User talk:Muscovite99~enwiki

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Muscovite99~enwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 ask your question there. Again, welcome! Phgao 16:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

Pope Pius XII[edit]

Sorry for being late in coming back to Wikipedia:

AAS stands for Acta Apostolicae Sedis, which is the official organ of the Vatican containing all official papal documents. some but not all encyclicas are available online at the Vatican Website in the papal archieve under Pius XII. for ex. Google Mystici Corporis or go to Wikipedia Mystici corporis and you will find the link. Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE Communism: The Vatican as in the case against Nazism, issued in the thirties condemnations against communism. Pius XII took issue with certain communist ideas and ideologies in specific speeches and radia addresses. The Vatican condemmed the hostile actions of communist but usually not individuals. Exceptions were individuals guilty of acts agaisnt the life and liberty of Chruch representatives who in turn were excommunicated. Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

You know a lot about Russian wikipedia users, and some of them also operate here. Is anything I should know about this? Thanks.Biophys (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Usually they use the same nicks, hence it is easy to make your own judgement. Very few are capable of (or seriously interested in) editing here: you can see some guys' contributions on the Discussion page of Putinism. One thing, though, that i strongly suspect (i haven't any proof of course) is that the last chap who has edited Putinism (with all these preposterous "Introduction" subsections within a subsection) is the same person who is registered as "Olegwiki" in the RuWP: just a lot of similarities in style, ideology and very poor language (his Russian is not much better) -- kind of mildly leftist (pink), pro-Russian nationalistic doctrinaire pushing his own views in all possible articles. I should not be surprised if "Mikheyev" (the guy he quotes in that ludicrous subsection - http://news.km.ru/mixeev ) is actually him. By-the-by, do you have any idea what is that tabloidish site (km.ru) that opinion is sourced to? It is kind of Communist youth publication, i guess. By the RuWP standards, his opinion should be expunged as he is not even a кандидат наук in the relevant area. Then, his sole opinion should not merit the whole subsction along with (and before!) the dominanat experts' opinion. Think there's a host of violations there now.Muscovite99 (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike you, I do not conceal my personality. Perhaps I'm just not afraid to express my position on numerous questions? ellol (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ellol, as ever, i cannot see your point. I suggest that you yourself tone down all these "Introduction" pretenses: it is a small section within a small article. What's all this posturing for? You are just making the article's subject even more ridiculous and grotesque than it is, let alone it is downright confusing: WP articles' intros are their leads, not a tiny subsection. Mikheyev ought to be deleted per WP:FRINGE. I absolutely do not mind such opinion but it has to be from a qualified mouth, or at least off the pages of a major publicaton; a tabloid site featuring an opinion of a complete nobody - that's what it is. Things about this duo ARE changing as we speak and you could actually come up with some representative opnion on the matter, if you tried.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mikheyev is a deputy director of one of Russia's leading think tanks, Center for Political Technologies. Not nobody.
If you dislike "introduction", let it be "background". Before showing opinions on the event, facts must be explained. That's my principal position. ellol (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Muscovite. This is interesting. We have a number of new accounts that have been created, became very active, or changed their favorite subjects in the beginning of Ossetian war. These users were not newcomers when they first started editing in English wikipedia, based on their editing patterns. One can look at edit history of Ossetian war to identify some of them.Biophys (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Byophys, frankly, i cannot see here any one doing things that are practised in the RuWP by a few editors (they are all registered with their personal pages totally blank, which makes their edits red on display in the edit history) - i mean routine monitoring of politically relevant articles and methodically deleting negative info and pushing some fluff such as Mikheyev's opinion ("Esp", "Sasha T"). As you could have seen from some of my previous links, they effectively give orders to some Ru admins (notably Mitrius). The latter would lead a campaign such as the one that was started against me last September. I am pretty certain that the real reason was my active editing in the Ossetia war-related articles - in fact presenting major western governments position straight from the official sources: most of the stuff was not in any Russian-language media at all. I could see that angered quite a few -- some