BorisG

Welcome!

Hello BorisG, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Vsmith 03:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War

Heyo. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for participating in the discussion. Before I came on the scene, the Yom Kippur War article was heavily biased and read as though the war ended on the same note that it began. Essentially, everything after the first two days was a fog. In truth, despite the fallout in Israel, the war resulted in a decisive victory for the IDF. See the excerpts below:

• "The brute statistics of war indicated an Israeli victory," London Sunday Times, Yom Kippur War @ page 450.
• "As a military feat, the IDF’s performance in the Yom Kippur War dwarfed that in the Six Day War. Victory emerged from motivation that came from the deepest layers of the nation’s being and from basic military skills that compensated for the grave errors of leadership," Abraham Rabinovich, The Yom Kippur War, @ page 498.
• "[The Yom Kippur War] is the story of an astounding Israeli victory," Chaim Herzog, The War of Atonement, @ Foreword.
• "The war had profound and long-reaching implications for the leaders of Egypt and Syria. Both Egypt's president Sadat and Syrian president Assad recognized that their countries had come closer to catastrophic defeat than in 1967, and that it was absolutely imperative to avoid another war. That led to Sadat's peace and Assad's 1974 cease-fire on the Golan Heights, never violated since then." Edward Luttwak, Misreading the Lebanon war
• "On October 24, 1973 when Israel finally implemented the cease-fire agreement, nothing stood between its advancing troops and the Egyptian capital. Israel had gained complete control over the entire front. Facing an imminent threat to Cairo and hence to the regime itself, President Anwar al-Sadat was desperately seeking heightened Soviet intervention and even direct military involvement to secure an early cease-fire. But for intense American pressure, Israel would have annihilated the stranded and encircled Egyptian Third Army. The story was more or less the same in the north where the Syrian advances in the Golan Heights were stopped and reversed and the outskirts of Damascus were brought within range of Israeli artillery. After initial surprises and setbacks, Israel had bounced back, stopped the Arab offensive and reversed the course of battle. If the Arab military offensive was motivated by a desire to change the status quo in Sinai or the Golan Heights, Israel had throttled them. The October 1973 cease-fire lines significantly improved Israel’s position." P.R. Kumaraswamy, Revisiting the Yom Kippur War
• "Although the Egyptians continue to tout the Yom Kippur war as a great victory, in truth, their successes were modest and their failures equal or greater than their achievements," Kenneth Pollack, Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991
• "In material terms, the Israelis won a clear victory in the Yom Kippur war. Israel never held more territory than it did at the end of the Yom Kippur War – a war it had supposedly lost. At the cease fire, the Israelis were only fifty miles from Cairo and thirty miles from Damascus. The Soviet ambassador to Egypt Aleksei Kosygin saw the situation in Cairo at the end of the war as a 'catastrophe.' He declared: 'We must have a cease-fire because otherwise, everything will collapse,'" Johnson and Tierney, Failing To Win, Perception of Victory and Defeat in International Politics, @ page 177.

Fallout in Israel occurred because their memories of the Six Day War were still vivid thus resulting in higher military expectations. Conversely, the Arab defeat in the Six Day War was so decisive that it very much lowered Arab military expectations. On the eve of the Yom Kippur War, the situation was such that anything short of a total Arab rout would be considered an "Arab victory." The open nature of Israeli society and Israeli panache for self-criticism contributed to the hysteria. Conversely, dictatorships in Syria and Egypt glossed over or covered up their failures, which far outweighed their minor achievements. Thus, the perception immediately following the war was one of gloom in Israel and euphoria among the Arabs. However, upon objective reflection, as Rabinovich aptly put it, “As a military feat, the IDF’s performance in the Yom Kippur War dwarfed that in the Six Day War.”--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your position. I don't think we can rely on Israeli sources here, we'd better use third parties. You did very well in backing up it with sources, but there are other sources (which Sherif quoted) which do not agree. "Israel never held more territory than it did at the end of the Yom Kippur War – a war it had supposedly lost." Supposedly implies that this was somehow a prevailig view, doesn't it? To be sure, I think you are right, at least in narrow military terms. But what is victory and what is defeat is still a matter of interpretation, unless it is either acknowledged by the defeated party (WWI, WWII, Israel war of Independence (nakba)) or results in such large capture of territory as in six-day war. In my, perhaps overobjective, view, our role at Wikipedia is to present facts as comprehensively as possible, and let the reader make interpretations. Or present all interpretations (within reason) and the reasoning behind them, and let the reader judge what's more convincing. This is much better than decide by ourselves which one is more convincing, even, as in the case above, it looks obvious to you. I totally agree that both openness of Israeli society, and inflated expectations contributed to the sense of defeat. But at the same time, Arabs have shown that Israel is not invincible, and that in itself may be regarded by some as great victory, after defeats in War of Independence, The Sinai campaign, and the Six-day war. Some historians (sorry don't remember who) speculated that not only realisation that Israel cannot be defeated, but also redemption of sorts after the disaster of 1967 have contributed to Sadat's decision to reconcile with Israel. BTW Alexey Kosygin was Soviet Prime Minister, not ambassador to Egypt.BorisG (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction above in connection with Alexey Kosygin and thanks for bridging the gap in connection with the lead. Best regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Oren

BorisG, I understand your concern about recentism and not turning this encyclopedia into a compendium of news article. Nevertheless, if we abided by your interpretation of recentism, we would have nothing placed in the "Ambassadorship" section of Michael Oren's page. Everything currently in there can be interpreted as irrelevant. And what would be an example of something he has did or will do that IS notable? Everything an ambassador does can be viewed as simple daily actions. Thoughts? I appreciate your concern. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yom Kippur

Thanks for rewriting that "ineptitude" sentence! RomaC (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

DRV

Regarding this, the recourse is deletion review: WP:DRV. The close is so obviously out of whack with the discussion, that it will almost certainly be reversed. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah junction stabbing

This afd in which you participated is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 12.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

your user page

• You have two "Русский язык — родной для этого участника." userboxes on your user page, and a number of other typos and glitches. I could fix them, if you want. Or not, if you don't want. :-) • Ling.Nut 06:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I would appreciate it. I could probably do it myself but I do not have time now. Thanks. - BorisG (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For this I appreciate the fact that you've recognized my contributions.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. I said this because I felt that way. I am happy that this unfortunate incident is over. This looked really weird all round. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't give up

Regarding Six-Day War, don't give up yet. I'm hoping that if some simple ground rules can be enforced by an admin or two who stay out of the argument but remain engaged in the argument's conduct, then progress can be made toward improving the article. Folks other than JRH could be suggesting changes too. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: JRH has now been banned indefinitely from the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you know that already. Saw your comment. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Amatulić, you are an admin and an uninvolved one at that (as you were only involved in an administrative capacity). Why do you comment in the involved editors section and not in the decision section below? - BorisG (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Boris

So, your native language is Russian? Mine is too. BTW I have been to Perth. Western Australia is a beautiful place. We rented a car and drove to Exmouth, where I snorkeled with whale sharks, then in Coral Bay I snorkeled with manta rays, and then in Monkey Mia I fed the dolphins, but the biggest adventure was driving on the "wrong" side of the road, not to say that kangaroos and emus were crossing the road just in front of our car :). Sorry for the image. Those are my old film pictures taken with point and shot camera, but just to give you an idea about our adventures in Western Australia. Have you ever been to those places?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your kind message. No I haven't been to those places yet, this is a very long drive for me. In my ten years here (gosh!) I have been all over the South West and also in beautiful rain forrest of Far North Queensland. BTW why are you retired but still involved? I am a little confused. Didn't know if a message on an inactive User talk page is appropriate, but how else can I reply? Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am retired, no more new articles, no more new pictures. I just was passing by, but I did change it to semi-retired at least for now, when I feel I need to make a few comments here and there. Let's better keep our conversation here. Your talk page is much more private than mine is. Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

