? --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I've made some changes to the article, I've moved it to Yevgeny as per our translit standards, and changed Vlasov to Vlaskin. In the article now it says that they moved Vlaskin to an apartment and after some time he agreed to pay them back, but Moscow News says that they held him until he paid them back. Do you think the article should be changed to reflect this, because this is in essence the false imprisonment charges that have been laid against him. The same source also says that he is simply "vacationing in" the UK -- I guess "vacationing in" gives new meaning to the word "fled to", but has he moved, or is really simply vacationing? I guess we'll soon find out once the asylum papers are lodged, but how would you yourself interpret it at the moment in this regard? Moved? Vacationing? --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sondra Locke

В процессе работы над этой статьёй в ру-вики столкнулся с неприятным фактом; на сайте peoples.ru есть такая статья о о ней, но она представляет из себя чистейший перевод из англо-вики статьи Sondra Locke. При этом скромно указывается имя автора - Алексей Булатов и никаких ссылок на ен-вики. Полагаю, что необходимо связаться с администрацией сайта и указать на нарушение условий лицензии GNU FDL и потребовать убрать авторство указанного лица, оставить, если только в качестве переводчика. Кстати, по истории правок видно, что в ен-вики статья появилась намного раньше, чем на том сайте.--Torin (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Which photo would be suitable for infobox?

• 
• 

--Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Out of these two, I would prefer the right one. I cannot recognize him on the left photo Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've put the second one onto the article, how do you think it looks? It is more acceptable that the photo in which it looks like he is just a head, particularly given the arguments that the cropped one I put on there many moons ago is an official portrait, and is no older than the "head" photo (with the "age" of the original photo being used as an argument to replace it). --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)