of the guys being ordinary Russian "patriots". Things are now calming down: this silly chauvinistic wave has mostly gone, the country is now rapidly sinking in the slough of crisis that most people in Moscow has not felt yet, but even the latest official stats are awful: [1][2]. Mind, as recently as last Dec the Stats were forecasting 5-6% growth for this year, though it sounded utterly ridiculous even then. I am almost certain Russia (as a current entity) will have disappeared by 2020 at best, most likely sooner that that. It is not so much economics, though, as plain demographics - in a generation ethniс Russians will be close to being a minority. Given the fact that there's no postive Russian culture (of course, i do not mean культуру - ballet and art), Russians are already pretty much a minority to all intents and purposes, with a number of republics being virtually independent (with no Russian population whatsoever, or having it as a minority): Ramzan, for expample, is doing absolutely what he wants not just in Ch. (where the Moscow writ does not run) but in the rest of the RF as well. You could add Vienna, but there's a difference: unlike in Vienna, in the RF his actions are being assisted by the local "organs". I'm inclined to say that in Russia now there is indeed a duumvirate, the persons in charge being Putty and Ramzan, with the latter quite likely to become solely in charge - he is the only person i can see in the RF Nomenklatura who seems fit to manage the RF disintegration, perhaps even attempting a temporary consolidation. Sorry for a lengthy political brief.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least one contributor whose name also appears in red for a long time [3]. I guess he is not SashaT (the latter is more similar to LokiiT in English WP). I thought that one could be "DeerHunter" from Russian WP, but I can be wrong. Thank you for political brief.Biophys (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is i had been deliberately ignorant of personal politics in the WP: simply never had enough time to do this petty politicking there (i mean the RuWP). This might have changed just a bit of late because it had become a bit of fun as most of my "opponents" are hilarious clowns. Also, apparently, the order to oust me has been suspended for the time being. Which is also a bit of fun to me: petty criminals who give them orders are under those criminals who handle me as a real person in life. I've only just discovered something that may be interesting for you to read (you might have read this already): ru:Обсуждение Википедии:Заявки на арбитраж/Muscovite99#Вниманию арбитров.Muscovite99 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can also enjoy this.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • it has become yet curiouser: after my complaint (See above) about ethics violation, I was blocked without any explanation ([4]). Just Hilarious!Muscovite99 (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thus, my "violation of ethics" was exposing Mitrius as Esp's stooge! Q.E.D.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly satisfied now that Esp may or may not be a staff kgb criminal doing this job full-time (censoring RuWP); he actually works standard Moscow time office hours. Though i think he's probably based in some provincial УФСБ (like СПб), judging by how thick and degenerate (or otherwise) he is.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. They own the country, and they own Russian wikipedia. But you can not tell this even in English WP, no matter how many published sources tell precisely the same...Biophys (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also interesting, have a careful look at Esp's personal page -- ru:Участник:Esp: it is not just simply blank; it has also been stripped of the standard features such as "Edit History" and "Edit".Muscovite99 (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, you still do not know the IP address of his proxy server [5]...Biophys (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is: 194.67.2.155. Not too many edits here: [6]. Biophys (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is interesting. Though i am rather sceptical about Беккер: the guy was obsessed with GLBT issues. Honestly, the whole thing is pretty clear to me and the details are irrelevant and uninteresting. The feeling that Pooty is all but finished is now palpable in Moscow, that is unless he pulls off a virtual coup d'etat. I am now trying to create a "personality cult" section in "Putinism" using some material that had been vandalised in the RuWP. You are welcome to contribute.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. This sounds too risky for P. Of course, he would be replaced by someone from the same Corporation, but some of his serious misdeeds might be revealed by his successor, unless he is from the very same gang or completely controlled, like M. Not mentioning about his undeclared billions. Let's wait. Something will happen soon.Biophys (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what i am saying; things are changing very rapidly now.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Может, захотите высказаться в этом забавном обсуждении. 94.75.243.33 (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putinism et al[edit]