My wikipedia story

Here's the article that I wrote a few months ago Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948). You cannot imagine what followed after I did. I was dragged over fishing SPI, and even when it came out as unrelated, I was not allowed to remove the absolutely ungrounded accusation neither from the article's talk page nor from the article's deletion request. I was discussed at AN/I endlessly and unfairly blocked. My DYK nomination for the article was denied by user:Gatoclass, who abused his administrative power, when he took the hook out of a Queue. In the deletion request of the article user:Gatoclass claimed it was a "rant". Then I wrote another article about 800 years old Maimonides Synagogue. Once again DYK nomination was declined by user:Gatoclass, who wrote: "This looks to me like another exercise in POV-pushing from Mbz. Could there be any more demonization of Muslims crammed into this article" The comment was made on April the second. If you are to look at the history of the article, you would see that there was no "demonization of Muslims" at all. After that I filed my first ever AE about user:Gatoclass conduct. My AE is here (please click "show" to expand it). If you are to read it, you will see that user:Gatoclass has opposed many DYK nominations that were positive to Israel and/or negative to Arabs. As a result of my AE I was topic banned for 3 months. My ban was enforced very strictly, and I was blocked 3 times for so called ban violations. After my second block I appealed the ban. It still hurts to read this appeal over. Not only it was angrily denied, but I was threatened with "escalating blocks" or even a permaban. One of the users, who urged to decline my appeal was user:Vexorg. In case you were lucky enough never meet that user, let me please introduce him to you by only 2 of his many contributions:arguing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-semitic;removing a note that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anti-semitic.Here's one of his recent appearance on AN/I. For some unknown to me reason that user was never topic banned, he's running free and continues to introduce his nonsense to the articles, and that kind of user commented on my appeal! It seemed so extremely unfair. Some of the other commentators, who argued to decline my appeal were not any better. No matter what eventually I have learned to love my topic ban because it helped me to write quite a few articles that I enjoyed writing, and that probably would not have been written, if I was not topic banned. Why? It might sounds silly, but I wanted to prove to my banning administrator that I am capable of making useful contributions because every time he/she blocked me he/she added a template to my talk page that read in part: "You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires." So I tried really, really hard to make those positive contributions, but my blocking administrator never liked me anyway. But back to user:Gatoclass. One of the articles I wrote was Sol Hachuel. Poor user:Gatoclass has missed the DYK nomination for that one, so the article got promoted and appeared at the main page. Still user:Gatoclass made a few comment on the article's talk page. One of them read: "The presentation is overtly sympathetic to the subject, which violates NPOV". Then there were a few other incidents with Gato,but we did work together at the two articles I wrote, and he helped to fix my English, and remove my POV :). I am not saying that I have not done anything wrong, but I am sure that I did not deserve even 50% of what was done to me. Sorry for the long message. I wrote it in the response to your post, where you wrote that you "do not have enough experience to know what is the bar here". So I felt like sharing my own "experience" with you. Please feel absolutely free to delete it. Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear this. It appears that the battleground mentality is entranched to a greatert extent than I thought. And spills over to AE pages. And admins are very much involved, can abuse their previleges and get away with it. Seems also that NPOV editors are driven to one side or the other. Sad really. - BorisG (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

General comment not specific to any particular admin: I view an administrator as just regular editors with access to a few extra tools. The WP:RFA procedure works pretty well to weed out candidates who shouldn't be trusted with the tools, but no process is perfect, and once in a while some bad apples slip through. And admins can and do get de-frocked. I think there's a special place to report abuses by admins, I'm not sure because the only time I ever did that was a post to WP:ANI. Also see Wikipedia:Village stocks for a rather humorous chronicle of administrators screwing up in such a big way as to make them infamous. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, it your retirement directly related to this story? - BorisG (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. I've no problems with being blocked or topic banned, even if I consider it to be unfair or half fair. I have been blocked many times, and some of them were very unfair, but I've always came back as soon as my blocks expired. I even had no real problems with my blocking admins. After all they all overworked, and underpaid :) I retired or probably it is better to say tried to retire because I have been wikihounded to death. I do not know why I am attracting so many wikihounds, but I do. Some of the left me alone, other were blocked, some left wikipedia, but a few are still around. I uploaded thousands of images, I wrote 50+ articles, but I felt like running away from my hounds. My luck is going like that:

• “The rain it raineth on the just
  And also on the unjust fella,
  But chiefly on the just, because
  The unjust steals the just's umbrella”

• w:Charles Bowen

It is amazing to watch how they deal with user:JRHammond appeal. Here's how my banning admin dealt with my appeal, and that's was it. Later, he/she simply deleted my messages from his/her talk page with edit summary "tiresome" or something like that, and I have never ever, ever was .00001% as persistent in my questions about my topic ban as user:JRHammond is, and my topic ban was nothing to compare with user:JRHammond. First time I got blocked for my topic ban violation for this small revert in the article that has nothing to do with I/P conflict. One time I was blocked for BLP violation, when I called an anti-Semitic cartoonist "an anti Semite". On the other hand the user, who compared Israelis to Nazi at the very same thread was not blocked. Anyway, it is better forget about all of this. Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh you are opening my eyes on some sad reality. Perhaps Wikipedia will never be anything approaching a decent necyclopedia standard in contentious topic areas. Thank you for sharing your story. All the best. - BorisG (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am. Please see what I am talking about: It is the link to my block for the violation of blp of the cartoonist, who won the second prize on the Holocaust denial cartoons competitions in Iran! If you follow it to the AN/I thread that lead to the block, you will see that the user, who compared Israelis to Nazis was not sanctioned at all.

Now see how my wikihounds reported my topic ban violation [1] for that Rothschild family revert, and the admin acted on it at once, and blocked me without any discussion on AE at all. BTW "enjoy" the user page of one of my former wikihounds. If you could believe it is a little bit better now than it used to be, but it is not him, it is me, not him, who has a "battleground mentality".

Here is one more of user:RolandR "contributions". There was a user, who displayed at his user page a cartoon that Jimbo Wells called "a classic symbol from Nazi iconography" . So what User:RolandR does to that user? Well, he [gives him so called] The Kafka Award desecrating the name of the great Jewish writer, and posting the image of Kafka next to the racist rant!

See what I was blocked second time for so called topic ban violation. Please follow the link to the comment, which made me blocked.

And my personal blocking administrator is a very decent person. That's why being blocked by this admin hurt me a lot.

It is also interesting that the outcome of AE requests and AE appeals depends greatly of what admins are active there at the time. If User:JRHammond's appeal was filed, in April, at the time I was banned, and then blocked time and time again, I am sure, his appeal would have been declined a loooong time ago, and himself might have been blocked. Ah, anyway... I needed to tell my story to someone, who will listen.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am beginning to understand... It appears that there is a bit of a fighter in you (for good causes of course:), isn't there? Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. I've always despised anti-Semites, and anti-Semitic Jews in particular. When I see one, I feel no hate, hate is too strong of a feeling for those, but I physically feel as I touched something really, really dirty.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully understand. But I am not a fighter. Too timid perhaps. But I admire your courage. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your objection to my proposed edit

BorisG, in expressing your opposition for my proposed edit, you said:

The sentence is sourced to a RS. Unless it is shown that this is not what the source says, it can stay. I don't have the source to check.

The question is not whether the cited source says what the article says it says. The question is whether the UNEF mandate says what the cited source says it says, and I've demonstrated to you that it does not. Again, the current version says:

After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, the United Nations Emergency Force, to keep that border region demilitarized, and prevent Palestinian fedayeen guerrillas from crossing the border into Israel.

This sentence does not accurately reflect the UNEF mandate. UNEF was established by the General Assembly under Resolution 1000 (November 5, 1956), which "Establishes a United Nations Command for an Emergency International Force to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities in accordance with all the terms of General Assembly resolution 997 (ES-I) of 2 November 1956"[2]

Resolution 997 noted "the disregard on many occasions by parties to the Israel-Arab armistice agreements of 1949 of the terms of such agreements, and that the armed forces of Israel have penetrated deeply into Egyptian territory in violation of the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel of 24 February 1949". It urged a cease-fire, urged withdrawal from Egyptian territory.[3]

The statement on the UNEF mandate that currently exists is therefore a demonstrable mischaracterization that patently violates WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Again, the question of whether the source says what the article says it says (I presume it does, and am not contesting that at all), is irrelevant. What is relevant is the actual UNEF mandate. The article MUST accurately reflect what that mandate was. The current wording does not. Hence my proposed fix:

After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, the United Nations Emergency force (UNEF), "to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities".

I fail to see what could possibly be controversial about this, or what reason you or anyone else could possibly have to object to this, other than that you just don't like me (please correct me if I'm wrong). I am sorry if I've offended you in some way on the talk page. But please don't allow your personal feelings towards me cloud your judgment with regard to this proposed edit. Whatever you and I may think of each other, the real issue here is the article itself, and I would like to think you and I can work together amicably and reasonably to improve the article. Sincerely, JRHammond (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

JRHammond your proposed statement is not wrong. But you have not shown that the existing one is wrong either. You suggest that these statements are mutually exclusive, but they are not. It appears that the discussions at the UN were that Israel required the UN to station troops (to prevent guerrilla attacks) as a condition of its wirhdrawal. Nasser initially objected but then relented. In any event, the lack of this precise statement in the official mandate does not prove that this wasn't the intent. Maybe the source [25] has further explanation, but I do not have it. More generally, assessment of what is right and what is wrong in a RS is OR. We need to see what the source says and how it explains it. I oppose the deletion of information from reliable sources. Sincerely - BorisG (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

BorisG, you are not addressing the issue, which is that the current wording, in grossly mischaracterizing the UNEF mandate, is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Once again, the current wording is:

After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, the United Nations Emergency Force, to keep that border region demilitarized, and prevent Palestinian fedayeen guerrillas from crossing the border into Israel.

Look at the UNEF mandate for yourself. You'll see that there's nothing therein about "keep[ing] that border region demilitarized". As for "prevent[ing] Palestinian fedayeen guerillas from crossing the border into Israel", that would be encompassed in the mandate "to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities in accordance with all the terms of General Assembly resolution 997". However, this mandate does not explicitly refer to fedayeen raids. Again, you can verify this for yourself, as can anyone else. On the other hand, it does explicitly refer to Israel's attack on Egypt. Recall the context is the 1956 war, in which Israel invaded Egypt. The creation of UNEF was a direct response to this war, and UNGA resolution 997 does explicitly refer to the fact that "the armed forces of Israel have penetrated deeply into Egyptian territory in violation of the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel of 24 February 1949".

In sum, the current wording characterizes UNEF as being mandated to prevent Arab attacks on Israel, when in fact the mandate explicitly states that it was in response to the attack by Israel upon Egypt. Again, this is a blatant and incontrovertible violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. My proposed fix quotes directly from the actual UNEF mandate is is neutral. JRHammond (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I have addressed the issue. The statement is based on a reliable source. If the reliable source does say this, then it belogs to the article. Undue weight? Add other statements. We are going around in circles. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We are "going around in circles" because you refuse to address the underlying issue here, which is that the current version is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, as I've already demonstrated incontrovertibly, while my proposed solution is perfectly neutral, quoting from the actual UNEF mandate itself. You are arguing in favor of keeping a blatantly and demonstrably biased wording rather than replacing it with a completely neutral wording, which is completely unreasonable of you. Cheers. JRHammond (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

tks

• You don't have email set up. I was gonna email you to thank you for putting in a good word for me, since saying it publicly might just create a new opportunity for someone to continue the name-calling etc. But thanks.. • Ling.Nut 16:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know what good word you meant but I have now set up the email. I had simply overlooked it years ago when I set up my account. I have been here for a while but not very active due to work pressures. - BorisG (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

tldr lead

• I have repeatedly stated that after we put the new version of the lead in, a series of editors immediately slapped their favorite trivia into it. That's why it's WP:TLDR.
• But enough of that. See my last post (in reply to Amatulic). • Ling.Nut 22:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Kings park

Yeah not a sleep loss issue - but bizarredly there are as many usages either way - cheers SatuSuro 23:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Lavrentiy Beria

I responded. I accidentally removed your content during the revert, but I will gladly re-add it. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

re your comments

Hey BorisG,

Just want to mention that I appreciate and take your point. Obviously you're right in saying that the JFK assassination was less disputably "assassination" than Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh. My question though is; what "test" do we use to decide whether we call something "killing" versus "assassination". Frankly, I think the "majority of RS" test is in the best spirit of WP:V and ought to be applied.

This whole argument come against the backdrop of User:Epeefleche's personal mission to eliminate use of the word "assassination" in any article involving an Israeli action.

Anyways, hope you don't mind me posting here.

Best NickCT (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh

Boris G,

Just left an edit on the above talk page regarding your recent edit, want to make sure you get a chance to see it and respond if you wish.

Best,

fx6893 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fx6893 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

WikiThanks

Thanks for your recent comment at WP:AE. PhilKnight (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Your question

I have seen it; I am not ignoring it and willl answer it as soon as I possibly can. Today has been rather busy wiki-wise and even more demandingly in the real world too. Then I typed an answer and found a better example. Can you bear with me? Thanks.  Giacomo  19:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I think my request of an example may be too demanding. Example is entirely optional. Philosophy is more important. It's just that examples are often the best way to understand the philosophy. - BorisG (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC) I should add in amusement that the time between comment on my page and your actual answer was quite short and fell between 3 am - 6 am here, so I could not see any harm in it. My above remark is moot now of course. Anyway thanks for the thoughtful answer. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

New article that I thought you might be interested in helping create

Wehwalt suggested that you might be an editor willing to help out with a new article that he and I are working on. I have been working on creating an article for the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery, which I think is fascinating. Any help you could provide would be most appreciated. You can find the draft article here User:Remember/Tiflis Bank Robbery. Thanks. Remember (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I know next to nothing about this. So I can only help a little with copy editing if needed. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Any assistance you could lend, including copy editing, would be of great assistance. Remember (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

One of these days ...

We should do an article together. You are knowledgeable in areas I favor, and you are clearly more of a detail person than me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. The problem is that I am not reliable. I work about 11-12 hours a day and while I can work on WP late into the night, that cannot be a regular thing. Correction here and there is one thing, but it would take me enormous time to write something similar to what you've done. Maybe during X-mas break? Thanks a lot. - BorisG (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

When you like.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If you guys are looking for extra help on a new article, I might be able to help out (if you would want my help). Both of you seem very good at creating and editing articles, and it's nice to work with capable editors. Cheers. Remember (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's think about it. But first let's finish that article on the robbery. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Finally finished

Ok, I have finally finished going through all of the comments and all of the new sources. Here is the revised article User:Remember/Tiflis Bank Robbery if you want to review it. The parts in bold are the parts that I need you, BorisG, to provide me with his citation to the article that you summarized. I am now feeling like this article is good enough to at least go live (it doesn't have to be a GA just to get started) so I would like to put it up in mainspace soon. I figure I can revise and improve as time goes on. Your thoughts? Remember (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was away for 2 days. Will try to review tomorrow. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize at all. I just finished today so there was nothing for you to do before. Cheers. Remember (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI- I fixed the coding problem for multiple sources, by just using <ref name='Nicolaevsky'/> as the short cite to refer to the complete citation. So all you need to do now is review all of the bolded sentences to make sure that they are substantiated by your source that I cited to. Then we should be done! (Or at least closer to done). Once again, thanks for your help! I think your assistance has greatly helped the article, and I really appreciate it. Remember (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and for kind words - and for good work, of course! I still think the article is in need of further improvement, but this can be done in the mainspace. I will review the bold text as soon as I have time. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Remember and Wehwalt, may I suggest that you refrain from editing this article until I finish my review. I know this may look like against the spirit of Wikipedia, but if we work on the same stuff at the same time, it may cause confusion and duplication of efforts. I will let you know as soon as I finish. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Remember (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Finished the review - BorisG (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now I think it is finished

I think the article is now completely ready for mainspace. Please feel free to review one last time or comment on the proposed name and DYK that are stated at the bottom of the discussion page. Thanks again for all of your help in this, I really really appreciate it. Remember (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comment

I've responded to your comment in the WP:AE. In short, it is about completely different edits, which weren't considered in the AE so far. Or did you meant something other?--Dojarca (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I watch AE page. Please keep the discussions off my talk page. Thanks. - BorisG (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Quick question: You inserted the following into the draft article "Soonafter, Lenin's associates burned all the 500 Ruble notes remaining in their possession." and you cited "'Krupskaya - Years of Reaction - Geneva - 1908" but I could not find any mention of the individuals burning the notes in Krupskaya in this section. Is that what you were citing he book for or was it for another proposition? Can you point to where she says that they were planning to burn the notes? Remember (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a short sentence about this in tne Paris 1909-1910 section. She says The remaining 500-ruble notes were burnt. Nicolaevsky has quoted a police report about this event, including who was present, etc. BTW I suggest we keep the discussion in one place, i.e., on the article talk page. I am moving it there. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar of teamwork for helping me get the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery article ready for the mainspace. I greatly appreciate all the help you gave me, and this is the least I could do to show my appreciation. Remember (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

p.s. The article has already been nominated (without prompting) as a good article by a Dr. Blofeld and is nominated as a DYK! Thanks again for all of your help!! Remember (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Pleasure to work with you. - BorisG (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Working together on another article

I think our collaboration on the Tiflis robbery worked very well, and I just wanted to bring up again the idea of working on another article if that was something that interested you and Wehwalt. Some other articles that I think need to be created or drastically revised that are related to the Tiflis robbery include: a total re-write of the Kamo article, creation of the Bolshevik Centre article, creation of the Dr. Jacob Zhitomirsky article (which may be fascinating since he was a double agent that really got in deep with the Bolsheviks). Alternatively, I would love to see the Tiflis article make it to FA status, if you or Wehwalt want to continue to work on this. As for random other ideas, I have been meaning to make an article on the Christian Front, which currently doesn't exist. This was an organization supported by Charles Coughlin and which was later raided by FBI for plotting to overthrow the government. Also, if there is any article that you are working on that I could help out with, just let me know. Cheers! Remember (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

These ideas on topics related to the robbery are interesting, and I would be happy to collaborate in a similar mode to the robbery, being more of a reviewer and contributer than the main writer. I wanted to write on Bolshevik Centre myself (there is one on Russian WP, but it is very sketchy). But I concluded that I cannot do more than a simple stub and it won't be interesting. My main problem was that my only source was Nicolaevsky but his essay is chiefly focused on financial dealings (robberies, counterfitting, machinations etc). The rest was supposed to be in the rest of the book, but it has never been written. If you have more info on political, military and organisational side, it would be great. Cheers and thanks. - BorisG (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will keep you in the loop when I start working on those articles. Remember (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The first thing I think of when a project sounds interesting is "what are the sources likely to be like"? Single source articles, or even two-source articles, are probably not well sourced enough. I find you really need three sources that cover the bulk of your topic to be sure that you aren't reflecting someone's POV. You need not write from scratch. There are tens of thousands of articles on significant subjects which were generated and now lie abandoned and deserve better. Be flexible with what you are looking to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I am very flexible on what to work on next. I just go wherever I am interested and what seems to be doable. Remember (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: to this. Please see here. Yes, I am interested in these subjects and would like to contribute, but I do not want to be taken to AE... Biophys (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. It is not quite Soviet Union, but maybe broadly construed, I guess. Sorry for that. - BorisG (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1907 Tiflis bank robbery