By the way, what is that much distressing for you in Mikheyev's opinion? Would you like it better if I quote Pavlovsky instead? ellol (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ellol, there is absolutely nothing distressing in Mikheyev's opinion. I've already said all i could say on the matter. He is not known to anyone (the fact that he heads an institution does not lend any weight: i can become a head of an institute in a matter of a few days and print on my card whatever i wish with an inet address linking to a nice site about whatever). You have, i believ, violated WP:NPOV by putting his sole opinion along with (giving it a separate subsection) and before the opinion that is shared by practically every one now. Or shall i say - had been shared until February 2009: things are changing right now, which is a matter for the "Aftermath" section there (you can check my latest edits in ru:Медведев, Дмитрий Анатольевич and possibly transfer some to our article - but keep it short and tight, please; the refs there are mostly to English-language sources). Also, forgive me for some harsh words about your style, but the encyclopedic style (WP:BETTER#Use clear, precise and accurate terms) ought to be quite different (just read any serious enc. in any language): it cannot tolerate verbose ramblings about this side and that side -- it ought to succinctly present consequential data on the relevant subject. I mean all this expose on the RF Constitutional arrangements (who is President and who is PM) belong to different articles; a laconic mentioning of President being constitutionally above could be made, but not a lecture. Stick to the point, the point there being Putinism.Muscovite99 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you yourself seriously think that any one can take a 1999 philosophy grad with no background in government bodies, no books (studies) or publications in serious outlets in any way seriously for such matters. What can he possibly know? I've just seen you have made some changes there. They seem to be OK. I am not a fan of Belkovsky or Pavlovsky, but the plain fact is that they are well known names and they do represent powerful elite groupings; thus what they say matters in itself. I did not like "sociological data" just because in Enlish it sounds somewhat misleading, i fear. "Popular view" is what the subsection speaks of; "popular" in Enlish has other than (популярный) meaning - just in case you may not know.Muscovite99 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. ellol (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