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Schlumberger

OK I thank plazak for editing my edit. Sorry to cause inconvience. I thought my edit was neutral. I never accused anyone it was just stating that Schlumberger was on the Deepwater rig several hours b4 the explosion. Hey we weren';t there. Let the authorities decide. As for my source, well Reuters is a fairly good source if not one of the most respected sources in journalism. Thanks again and sorry for my harsh attitude. I was just trying to make apoint. Hope you guys can Unblock me one of these days. I promise not to do anything negative again without following proper procedures, etc. take care! Have a nice week. from Marcel Australia living in Kk, sabah, Malaysia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.164.221.179 (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I am not Plazak and I did not edit your edits. And I cannot unblock you, I am not an admin. As far as I understand, you need log in as GecoPrakla, read the instruction, and post an ublock request. I will support it if asked. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yukos - Menatep - Khodorkovsky

The coverage of Khodorkovsky is totally tendentious and has apparently been cleaned by his PR people. There is a total lack of discussion of the mans background - which was amply documented in the press in the 1990s. Furthermore, the attempt to spin him as a martyr for democracy -transparently absurd - has been reflected in these pages. Who is there to arbitrate on this one? Ekraus (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That's your POV. Many people don't share your view. But that's not the point. You want to edit it? No problem. But please edit carefully using reliable sources and very careful attribution. Adding contentious material, especially negative, about any LIVING people requires a lot of caution. And please let's discuss it on the article talk page, not here. Allegations that are unsourced or poorly sourced will be deleted. Adding probably or allegedly does not help. Cheers and Hsappy New Year! - BorisG (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi BorisG, thank you for your efforts in getting me unblocked!Happy new Year to you too!--Mbz1 (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you,Boris for your ability to see between the lines! Mbz1 (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome! All the best! - BorisG (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Help is needed

Hi Boris, Happy New Year! I added the link to when we die as martyrs to Istishhad because the article is an orphan now. My link was removed. Of course there are many RS that confirm the info I added like this one for example. Do you have any suggestions where this new article should be linked from, and how to link it? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, not from the top of my head, no. I will have to think about it. Good to hear from you! Happy New Year! - BorisG (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hey Boris, I've seen your comments around and have been impressed by the basic common sense, and also took a quick look at your contributions, so I began wondering if you ever considered running for an adminship? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your nice words. I thought about it but decided against it, at least for now. I am not sure I really want to spend my time as a policeman, judge etc. Life is short, and I already regret spending time on things like AE. I'd rather try to make my modest contribution to article space when I have time and energy. Besides I have enough dispute resolution and silly management duties in my day job... Maybe I will change my mind when I see the point. But I will pop in AE from time to time especially if I can offer fresh perspective. Cheers and Happy New Year!. - BorisG (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI Kamo draft

I have become swamped in real life and so I don't know when I will get a chance to work on the draft article for Kamo (here User:Remember/Tiflis Bank Robbery). Feel free to add the current content into the Kamo article, improve the draft yourself, or just wait until I have more time to complete the draft. I just thought I would give you an update in case you were wondering why this wasn't moving as fast as the 1907 robbery article. Remember (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am also busy but when I have a chance I will work on it. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI - I have a rough draft ready for the Kamo article. I need some more information about his other expropriations and his time after he was released from prison, but it is ready for you to review if you want to take a look. You can find it here User:Remember/Tiflis Bank Robbery. Remember (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I saw your AE comment about ScienceApologist. Although I mostly agree with you, this is all hopeless. Every good expert will be eliminated, sooner or later if he edits in an area interesting for general public. This is because of WP:Consensus. General public will always have majority, even though it knows about the subjects mostly from newspapers and other questionable "sources". Plus, there are serious COI problems in cases that involve money or powerful people. This will never be good encyclopedia.Biophys (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a few answers to this. First, it is already a useful encyclopedia. I have an empirical evidence: I use it often myself, and find it often quite useful. Second, I cannot solve all problems in wikipedia, but if I can help with some, it may be useful. I am not very optimistic about controversial areas though. But it does not hurt to work to improve the processes. Futile? Maybe, but it does not take a lot of effort to express one's view. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It's useful, although not without problems, but that can be also said about any other good internet resource.Biophys (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI - 1907 article going through GAR

I just thought you should know that the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery article is now being revised in accordance with the good article review of this article. Hopefully, once all the comments are address, the article will be promoted. You can find the discussion here Talk:1907 Tiflis bank robbery/GA1. Remember (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! - BorisG (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI

The Kamo (Bolshevik) rewrite is done and it is before a DYK. Remember (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You are great! Sorry I have been busy and don't even know when I will have time to contribute. - BorisG (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. No worries about being busy. I don't really have the time either. For some reason, I just like to do this to procrastinate from all the other many things I have to do. Remember (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand... That happenned to me in December, but now things have piled up to an impossible level:) - BorisG (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI 1907 article is now GA

The 1907 Tiflis bank robbery was promoted to a GA. Thanks for all your help. I think I may try for FA for this next. Remember (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI Working article throug first peer review

I am revising the 1907 article in accordance with its peer review. You can see what is going on here Wikipedia:Peer review/1907 Tiflis bank robbery/archive1. Feel free to help out if you want. Remember (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If every WP article was of this quality... Well done! - BorisG (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Kamo (Bolshevik)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

poroelasticity

What is the earliest recorded example of poroelastic use? And why not use it in disciplines outside geology and materials science? I can even be applied to Wkpedia :) Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not know the answer to your first question. More diving into history is required. As for the second, you are welcome to do it! - BorisG (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My opinion...

I'm no political or social expert, but here's what I make of things.

Mubarak is effectively no longer in power, and politically he's as good as finished, but Mubarak alone isn't the regime. Since effecting the 1952 revolution, every president has come to power from the military, which makes the army an institution that is, however professional and highly respected it may be in this society, very privileged. It, and obviously people like Omar Suleiman, seen as kingmaker now, are part of the regime. Whether the army is willing to go along with the demonstrators and give up its privileges and power, will determine the course of this, shall we say, uprising. From what I've seen and what I know, many of the lower-ranking officers, up to Majors perhaps, are not prepared to follow orders to disperse the protests by force, and this could decide which way things go.

As for the successors, I hope they'll at least come by way of free and fair elections. Most people I know would like to see a state modeled closely to that of Turkey. For one, it won't, I believe, be passively nodding to American foreign policy and entirely ignoring public opinion. At the same time it won't seek hostility with Israel, but it'll be more critical and will take a tougher line vis-a-vis Israel and American foreign policy. That's the middle ground I'd like to see. The prevailing anti-Israeli and anti-American sentiment here is largely because of these two's long-time support to Mubarak, in return for his publicly perceived role in facilitating and advancing Western interests. Public anger is mainly directed against the American government; people here appreciate the protests in solidarity, however small, and the media coverage from the West in particular, as opposed to propaganda from the state media, now widely despised and compared to the propaganda of Cairo Radio during the 1967 War. The way Israel sort of campaigned in support for Mubarak during the early days of the demonstrations and their warnings of the consequences should he step down, certainly upped public anger against Israel and reinforced the aforementioned public view.

While we're talking of successors, I'll discuss the Muslim Brotherhood. They've been greatly inflated by the regime, portrayed as a very extremist group and the only alternative to dictatorship. No, they're not that extreme, and they're not that popular. They've already stated officially they won't present a candidate for presidency and that they want a civil state based on Islamic principles (this goes in line with the current constitution, in fact, although they could be opting for a slightly different "Islam"). Official stances aside, the Brotherhood are internally divided as well between among liberal and fundamentalist lines. Part of the Brotherhood's popularity is their consistency as an opposition group to the government, and their reputation for not engaging in backroom deals. Things are different now, and people are finding all sorts of venues to oppose the government. At any rate, I, and I'm sure most, don't want to see them in power, and I'm pretty certain the army will ensure they don't seize power either; the brotherhood are not liked within that institution. Personally, I sat with two hardcore "Brothers" in Tahrir, and heard how they spent most of the last twenty years as political prisoners. Yet they were amazed at how they had accomplished so little compared to how these spontaneous protests have achieved so much in very little time. They're more intelligent than to try to seize power.

For someone who's a veteran of the 1973 War, an event that gives great pride to many Egyptians, and is supposedly a "hero" for the opening air strike against the Israelis, a joke has been going around amongst demonstrators that "If Mubarak had launched the air strike against us, then ruled Israel for the thirty years, they would have been reduced to begging." It sounds better in Arabic, but it's an insight on how people sum up the results and gains of his "achievements" and 30-year long rule.