Edits like this are absolutely unacceptable. If I were you I would alter the entry and say sorry to Esp. I could not force your excuses but the next time I saw something like this I would block you. Regarding the matter of the issue quite a number of participants (both from inside and outside of Russia) have an ability to participate in Internet activities during their office hours. There is nothing unusual about it. If you and Biophys must continue to communicate your theories I would strongly advise to do it offline or at least offwiki Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fully agree: it was essentially a spur-of-the-moment thing; and the background is quite factual.Muscovite99 (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a "self-correction". It is the same thing as me stating "Muscovite is a dillusional escaped mental patient", and then refactoring it to "Muscovite may or may not be a dillusional escaped mental patient", the accusation is still there. I see you have been blocked yet again from ru:wiki, this time for a further 2 weeks. And if you keep going here like this, if won't be long before you are blocked here too. Both yourself and Biophys were reminded 2 weeks ago here that discussion about editors being in the employ of governments and state security services is not on, as per own Arbcom discussion, and I am surprised that Biophys has not only not reminded you of this, but has actually encouraged the discussion by continuing it here on your talk page. If I were you, I would take the advice of ru:Участник:Wulfson, which he gave to you here, that being: "Советую Вам - если Вы желаете продолжать работу с нами - отказаться от неблаговидных намёков на личности коллег и их намерения, тем более что Вы вряд ли сможете привести доказательства." If I see discussion taking place such as this again in the future, I will be initiating WP:RFC/U against both of you. --Russavia Dialogue 17:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop baiting Muscovite, RuSSavia. Harassment is not a good thing. Otherwise it won't be long before YOU are blocked here. Colchicum (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colchicum, the username is Russavia, would you kindly stop your trolling SS rubbish. Muscovite was the subject of an Arbcom on ruwiki and he is continuing to make the exact same accusations here as he has on ruwiki. I have also advised the editor who is at the receiving end of these accusations as to the existence of them being here on enwiki too. Either both himself and Biophys are either deliberately slandering other editors and accusing them of being in the employ of state security services (because they dare to question their POV pushing), or they both suffer from paranoid delusional disorder? Do you see other editors accusing these editors of being in the employ of the CIA? Berezovsky? *or insert any other group with vested interests here*? No, you don't. But if you want to support someone who has openly professed his disgusting belief that Putin is a paedophile and someone else who wants to make articles grotesque, then you are welcome to do that, but they are editors who are clearly using WP to engage in advocacy such as this, and I will continue to fight against this rubbish. And I can say for certain that a decision such as this will not have opposes in it next time, as he has clearly not stopped. Unfortunately, Colchicum, you haven't been at the receiving end of such paranoid nuttery, so you have ZERO idea of what it is about.--Russavia Dialogue 20:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are not somewhere on RuWiki, we are on Muscovite's talk page on English Wikipedia, RuWiki's rulings don't apply here. Go there if you wish. Do you really think that your baiting will persuade Muscovite to change anything? It is not helpful. Colchicum (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what kind of personality disorder is the desire to subjugate oneself for free to a certain foreign government no matter what? Colchicum (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't subjugate myself to the Russian government, and most certainly would never do it for free. You guys have already tried to trap me in the past, unsuccessfully though. Russavia Dialogue 11:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conchicum, I believe this is civilty issue, not the political one. Replace "Putin" for "Berezovsky", "KGB" for "democratic nuts", and you'll clearly see Muscovite's actions are unjustifiable. Just don't make it political. ellol (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly satisfied now that XXX may or may not be a staff democratic nut doing this job full-time (censoring RuWP); he actually works standard Moscow time office hours. Though i think he's probably based in some provincial opposition newspaper office, judging by how thick and degenerate (or otherwise) he is.
Is it anything worth of defending? ellol (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care. Personally I wouldn't mind. I am not defending anything. This is not an appropriate place to discuss this. Don't inflame the things. You guys are clearly disruptive here, nobody has invited you to start the discussion in the first place as you both know that Muscovite doesn't fancy talking to you and you are anything but impartial. Your attention is not appreciated here. Go write some articles instead, or the next time you get some warning I'll come to your talkpage. Understood? Colchicum (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ellol, есть один нюанс. Участник Esp, о котором здесь идёт речь, засветился в "гомовойнах", имевших место в рувики ("заговор ГСБ"), и, вполне возможно, до сих пор имеет возможность пользоваться созданными тогда виртуалами (что вполне соответствует предположениям Muscovite99, подробности здесь и здесь). Таким образом, хотя принадлежность Esp'a к ФСБ не имеет никаких подтверждений (и, замечу от себя, довольно сомнительна), предположение Muscovite99 о существовании некой группы участников, неявно нарушающих правила ВП, имеет право на существование. Жаль, что Muscovite99 поторопился с высказыванием своих подозрений, эта информация открылась спустя буквально пару дней. Думаю, со стороны Muscovite99 будет правильным подать запрос на проверку Esp к чекюзерам, с учетом открывшихся фактов и того, что прошлая проверка Esp в 2007 году выявила использование последним прокси-сервера, что технически даёт ему возможность применять виртуалов (желательно дополнительно предоставить факты, наглядно демонстрирующие нарушение участником ВП:ВИРТ).
RuSSavia, this goes a bit too far. What a disgrace. Clearly you are here to wage wars and inflame the conflict, i.e. YOU are disruptive. Colchicum (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will you stop with the SS trollish bullshit Colchicum. And do I have to quote you? We aren't on RUwikipedia, we are on English Wikipedia. What I think is disgraceful that you are defending people who desire to make grotesque articles and those who brazenly admit that they believe Putin is a paedophile and other such rubbish. That is what I think is disgraceful and disruptive. Russavia Dialogue 11:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not give a hoot about Esp; my poiny was that some Russian admins (notably Mitrius) are obviously taking orders from ostensible editors - this is a plain fact: see my second post's links here ([7]).Muscovite99 (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Russavia, I have to confess this one takes the biscuit: "I don't subjugate myself to the Russian government, and most certainly would never do it for free."(Quote from Russavia's posting above). Has any one here been claiming you have been at it "for free"? -- i am tempted to ask. Just a joke. But i was surprised to read your statement "Muscovite is a dillusional escaped mental patient" - i thought you were better at spelling English words, and this one is not merely a spelling error - it shows some lack of general education, i daresay.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Muscovite99, and sorry for the trouble. I only asked if you want to tell something about Russian wikipedia users. Please note that whatever you tell about Russian wikipedia should not be of any concern for the English WP administrators. So, the promise to block you sounds rather strange. I have noticed that User:Jno used the same proxy server [8] as the Russian wikipedia user you was talking about, but this is hardly of any significance. Many people can use the same proxy server. Best regards. Biophys (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just interesting[edit]