I hope this wasn't too long, if there's anything else you'd like to know, ask away. All the best! --Sherif9282 (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the most interesting account, Sherif. And I'd say, quite consistent with my own understanding. I also considered concerns expressed in Israel as short-sighted if not ridiculous, but I did not realise anyone bothers about it in Egypt at the time of great upheaval. I think the anti-Israel sentiment runs so deep that it won't make much of a difference. I think anti-Israel and anti-US sentiment runs deep across the Arab world, and is almost unrelated to whether a particular regime is aligned with the US or not. It is also interesting that the media universally talks of Mubarak's regime as Israel ally. This is not how it is seen in Israel. There it is called cold peace. You are saying that people are angry at Israel because of its support of Mubarak. Isn't it the other way round (that part of anger at Mubarak is his relatively tolerant attitude towards Israel)? - Cheers and all the best. - BorisG (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure, Boris. Actually, I said both things. These demonstrations have in a way furthered the role of social media and the internet, and as I've said many Egyptians have turned to foreign media for coverage. I've heard of how the Israelis call this a "cold peace", but comments by Binyamin Ben-Eliezer (while virtually unknown here, the perceived significance of his statements lay in him being a member of the Knesset) of support for Mubarak were taken by many as a sign of his importance to Israel and his role in facilitating Israeli/US interests, in addition to warnings by Israeli politicians or ambassadors of the woes to follow Mubarak's end. The latter was for many Egyptians simply a repetition of heaps of regime propaganda over the threat of chaos or the Brotherhood. As you said, anti-Israel and anti-US sentiments are quite deep-seated, so the significance or importance of such comments are often exaggerated. Nevertheless, this somewhat hostile sentiment intensifies when these nations are known/believed to have supported, or expressed support and confidence in, regimes that have been repressive to them. This was, and still is, an opportunity for the US to rebuild its reputation here, but so far US responses have been confusing and fumbling to us, ultimately (and understandably) preferring not to impose how the transition goes on or advance a certain individual for presidency. This has not achieved very positive results with most of the population however. On the other hand, people are optimistic about a suggestion that Germany accept Mubarak on a medical visit for "humanitarian reasons", effectively stepping down and leaving the presidency to Suleiman during this transitional period. Let's see what happens, things could develop a bit this Friday. --Sherif9282 (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: with regards to Israel, the best thing they could have done was remain silent on the matter, since any comment would have been interpreted negatively. Supporting would Mubarak would mean he's a "puppet", and a support for repression. Opposing Mubarak would have meant interfering in an "internal matter", and frankly, would have been damaging to the protests, causing many to support Mubarak simply because of Israel's stance. --Sherif9282 (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds right. But alas Iraelis are about the last people to stay silent:). As to the US, I thought they handled it ok. Yes sitting on the fence, but I don't think they had a choice, really. It was almost lose-lose... but I still think they can rebuild it. Obama has an inherent advantage. - BorisG (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree on Obama. At the very least, thank God we're not dealing with an administration under McCain! --Sherif9282 (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bidgee

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding This is a courtesy to let you know that I have mentioned you in my post on Bidgee's conduct at ANI. Of course, you are not required to participate because the majority of the post concerns other actions by Bidgee.. The thread is User:Bidgee.The discussion is about the topic WP:NPA, WP:BITE, WP:USETEMP. Thank you. -danjel (talk to me) 13:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Russian arbcom case

Hello BorisG. In case you are kind enough to look at this, the (Google translated) English is in User:Timotheus Canens/sandbox, and the original Russian is at this link. (The list of the participants is visible in the Russian version, but somehow got omitted in the English). What I would be curious about is: which participants in the case also have accounts on the English wikipedia, and for those people, were any of them sanctioned by Russian arbcom. Also you can perhaps tell us if the other arbcom considered that these were serious offences. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Why would not ask User:David.s.kats? He should know this case much better.Biophys (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Because I offerred to look. - BorisG (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I see why David.s.kats would know about this. I am trying to read the block logs in Russian. It is interesting that they speak of mediators of the AA conflict: "Removal of restrictions after the deadline may only [be] with the consent of the mediators of AA conflict." (3.0.3. Снятие ограничений после указанного срока возможно только при согласии посредников АА конфликта.) We do not have such a role as 'mediator of the AA conflict' here, but perhaps we should. (My impression is that on the English Wikipedia all our mediations are voluntary). EdJohnston (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I am looking right now. Russian is my mother rounge but I am not active on wp:ru and don't know their rules. yes it appears that mediators have very important functions there. In particular, one of them states that he uses this role to make final rulings in content disputes. They seem to have a lot of power. - BorisG (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnson, in case you are watching this space, I have sent you an email and also commented on AE. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the more active role of mediators, User:Durova was trying to implement a "forced mediation" procedure a few years ago. However, it did not work. For example, in her last "forced mediation" case she seemed to realize that user A is reasonable and wants to compromise per sources, but user C is stonewalling, but she had no authority to do anything about this. Or at least this is my understanding.Biophys (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Boris, thanks for the info you sent about the editors named in the Russian AA case. I have not seen any issues currently at AE that require this info, but I will retain it in case I notice any sock cases where it could be relevant. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U User:Bidgee

I have raised a User RFC regarding the conduct of User:Bidgee at Cairns, Queensland. I am advising you because you were involved in the discussion. You are welcome to comment at the RFC, located at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bidgee.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What a gaffe!

Hi, Boris. In case you don't see it right away in this section of the talk page for our Right-wing politics article, I wanted to reiterate my apology here for having completely missed your thoughtful responses of February 9th. I'm so sorry! I'm not sure how I did that; I actually was disappointed because (as I thought) no one had replied! I can only guess that I saw a watchlist change re a !vote added to the RfC and then assumed that was the only change on the page. That doesn't even really explain my oversight, but please let me assure you that however I did it, it was absolutely unintentional, and was no kind of reflection on you or on the esteem in which I hold your contributions. But it must have seemed like I just ignored your analysis and thoughtful replies; I must have seemed very rude. Again, please accept my apologies. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. No apology needed. I was looking for a response, but I never blamed you, as this issue has become a bit moot in the flood of later comments. I am becoming increasingly pessimistic about Wikipedia's ability to reach a widely acceptable consensus/compromise on hotly disputed issues. And even if a few main protagonists reach a compromise, it may be abruptly challenged the next day but a newcomer... It all looks a bit futile. It is better to contribute to less contentious articles. As an aside, I noticed I have made similar mistakes by examining only the last edit on a page. Even on my own talk page! Cheers and all the best. - BorisG (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I go back and forth re political articles. I stay away from them for a while, and then think, "Just this one edit," or "Just this one article," and soon I'm spiraling back down into a thorny vortex of woe! ;-) Seriously though, it's very easy to burn out on them. I have no idea at all how people can be so allergic to the slightest negotiation or compromise. It's like trying to talk to a bank of clay, much of the time... I'm probably due for a break from them soon, myself. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There are positive side effects sometimes, like learning something new. Nice to talk to you. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello BorisG. I refer to this discussion. I believe that Sandstein's judgement of my editing should not depend merely on his own opinion. I believe it should depend on the opinions of the other editors involved in the disputes and discussions. My request is this: ask for each person who has been recently involved in the disputes to characterise myself and PCPP and to state whether they find either of us disruptive or problematic. I do not claim no CIVIL and NPA violations. That is factual, stupid, and regrettable. But Sandstein's approach is concerning in how he appears to be disregarding an enormous amount of evidence, ignoring the views of other involved editors, and making his own judgements based on his own, inaccurate reading of the evidence (for example in his analysis of the dispute on the Tiananmen page he entirely left out the consensus that was happening on the talk page, making it appear that I was violating consensus when the opposite is the case) and issuing harsh bans. The key to Wikipedia is consensus. Every step of the way I have been working with other editors. It would be a sad miscarriage of procedural justice to go ahead on this without consulting with the other people who were actually involved, to see whether they think I have been problematic or not. It is they, not Sandstein, who should determine the nature of my engagement with other editors and with the content of the pages. --Asdfg12345 18:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a hard one. Counting faults of both sides is hard and necessarily subjective. Sandstein is acting within his rights. I do not agree with the system where such a draconian measures can be taken by a single admin, but that's within current rules. All I can do is express my opinion. I will look at the talk page when I have time. This may be too late though. Sorry for that. - BorisG (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I have read the talk page, and I do broadly agree with you. However quite a few people agree with Sandstein, which suggests that you have displayed enough disruptive behaviour to have a number of neutral people vote against you. If my plea does not work, you can still work on areas outside Falung Gong (this is a very narrow ban). - BorisG (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a problem of bias in adjudicating this topic area. Then, there is my utterly stupid assumption that I do not need to be extremely, extremely careful when discussing and editing, because I forget that I am not treated like a normal member of the Wikipedia community. Since I am 'marked' as an SPA disruptive element, all my edits and comments are seen, by some people, through that lens. I forgot this crucial fact, or else I would not have brought the case, I would have either dropped it or checked to see if some other unmarked editor wanted to bring it. If you ditch that lens, of course what you see is largely normal engagement with the topic (yes, I have my POV, but who doesn't, and reliable sources are my bible), discussion, compromise, consensus, and annoyance with unreasonable and disruptive people. In any case, I believe the bottom line is that a cool reading of the evidence, unclouded by prejudices, reveals that I was not at fault, was building consensus, finding sources, and that my reverts were only against someone going against that process. Other editors reverted PCPP, too, citing the same reasons. The matter is now in the hands of destiny. --Asdfg12345 17:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand your feel of bias, but I do not think your allegation of bias by people like Sandstein is in the slightest way justified. I have observed him in many different cases on many different conflicts and he is always neutral and objective. However he is a bit ruthless and procedure driven, and this sometimes leads to decisions I object to. However you are right that you need to be much more careful, not because you are singled out as SPA, but simply because you edit in such a cntentious area. I give you one example. Your edit summary 'X bad, X bad' does look like no more than a joke (although I do not think it is particurly humourous). In my book, as seen in isolation, it is ok. But if then you report the same editor X to AE, of course this joke now looks in a different light. You get my point. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I do get your point. I do not have anything against Sandstein. I think everyone is doing their best. I can only submit my own analysis. I agree the 'bad bad' edit summary was ill considered. I am an Australian, and we Australians sometimes take delight in the apposite insult. It is an established part of our culture, and even parliamentary discourse! But alas, it was foolish of me, given all the other circumstances. --Asdfg12345 17:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Since in the past you struck me as one of the most reasonable people commenting at AE, could I bring this thread to your attention? While I am not a named party, I am quite familiar with editors and articles involved, and I posted my own comments section. I'd appreciate seeing your thoughts on that matter; in particular with regards to several questions I posted in my second (and so far last) comment post. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI (re arbcom)

My apologies if I mistook your content orientation. There is just such a high correlation on the matter - those editors who who tend to come after me with prejudice are overwhelmingly from a particular content camp - that I tend to forget that correlation is not causation. --Ludwigs2 13:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's OK. I can understand your frustration. I am sure when I am blocked, I will also feel that the block is unfair, disproportional and contrary to the goals of wikiepdia. That is a normal human reaction. But whether I will be right is another matter :) - BorisG (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Boris,I'd like to thank you for your posts on AE.They were fair and kind. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! - BorisG (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for replying to my commentary on WP:A/E/R. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Revert

Boris, why are you reverting comments on my user page? Gatoclass (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not. Something weird has happenned. Someone is using my name. What should I do? - BorisG (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I took care about this here. It is really strange. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I checked my user contributons, and that revert appears to be the only edit I did not make. - BorisG (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you did it by accident from your Ipad or Iphone? --Mbz1 (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I realise this now. Gatoclass's talk page is in my watchlist (without good reason), and maybe your comment was there when I looked at the watchlist. I guess I should not edit wikipedia from iPad. My bad. I am sorry. - BorisG (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That's OK. I am glad your account is not compromised. iPad could be tricky:-) Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem Boris, I figured it was just some kind of error :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned

I mentioned your views at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness. Am I right that you do not favor sanctions for SD? Just trying to learn the views of the uninvolved editors. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Both myself and User:Sean.hoyland have been involved in a dispute involving User:Supreme Deliciousness, and thus I cannot consider myself uninvolved. I will thus refrain from any comment on a sanction one way or the other. - BorisG (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edits on the Hamas covenant page

It sure looks like you have broken the 1R rule on that page many times over.Why?Owain the 1st (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Did I revert anything? I have only reshuffled stuff and not removed a single statement or source. - BorisG (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes you reverted 5 times, that is you edited the work of another editor 5 times and that is against the 1R rule.I suggest you self revert.Owain the 1st (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

These are not reverts, as they did not undo someone else's edits. But even if they did, A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.. I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:3RR. More generally, I hope you agree with my edits. I think they improve it and are not biased in any way. - BorisG (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OK my mistake, I am sorry.I do not agree with you edits.Owain the 1st (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, in the spirit of cooperation, let me know which one(s) you don't like and we can discuss. I may self revert. I thought it was purely copy-editing for better readability. Let's take it to the article talk page. To be honeset, when I first saw your statement, I thought it was to thank me for improvement to the article. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you should go back to this page and sort out the cite error you have created.[4] Thanks.Owain the 1st (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

My talk page

Haha, zing! Noticed you're from WA. I'm from VIC. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 14:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thks. Saw your wise comments on AGK's page. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, was wondering how you came across me :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 14:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Spasiba and why not : thank you et merci. I have corrected both of these. Noisetier (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about finding a way to separate discussion of who is "involved" from discussion of a topic?

I would like your input on an idea that I think might help to reduce the angry tone of discussions at ANI, AfDs and elsewhere.

I have already seen, and you have probably seen more often than I have, how much unnecessary drama and bad feeling arises from the way people introduce the "involvement" of other editors. What I think would help is two things we don't have -- neutral wording to make specific claims and a place to display such claims separate from topic discussion.

There could be a template that provides neutrally-worded ways to express that editor A has made specific claim about editor B and offered a diff C as evidence or explanation for the claim D:

{{editormakingclaim=A | editorbeingdescribed=B | diffsupportingclaim=C | specificclaim=D1}}

The typical claims could be expressed in a brief shorthand that is much less wounding than the spur-of-the-moment ways people now come up with to try to make a point. For example,

• Claim D1 = "may be motivated by past friendly interactions"
• Claim D2 = "may be motivated by past unfriendly interactions"
• Claim D3 = "has elsewhere expressed opinions that would predispose favoring one side of the current discussion"

Then if someone was in a debate and felt one of these claims should be considered by others participating in the discussion, they could just put the "warning template" into a footnote section reserved for that purpose. If I made a claim about you and you wanted to challenge it, you could also challenge it down in the warning/footnote section, not up in the topic thread. This is a somewhat expanded version of an idea I posted at OhioStandard's talk page but he hasn't yet responded. Do you think something like this might help to reduce drama and dissension? betsythedevine (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Interesting. Actually we need some way of reducing the volume of material put forward by involved (broadly speaking) editors on noticeboards. At the same time, their input may be important to provide context. Your templates may be helpful, but I would not endorse this outright just yet and would prefer to see other inputrs into this discussion. One reason I refused repeated suggestions to run for adminship is because I would like to remain independent and not having to judge every time whether I am involved. It follows that sometimes a person does not even know themselves that they are involved or biased or whatever. But it is an interesting suggestion. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just came up with this idea this morning, so it is not exactly well thought-out or polished. You and OhioStandard are the only people I have asked about it, so you can see I really would welcome any advice about improving the idea or where else I should proposed it for consideration. Maybe it is too complicated the way it is and I should propose one idea at a time somewhere -- either start with asking people to use neutral wording for the most common claims of "involvement" or else start with asking people to discuss "involvement" in a dedicated section separate from content discussion. Thanks for taking the time to reply already. betsythedevine (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the best way "to reduce drama" is to simply do not make bad faith accusations anywhere such as "may be motivated by past friendly/unfriendly interactions" and ignore dramas created by others. AfD you mentioned above is not the place to make any personal claims ("may be motivated"). It serves to discuss deletion of articles. Same with many other noticeboards. But we talked about this before, did not we? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Hodja, but what I am hoping is to improve the way people actually do things right now in Wikipedia -- and people in discussions often do describe others as "involved." Discussions would be more civil if people never did that. As a metaphor, teenagers would be safer if they never had sex -- but if, predictably, some do not abstain, the question becomes how to improve outcomes of what people in fact do. But perhaps I should move this discussion to my userspace instead of pestering BorisG on his. betsythedevine (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

In my view, an editor's involvement is relevant to any noticeboard discussion; it is not offensive, in my view, to mention involvement of other editors, but it would be more efficient if the editor did that him/herself. Thus this proposal makes sense. - BorisG (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about comments like that (at the bottom of diff: "one of Mbz1's buddies pops up again"). You possibly do not realize it, but you are having a "friendly interaction" with Betsy right now. Does it mean you can not comment as a neutral party at AfD and DYKs about articles created by Betsy? That is what such template implies.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone can comment, but obviously comments of involved people carry different weights. As to the answer to your question, depends on the subject. I still believe the substance of the comment, and reasoning, is more central than degree of involvement. But degree of involvement is relevant. BTW I did notice that Betsy was involved in those strong exchnages; however the current topic is not partisan. - BorisG (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the expression "uninvolved administrator" makes a lot of sense when it comes to AE sanctions or AfD closings. As about statements by non-administrators at AfDs, DYKs and other talk pages, even including ANI and AE, the division to "involved" and "uninvolved" is actually harmful (like in the diff I gave you above).Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(undent) (EC) Boris, and Hodja to some extent, made the issue clearer than I did. Suppose Editor X wanted to flag that I was Boris's "buddy" in some future discussion. Under the system I propose, two things would be better than what happened to Hodja and hurt her feelings. First, Editor X would have a neutral, even respectful way to name the kind of involvement he thinks have with Boris. Second, the template has room for a single URL for evidence, the stand-in for what Boris calls "degree of involvement." So for Boris and me right now the best Editor X could come up with is a link to this thread on Boris's talk page--not much "involvement"!

Suppose Boris or I want to contest the idea that I admire Boris so much it warps my judgment -- fine, we could do so, but only down in the "involvement discussion" separate from the main topic discussion. Maybe I would link to some time I said something bad about Boris (hypothetically, since afaik I never did, and I do admire Boris a lot though perhaps not enough to warp my judgment). Then maybe Editor X would link to another discussion thread where Boris was criticized and I defended him. And so on. But unless Boris and I contested the claim we were friends, Editor X would get just one URL to make the case we're involved. The template gives no opportunity to go into a long indictment of what bad people we both are.

I would like to see "involvement" treated as a public fact of Wikipedia life, not a scarlet badge of shame that a few try to hide in vain while others find joy in exposing and shaming them. This gives everyone all the more motivation to make civil, well-reasoned statements in the main topic thread instead of just attacking Participant Y or defending Participant Z. If I want to squabble about just how involved I am or you are, there is a separate place to make my case.