This is a curious story reported by the FT - [9] (Follow the link there).Muscovite99 (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As they tend to close it occasionally for subscription only:

Sir, “The wisdom of nerds” (editorial, February 14) was such an awful piece of fluff, I hate to dignify it with a response.

Do I not see FT “Corrections” just across the page? Anyone with a grasp of logic will understand that being easily editable also means easily correctable. Does the “wisdom of crowds” being “conventional” mean that Wikipedia is a Tory conspiracy and that I can only trust it for Star Wars trivia? Wikipedia’s strength, compared with conventional encyclopedias and newspapers, is that I don't have to wait for (or buy) a new edition with corrections.

I think I prefer “dangerous” Wikipedia over very snarky, unsigned FT editorials, thank you very much.

Re: style[edit]

Hello, Muscovite.

Indeed, in my case it's ridiculous to speak of a style of English, since I did not perhaps read a dozen of English books. Thank you on advice, though.

Okey, as you perhaps know, there's a disease many Russian contributors are affected with. As Medic Piliulkin has recently noted, we have a culture of fighting with enemies, rather than the culture of arguing with opponents.

(I'm trying not to be political, though.)

It's related in my view -- as well as the issue of aristocracy, to the trauma of 1917 we've yet not recovered from. As you know, bolsheviks did not merely reject the previous system, but did not even represent the majority of the population. The latter situation has inevitably lead to polarization of the society when only two choices were possible. Hopefully enough, the current regime at least represents the majority of the population. This is vital to retain the fragile national consensus we have. I'm afraid violations of the equilibrium would destroy the feeble political process, bringing us back on the verge of the Civil war.

With the cultural revolution, of course, aristocratic legacy was simply rejected from the social life. Post-Soviet ages didn't indicate any return to those values, though. No kind of a new culture was created. What we have now and what we live on and what we can use to move on are the remnants of the Soviet culture. ellol (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fear, you totally misuderstood my messages to you: first i said, i am not inerested in discussing politics; second, my remark about aristocracy had nothing to do with 1917: from a purely esthetic point of view, i am against the spirit of bourgeois revolution (those that occurred in 16 - 18th centuries; and which Russia does not seem to have had), though there IS a certain charm to it, in Manhattan, for that matter. Some think that Russia had it in 1990s - i strongly disagree, though do not want to delve in it.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well............. Socialist leaders agreed in 1917 that the February 1917 revolution was burgeous. Indeed, the society between February and October 1917 was the society of capitalism with strong degree of socialist protests. Russia became distincly socialist only in the October 1917. At that point, however, the society could yet stay burgeous with greater or less degree of socialism -- if leaders of bolsheviks and left esers who de-facto captured the power did not took down the democratically elected parliament. Indeed, the democratic choice of Russia in 1918 was the socialism, which however would retain the values of free market and private property excluding the private property on the land, the land that was vitally important for Russian people to survive -- you can guess this from the 1918 parliamentary election results I pointed to. It's not the failure of the Russian nation that bolsheviks were totally undemocratic guys. If you remember, Lenin spoke about dictatorship of bolsheviks -- something that would equal to political suicide these days. It wasn't much different those days -- it took bolsheviks winning a civil war, breaking the backbone of Russia's peasants who constituted 87% of the population, to stay in power with their 24% of popular support. ellol (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, we were one of the first nations in the history having free and democratic parliamentary election. ellol (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you ask what this all is about, I can summarize: after the February 1917 we had a burgeous society which could further evolve in socialist direction, being ruled by the majority -- if not the criminal gang of bolsheviks who smashed down the Russian society with its democratically elected leaders.
It's not the politics -- just life. ellol (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ellol, as somebody who had worked in government structures, i view society quite differently from the usual layman's way that seems to be yours (which is basically playing with words). If you want to see a society as it is (and not the way it is verbally presented), follow the money trail, as Deep Throat urged the investigators. In this sense, you can call me a marxist. What really matters in any society are 3 points: 1. Who has the money? 2. How is that money gained? 3. Are people in (political) power the same as those who are monied (that is, does the monied class coincide with the ruling class?). If you get clear answers to these 3 questions, you'll get a clear picture of what a given society is in its essence. Everything else is just rhetoric: "Words are wise men’s counters, they do but reckon by them; but they are the money of fools." (Thomas Hobbes, (1651), Leviathan (1651) Pt. I, Ch. 4). The basic difference between bourgeoisie and aristocracy was (i mean when the transition was occurring) that the former had to make maney, whereas the latter simply had it - above all land, which was the main source of wealth in the classical feudal society. Incidentally, i've come close to Russia's situation: in a petrostate such as Russia (See [10]), land (i.e. raw materials) remains the main source of wealth, which, by my definition, makes Russia essentially feudal and thus hopelessly backward.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And i fully subscribe to your very last line!Muscovite99 (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after February 1917 all the industry was private, while much of the land was in hands of the aristocracy. Fair redistribution of land (which was a matter of vital importance for Russia's peasants. Note that the land did not give money automatically: they WORKED on it to get their profit) was the question to be determined by the Russian Constituent Assembly. Without Bolsheviks' interference, guessing on the results of the first day of work of the Constituent Assembly, Russia would become socialist burgeous republic -- that is, industry would be privately owned, while the land would be in hands of the people who worked on it. ellol (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One thing i never believed in is "fairness". It is a utopian notion and any attempts to introduce it inevitably lead to what we had under Stalin and what they have in North Korea. Thank God, this is something most people realise nowadays, even in Russia.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair redistribution of land was no utopy: according to eser's view that was prevailing, the land shan't be in private property, but in hands of people who worked on it. There's no contradiction there: having more land would mean working more. There was enough land in Russia to enable peasants with enough land to raise crop and vegetables. ellol (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ellol, really, i do not want to go into discussion of such topics. i can only say that you appear to not to take into account a host of very important other factors that were at play in Russia then, above all -- awful overpopulation in Russia's rural areas, very low profitability of agriculture, etc.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we would see then massive resettlement of peasants into sparsely populated Russia's regions -- perhaps there were other means to deal with the situation -- it's even sort of bizarre to propose solutions for the situation that was nearly a century ago. But once the goal was determined, one could have started seeking for the solution.
While bolsheviks initially considered agriculture only as the resource to feed the workers.
Not speaking that prior to the revolution Russia's agriculture was about the world's top even with the problems you've pointed to. ellol (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

I think you've broken 3RR again. You should self-revert your edits. Offliner (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English[edit]

Thank you, Muscovite. My english teacher would be ashamed now... ellol (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May be, Putin's campaign is like some preface? There were ideas long ago to make a solid history section to explain the context. Unfortunately they were never realized. ellol (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You've been blocked for two weeks after another bout of warring on Putinism. Please use {{unblock|your reason here}} if you feel this block is unjustified. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've already said all i could right below the Offliner's report ([12]): i deem the guys' actions destructive, and yours unjustified under WP:IGNORE, as the intent was obviously the benefir of the WP.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know of Offliner's intention to report the reverts and I did not communicate with him on account of that. You are wrong here. The block was not necessary, in my opinion, as we've peacefully resolved issues. Now I'm really off from Wikipedia for some time to learn some physics.

p.s. You owe me an apology. ellol (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop sockpuppeting[edit]

I have reblocked you for one month per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muscovite99. This is the second block for sockpuppeting in addition to a number of blocks for edit warring. Please stop sockpuppeting and try to avoid edit warring otherwise your next block could be the last one.