Hodja, I think you have made your point quite clearly that you think "involvement" should not be discussed at all for non-admins. Perhaps you would like to make a policy proposal that forbids mentioning "involvement." Like Boris and unlike you, I think that "involvement" can be relevant, that the degree of involvement is relevant, and that our current way of letting people introduce this information into topic discussions creates more upset than necessary. betsythedevine (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So, this is going to be a contest who befriended whom instead of debating the actual issue. P.S. Such comments do not hurt my feelings at all. That was another editor (Mbz1) who complained about this and possibly left the project a couple of days ago. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I asked Boris to advise me about a change I think would improve Wikipedia, to separate talk about issues from talk about "involvement." I am not proposing that people talk about involvement more than they already do, I am proposing that they talk about it less, that they talk about it formally and politely, and that they talk about it in a place separate from discussion of content, so that people who don't want to read the possible squabbling can skip the entire "involvement" talk if they want to. It's like trying to reduce car-bike collisions by building a bike lane. Both bikes and cars will move better as a result. betsythedevine (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I think this is a template for character assassination by using bad faith conspiracy accusations. Not a good idea. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So it is the template you object to rather than a "bike lane" to prevent "bad faith conspiracy accusations" from infecting the main thread? Do you think saying "past friendly interactions" is a worse "character assassination" than the rude ways people currently make the same "bad faith conspiracy accusations" using wording like "here comes his buddy" or "is it necessary to hop into every discussion to back up your pal?" or "I see all the predictable crowd here taking the same predictable sides"? betsythedevine (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Having a lot of interactions with a lot of people in EE area, I can only imagine how every statement by certain users could be accompanied by a bunch of unfriendly templates you suggested. In other words, we do not need templates that serve only to blame other users and no other purpose. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WAW! - BorisG (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will think about this some more. I hope you don't mind, Boris and Hodja, that I transcribed an earlier version of this talk page to the sandbox where I will be working on ideas about reducing the negativity of contentious discussions: User_talk:Betsythedevine/BikeLane. Thanks again for your thoughts and advice. betsythedevine (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. That would be a better place for this discussion. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note

Boris. I’ve decided not to reply on that page because anything anyone says elsewhere just leads to infinite threads, in which everyone begs to be taken notice of, but few if any take notice of what is actually said by each and every editor, and the gravamen of a point is lost in the blur and fog. I have a professional inability to read fast. I have to parse, pause, and think a lot of things through that many read or write quickly. A good deal of dislike of my editing arises from this, in fact. The gravest accusation repeated against me is WP:TLDR. I’ve appreciated your cool-headed rational approach to all this, and readiness to try and grasp what your interlocutor is saying, so if you don’t mind I’ll attempt to ‘iron out’ the contradiction you allude to.

(a) The reason for throwing up my hands in despair was an incident I was watching on the endlessly arid AN7I or Ae boards. I explained that here:

My retirement has nothing to do with my wishes, but a perception that editors with a real commitment to the encyclopedia are being systematically picked off, and that further work outside the area of my permaban (which I have quietly followed for 2 years), were this state of affairs to persist, was inappropriate.

(b)JClemens, in lending ‘cautious’ provisory 'support', added,

If there's anything missing, it's an assertion that this editor wants to edit the topic area and expresses the desire to do so in line with community guidelines

(c) I replied

In reply to JClemens, I confess I do not quite wish to return to the I/P area. Several fellow editors have expressed some confidence in the idea that, . . . I might prove helpful in the area they edit.

All the nuance is in that ‘quite’. I'd be happy if administrators were to review my case and determine that, as several editors suggest, a rehabilitation of my right to contribute would not be harmful. In retrospect, I think that one of the things people hate about my editing is that I am long-winded, which results from a professional life of looking at what words mean or imply, which sits poorly with many people who think, with some reason, that if they write something, they know what they mean, and everybody should understand this and not, to their minds, equivocate. The diff Broccolo cites as an infraction (it wasn't) about the use of the word 'civilian' for a child is a case in point. If wikipedia doesn't want people to parse articles closely, perhaps this disposition of mine is 'disruptive'. But it is certainly what writers of encyclopedias (and I have been commissioned to write for an encyclopedia in the past) are requested to be sensitive to by their editors. You'll recall of course what Babel wrote in his essay on Guy de Maupassant: Никакое железо не может войти в человеческое сердце так леденяще, как точка, поставленная вовремя. Some of us are required to do that because their professional rectitude hinges on such sensitivities.

I’d be indeed happy to be in a position to occasionally edit there, but wish to me sounded like a death-wish, someone dead-keen to throw himself into the lethal fray that area often proves to be. I have never personally asked to go back, and the proposal advanced was done, if you can believe me, without prior consultation with me. I have absolutely no interest in joining battle or joining sides. My own personal belief is that productive editing cannot ensue in that area unless one can formally or informally call in hands from all sides with a good repute for being reasonable and informed to tackle various pages without allowing discussions to degenerate into endless pointscoring threads.

(d) the difference between my two pages is something I never noticed. Thanks for pointing it out. I should iron that out, because I hate inconsistency, but at the moment am in two minds! Thanks for your vote of confidence. And now back to silence. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. In my view one's reading and writing habits are more innate and less a result of professional activities. Also, I do not think long winding arguments are useful for any encyclopedia, if only because encyclopedias are all about clarity. Talk pages are not places for demonstrations of eloquence and erudition. Well occasionally adding such things can add a bit of spice but too much of it may a bit distracting. However this is hardly disruptive.

As for the main topic of I/A editing, I have no idea what can be done to improve the atmosphere. I am very pessimistic about its prospects. But I do not think banning productive editors is the answer. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is what gets onto the article page, and must be comprehensive, lucid, systematic and laconic. To achieve those four qualities, one is obliged to negotiate with numerous anonymous people with equal rights to have their say, coming from all sorts of backgrounds. To avoid revert wars, I was told, after my two infractions in 2007, use the talk page to achieve consensus. I found this absolutely exasperating, either because of a refusal to respond or because often I was dealing with (a) editors with a profound conviction they were right who (c) didn't read the academic literature but googled and (c)had a poor knowledge of English. But I duly obliged, by analysing differences in edit proposals, and explaining in detail my reasons. Result, the WP:TLDR reputation. It's called Catch22. I've always been pessimistic about its prospects. I know however that good articles can be written if both sides find people who address the topic, and do not use this place as a venue for politics or images. You are one of those. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the standards for talk pages are different than for article space, and rightly so. However, even talk pages are not a place for literary exercises or philosophical battles. The role of the discussion is communication with fellow editors and the best comments are consise and to the point. This is not to judge your comments. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

Good day, A request for clarification has been filed with Arbcom relative to a case in which you participated or might be affected by. Communikat (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Why did you removed Gallery and Lotus Flower pictures from Ernst Neisvestyj page? It is vandalism to remove things without contacting the contributor first, and replacing someone else's pics with your own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gradiva (talk • contribs) 09:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I have not done that. It was done by user:DmitryNV, who claims (in a detailed summary) that this was not designed by Neizvestny [5]. Secondly, you owe me an apology because of that. Thirdly, when writing on a user page of another user, you are best advised to use more courteous language, even if you disagree with their edits. Forthly, this discussion does not belong here. It belongs on the talk page of the article. And lastly, please sign all oyur posts on talk pages. - BorisG (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

AE comment

How exactly is my thinking or writing that those who forcibly removed the Palestinians from Palestine were European invaders indicative of a battleground approach? nableezy - 18:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In my view, this statement is outrageous and speaks for itself. If admins don't agree with me, they can ignore it. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You made an accusation and now refuse to back it up. You claim my personal views are indicative of editing with a battleground approach, and you make this accusation without any diffs of my editing with such an approach. I think that is what is outrageous and speaks for the quality of the accusation. I see there is no point in asking you to back up such an accusation, despite it being made in a public forum without any basis. Bye. nableezy - 23:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No diffs? I quoted you verbatim, didn't I? In any case, if admins decide this remark is ok, that's fine with me. BTW, please keep the discussion in one place, that is, on AE. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand. No diffs to back up the supposed battleground approach to my editing. How is my thinking, or writing on a talk page, that the mostly European group of people who forcibly expelled the majority of the Palestinians from their homes were invaders, or colonists or whatever else I think, indicative of a battleground approach to my editing. How is my thinking that even relevant to my editing? I dont plan on responding at AE as I think the accusation is so worthless that it merits no response, only a request that you actually substantiate this supposed battleground approach and how it is due to my thinking whatever it is that I think. There is a difference between giving an opinion on a user talk page and, oh, a user writing in an encyclopedia article that the natives were squatters and trespassers. That difference should be obvious, but in case it is not, I havent put in Wikipedia's voice any of my opinions on the parties involved with the mass displacement of the natives of Palestine. I recognize that my views arent "neutral" and I do not pretend otherwise by demanding that whatever be included in encyclopedia articles reflect my personal views. The act of thinking something is not, in fact can not, be indicative of any approach, much less a battleground mentality, to editing. Absent actual evidence of my editing being influenced by this belief, the argument remains unsubstantiated and unworthy of any further response. nableezy - 02:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, Point taken. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

1907 Tiflis bank robbery nominated for FA status

I finally got around to getting through all of the items in the peer review and have nominated the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery article for Feature Article status. You can check out the nomination here. You were a great help in getting this article into great shape and any help you could give to the FA nomination would (as always) be most appreciated. Cheers. Remember (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you taking the project to fruition. I would be happy to help, but I have no idea what this process entails. Any advice? - BorisG (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Just pay attention to the comments on the talk page here and see if you can help out with any of them. Remember (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, will do. - BorisG (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

That is an improvement to what was there before. Sorry about the revert, it would have been tedious to do extensive typing from an iPhone.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. With an appropriate and polite edit summary the revert was fine. I agree a murderous purge was not POV but it was unencyclopedic. A shorter alternative would be to use the words 'Great terror' instead of 'Great Purge', as this would imply mass murder already. But the current wording is more informative if a bit wordy. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Trotsky

Please take a look at the last question regarding using Trostky as a reference on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1907 Tiflis bank robbery/archive1. I thought you might have a response to the person's concern. Remember (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Losing

One of my biggest pet peeves on the internet: writing the word "losing" with two O's. If such a word as "loosing" actually existed, I still don't believe that it would mean what it does in the context in which you use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.239.48.141 (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but everyone can make mistakes, so using the word 'moronic' is probably unwise:) . - BorisG (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The mistake was moronic, though that is not a commentary on the person making it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.239.48.141 (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(Irrelevant) Loose may be used as a verb meaning "to release" as in "I am loosing the hounds because I have spotted a fox." Danger ^{High voltage!} 16:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Article talk

It's best to use article talk solely for discussions about articles. Discussions of user's behavior should really go on their respective talk pages. They can't ignore big yellow bar and no one else needs to get pulled into a debate about, say, who started it. Just a thought. --Danger ^{High voltage!} 16:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. - BorisG (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:BorisG/Arcadiy Harting

G'day. I saw the mentioned on Wehwalt's talk and fixed a few dates and then nudged a few other things along. Hope you like. Alarbus (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Not sure how I missed these dates. Also how do you do the spell check? - BorisG (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. The dates jumped out at me, that's why fresh eyes are helpful; you're seeing what you intended to write not what was actually typed. As to the spelling, I am a native speaker of English… and browsers have spell checkers that underline things, so I just right-click and pick the appropriate word. It was underlining all the Russian names, too, but I'll defer to you on them. Alarbus (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think my ie9 has this feature. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Really, anyone using IE needs to re-think that; the modern browsers are all much better. Try Firefox and Chrome and stick with one for a better internet experience. Alarbus (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks. I sometimes use Firefox but I don't see much of a difference. Recent versions of both are quite similar. But I will look into it more. thanks.- BorisG (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Boris

Would you consider coming back to Talk:Lavrentiy Beria to give your opinion on how the page should look? I'm still running into trouble with people reverting the whole sexual assault section except for one source, Beria's family. Not a lot of people editing over there so every opinion counts. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Will do later after I return from Bali. Too much to do here ;) - cheers. - BorisG (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you sir. Enjoy your trip. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

1907 Tiflis bank robbery article now FA

Thank you for all of your assistance in helping me get the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery article up to FA status. I couldn't have done it without you. Cheers. Remember (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC) =Thanks! My pleasure! - BorisG (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ribbentrop lead-section

Any more thoughts about replacing my extended lead-section on Ribbentrop?

I managed to offend one editor by abbreviating one of the main sections (as suggested by another commentator), but the lead-section received no criticism, only a favourable comment. Wiki is still requesting that the lead-section should be extended. 109.154.24.254 (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello BorisG. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

1907 Tiflis bank robbery article is currently TFA

I just wanted to thank you again for all of your assistance in helping me get the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery article up to FA status. The article is now being displayed as Today's Featured Article on the Main Page. Thanks for all your hard work in making this possible. I greatly appreciate it. Cheers. Remember (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Deep thoughts with Jack Handey

I saw your comment on AE and wanted to respond but it was not appropriate there. I also work with a large organization of really really ridiculously cocky smart people. Unlike academia, it is essential for employees to know when they are being fools. People should hear negative feedback (call it "constructive" if you must) or else they will not improve. Too many kids with good degrees forget that the real world outside of school will crush them. Ask a young man at a factory about his thoughts on civility then relay those ideas to a student who will cry the first time someone does not wipe their bottom. Good luck this new year.Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

People can (and should) be made aware that they are fools without being told so directly. In fact, this is usually more effective. Of course, it is culture dependent, but I have worked in 5 countries on 3 continents, in government research, academia and industry, and ultimately there are certain standards everywhere. All the best, cheers. - BorisG (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Actually, you can be cynical with the word constructive but it is importamt. You are stupid is not constructive. Surely, you can do better than this is. As for Wipipedia (and internet more generally), much of its incivility stems from impersonal nature of online communication. I doubt that all these people communicate the same way with colleagues, friends etc. Some people just find this liberating; they can be free from all these social restraints. I don't. Maybe I am old fashioned. But judging by Wikipedia's civility policy, I am not alone. - BorisG (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And, according to history, incivility did not work very well for Lermontov. Duels are unconstructive, especially in the framework of the workspace environment. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your thoughtful comments on civility as one of four pillars. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's first for me:). Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Arb amendment

Thanks for you insight into the process, this may well have turned the tide. I think that the case is clearer and cleaner without this FoF, I don't agree that it is stronger, but were it correct it would be. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

Thank you. I am happy and even a little proud if it did (so much of our comments go unnoticed everywhere on Wikipedia forums). Yes, clearer and cleaner is more accurate than stronger, just didn't find the right words. But I really hope you find some energy to move on and do more useful work on Wikipedia, rather than try to re-fight the old battles. Try to put all of this behind you (and into perspective). So much can be done here in a manual way, especially with your energy and dedication... Cheers and all the best. - BorisG (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Newspapers as sources

Hi, I've often thought that WP:NEWSORG is insufficiently clear about what newspapers are reliable for. Would you be interested in helping to amend it?

Obviously it is hard to cover all bases. My initial take (informally worded) would be something like this: Good news outlets are reliable for the reporting and analysis of current events and recent history. Other things they publish need to considered more cautiously. Non-recent historical claims should only be assumed reliable if the writer is an expert (someone who writes history books or journal articles that meet WP:RS), or if the article relies on named reliable sources (for example, an interview with an expert). Travel writers are reliable for current information about localities but not necessarily for historical facts about them (they have a bias towards cute myths rather than boring truths).

Unfortunately, even some eminent journalists rely on Wikipedia for background facts without acknowledging it. I've seen some remarkable examples.

Regards. Zero^talk 01:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! What you say sounds reasonable to me. However I haven't given it enough thought. I think it is important to cover at least the main bases. I guess it would require to consider all types of material published in newspapers. Opinions can certainly be cited, with proper attribution. Another thing that may not be part of the policies but certainly will be part of the practice: to some extent, it depends on the subject of the article. Not just BLP and other sensitive cases. What is acceptable for a subject mentioned in a handful of sources (like my article Peter Goullart) would not be acceptable for Winston Churchill, where vast scholarly literature exists. Any thoughts on this last issue? Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one

Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Missing the point

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Sandstein's talk page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 15:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two question

Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could place the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I am currently very busy. No time to edit Wikipedia at all, let alone participate in the very inefficient procedural exercise. This is by no means a reflection on yur efforts, which are sound and useful. However on refleciton I decided that this is all a bit of a storm in a teacup. A massive amount of effort to resolve a dispute over a couple of sentences. I will wait until the procedural part is resolved, and then may participate but it still depends on how busy I am at that time. Cheers and good luck. - BorisG (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for letting me know! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Ashkenazi Jews talk page - should Sholem Aleichem be in the collage

Hi :-) Due to the fact I saw you interested in the topic, I thought you might want to take part in it.

There is a discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews regarding should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage or not. The discussion is called "Ones and for all, should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage".

Please take part in the vote and state your opinion on the topic. Thank you! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please take part in a new discussion

Hi :-) I started a new discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews page I thought you might want to take part in. It's called:

"Which 2 people should be in the collage - Botvinnik, Gershwin, Bernstein, Von Neumann" ([6]).

Hopefully after that discussion it will be totally clear what the consensus is and what people want! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arcadiy Harting concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arcadiy Harting, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BorisG. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, BorisG. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

May 2018

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Arcadiy Harting, from its old location at User:BorisG/Arcadiy Harting. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. » Shadowowl | talk 16:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@BorisG: It has been accepted and moved into article space. -- » Shadowowl | talk 17:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, BorisG. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mohamed Lahyani has been accepted

Mohamed Lahyani, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shlomo Levin has been accepted

Shlomo Levin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

There are russophobic Organizations

Bellingcat and the Institute for Statecraft are just Pseudo-NGOs which are controlled by British Intelligence Services and Atlantic Council creates concepts for the neo-imperial policy of US.--92.74.255.241 (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I didnt attack you and didnt debate policy of countries I just corrected you. Your comment contains a lot of wrong informations. By the way a lot of Germans in Germany and Poles in Poland are also americanized without living in US. You can be also americanized through consuming American Media or Media that promotes official Narratives of American governments for example. All I said is proved and is not only my opinion. The Integrity Initiative is for example just a British Propaganda campaign which also included for example faking proofs for an alleged Russian inferference in Dutch parliament elections so the Institute for Statecraft is an anti-Russian Organization. Faking proofs for an inferference in foreign elections has the purpose of manipulating the public opinion in Netherlands.--88.66.132.126 (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jessica Pegula, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Slam. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)