You seems to be a productive contributor but please edit cooperatively Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An essay[edit]

Please read this excellent essay written by Deacon who blocked you for edit warring. And yes, do not even try to edit articles about Russian Orthodox Church under a different nick. Alex and others will trace you down. Of course if you edited Biology, Geography or US history, everything would be different.Biophys (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • He is actually suffering from feverish delusions. The conclusion of the investigation was "Likely" ([13]), whatever it was based on.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They say that the difference between America and Russia is this:
In America, you're free to go to the White House and tell everybody that Obama is an idiot. But in Russia, if you go to the Red Square and start bothering people, you better be telling them that Obama is an idiot. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone actually do it as an experiment, or is it merely a theoretical prediction? Anyway, I do not think anyone in America dares to bother Obama claiming he's an idiot near the White House. And I think it's not because anyone is afraid of his safety after such action, but because it's simply inpolite. Likewise, it's inpolite to start political quarrels at the Red Square, especially if you are a citizen of other country. ellol (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would be surprised at the number of impolite people in America. They're used to it. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not merely mannarism, but the question whether you respect yourself and your nation. Therefore I'm not surprised if there's no queue of people at the White House wishing to tell Obama who he is. ellol (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be much less impolite than bothering a blocked user with silly comments. Colchicum (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colchicum, what happened with you today? ellol (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been re-blocked for 2 months for block evasion through 217.26.6.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite is not necessary means permanent[edit]

Well, Indefinite ban is not necessary means permanent. If Muscovite99 promises to obey Wikipedia rules including WP:SOCK and more importantly indeed would follow the rules I could ask the blocking administrator to limit the block (or Muscovite could do ask it himself by sending Email to him). Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alex, i am not going to promise you anything, because i do not believe i have done anything deleterious vis-a-vis this project. My transgressions based on technicalities were entirely due to what i believe are purposeful destructive activities of some editors, as i have already stated. Moreover, your personal actions i find highly dubious in the light of the said, as they actually amount to abetting and assisting such destructive activity. If this resource is to look remotely like a serious source of data, such as editors as Ellol ought to be barred from it only because they have no basic grasp of the language it is supposed to be written in. Let them hire a translator, if they are so eager.Muscovite99 (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i am realising i am wasting my breath as you are pretty much in Ellol's club: "Hi, I was born in Saint-Petersburg Russia, lived and worked there for the best half of my life, then worked in USA (SIC!)..." - your personal page!. As Russians in Moscow's posh clubs are wont to say, "Show must go on!" (i mean, they are certain they say it in English) Muscovite99 (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Γραικός[edit]

Hi! You are cortrect, Γραικός means Greek. In reality, Greek in greek language is "Έλληνας", Hellene. But, since the Gre- rooted term was broadly used in the West, Greeks like Korais started to use this term as a greek word, Γραικός. But, it had (and still has) a pejorative, degrading meaning. It means mainly a Greek who lost his cultural identity and is submitted to Ottoman (or sometimes Western) customs.--Kostisl (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know there was a kind of Schism, when the Bulgarian Curch declared Autonomy from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but the last was not acknowledging it. Thus, there were Bulgarian "Patriarchs" (of the Exarchate) and Metropolitans (of the Patriarcahte) for the same territory. But, I do not know more details and I need to study a lot, in order to contribute at this time--Kostisl (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Standard offer, although I am not sure if you want to proceed.Biophys (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing survey[edit]

Hi Muscovite99. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic current events articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at 2008 South Ossetia war that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below. An explanation of my project is included with the survey.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=kLMxj8dkk_2bls7yCBmNV7bg_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putinism[edit]

AfD nomination of Putinism[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Putinism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinism. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TFD (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed[edit]

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Muscovite99. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Muscovite99~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

02:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed[edit]

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

16:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Muscovite99~enwiki&oldid=658516470"