User talk:Nanobear~enwiki/Archive3

Topol-M picture

The Topol M launcher has a total of 16 wheels while the Topol launcher only has 14. This rare image was given to me by my friend from Russia who was working as a state media photographer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MastermindPrime (talk • contribs) 10:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paulkint

OK, you win. His first posts to the article were also his first contributions to Wikipedia, and I thought they deserved some forbearance out of our desire not to be hostile to newbies. But it has become clear since that he is simply on a vendetta against the possibility of interstellar travel. I (obviously) think is unverifiable and POV. I've been standing aside lately (partly due to other responsibilities) but agree it is time to rein him in. Sigh, Wwheaton (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Ossetia

How does one join? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just sign in the list of participating editors: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ossetia#Participation. Offliner (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synth

Re: Your revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia&diff=311458062&oldid=311455183 (rv - including this quote is WP:SYNTH, since it doesn't discuss "ethnic cleansing")

There is not WP:SYNTH, since the connection is explicitely made in the source quoted: "THERE is growing evidence of looting and "ethnic cleansing" in villages in the area of conflict between Russia and Georgia.

The attacks — some witnessed by reporters or documented by a human rights group — include stealing, the burning of homes and possibly killings. Some are ethnically motivated, while at least some of the looting appears to be the work of opportunistic profiteers.

The identities of the attackers vary, but a pattern of violence by ethnic Ossetians against ethnic Georgians is emerging and has been confirmed by some Russian authorities. "Now Ossetians are running around and killing poor Georgians in their enclaves," said Major-General Vyacheslav Borisov, the commander in the Russian-occupied city of Gori." --Xeeron (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the article talk page. Offliner (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some frank words

You are not doing your own cause a favor by your actions at Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia. You might have noticed my absence of editing on that page during the first week after that article's creation (despite the fact that I obviously noticed it and it is in a field I am interested in). Or you might have noted the absence of my vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 genocide of Georgians in South Ossetia. Both are due to the fact that I am not entirely convinced that we need that article.

However, there has been a notable push to remove all sources and analysts overly critical of Russia from all topics related to 2008 South Ossetia war (and maybe other Russia-related topics that I am not interested in as well). This is done by quoting various wikipolicies, like WP:FRINGE (made to exclude crackpot theories about UFOs and such) or WP:SYNTH (made to prevent synthesis of different sources), in cases that are not covered by the word nor spirit of these policies. In all cases, it is hard not to conclude that these policies are (ab)used to remove material that has nothing wrong with it, except portraying the wrong POV.

I don't like the current state of the article either, but the way out is constructive editing, not citing random policies to remove material. Please don't sink to the level of other POV warriors. --Xeeron (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a valid reason for removing Borisov's quote from Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia, as I have explained. I think it's WP:SYNTH (but not WP:FRINGE). In any case it could be easily replaced with something by the HRW. But I don't feel like doing many improvements on that article, since I don't recognize its independence. I don't agree with the removal of Felgenhauer from the main article, since his opinion (credible or not) was quoted by so many sources. But it could perhaps be replaced with something more recent and more scholarly. Or maybe it's best to do nothing before the report comes out and hopefully reaches a clear enough conclusion. Offliner (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the main article, I agree with you. Once the EU report is out, I hope that we can considerably shorten that section, replacing many or all analyists statements with one or two summary sentences. I was prepared to do nothing in that section and wait for the report, but unfortunately, someone else did not want to wait. Regarding the ethnic cleansing article, it is in a miserable state and I can understand why you do not want to work on it. Yet simply removing statements (and I disagree with your SYNTH assessment) will only make it worse. --Xeeron (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I suggest to create an article on informational war against Russia, see the ghits. (Igny (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've been thinking of creating something like that for a long time. We could include material about the anti-Russian lobby in the USA or about Berezovsky's activities (he is the grandmaster of media war). I think Tsygankov's book probably has some good info about the former, but I haven't had the change to read it yet. What kind of content did you have in mind for the article? Offliner (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is also interesting. In reporting about the Caucasus, the Western media seems to focus solely on crimes committed by Russia, completely ignoring what the terrorists are doing, although the terrorists have killed much more people. It's interesting to compare this to Western media's reporting about the Afghan war. There, the media seems to unanimously agree, that the Taliban are evil, and should all be killed, and they are very symphatetic towards NATO forces' attempts to do this. Such material could be discussed in an article about Anti-Russian media bias. Offliner (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article can pretty much include any attempt to distort/insult Russia's public image by raising frivolous and baseless claims/accusations about the country, its political elite, and definitely its history. All the scholarly sources discussing the matter of organizing such a campaign of discrediting Russia have to be included. Any examples of Russia's blunders on this front are also welcome. Also I would really like to connect this information war to the edit wars on the Wikipedia. I am still looking if there are scholarly articles connecting the two, but I do not have a lot of time to put too much effort here. (Igny (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

An interesting article. (Igny (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Heinz Nawratil

Can you please explain this revert [1]? First, you have never edited or took any kind of an interest in this article before, yet, all of sudden you decided to revert me. Can you explain why? Second, please note that I did not remove any tags - in fact, with your revert you removed the POV tag that had been placed there by another user. You also removed a request for citation tag. Hence your edit summary please do not remove tags before the dispute is settled seems to apply to your own revert rather than my edit. Perhaps more importantly, you also removed very notable and well sourced information that the subject of the article published in a Holocaust denial journal. Can you explain why you removed this information, that this person published in a Holocaust denial journal? Finally, you also removed some external links, but I guess that's the least of the problems here. I appreciate and await your response.radek (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for new articles where to edit. However, that edit may have been a mistake. I'll look into it. Offliner (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would appreciate you self-reverting. Happy looking for new articles to edit. Feel free to ask for suggestions.radek (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drama

Offliner, I would strongly suggest you refrain from posting to or about Piotrus and the others about the mailing list affair, when they evidently see this as harassment. This will only create more wiki drama. The matter is being looked into; there's no need for you to stir up a chorus or play the prosecutor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I guess I got a bit heated. Still, I strongly think that when an admin is involved in this kind of stuff, a temporary desysop while awaiting the results of ArbCom's investigation (which can take very long) is a correct measure. And BTW, I have every right to ask questions since the matter involves me (according to Bakharev they have waged a campaign against me as well.) I'm going to demand more information about this later, if ArbCom doesn't make the evidence public. Offliner (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You have been named as one of the parties to this case. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, considering that this issue is involving quite much the Military history WikiProject and few of its well-known and active members, I invite you to make a statement supported by diffs/other evidence regarding the activities of the group involved,on this page. Thanks and best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes sense to post evidence in two different places. I will post some diffs on the ArbCom evidence page, where members of your WikiProject can read them. Offliner (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough, we will keep an eye there then. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have no fear, I am here!

When I see scare tactics and gross injustice, I act on it. You're testifying in a trial, I'm going to be there too, soon hopefully. Meanwhile, here's the counter-argument to Alexia Death:

Alexia Death went ahead and claimed that hacking is a crime. While that is the stereotype, it is a wrong stereotype. If a person hacks into another's computer, but does not alter any data, nor disclose any information unrelated to illegal activities, that is not a crime. The US and UK operates on a Case Law basis. Perhaps Alexia Death can find a single case, where mere hacking, without the release of any information, except that used for illegal activities, was found to be a crime. It does not fall under criminal law, nor tort law.

Another argument advanced by Alexia Death, who wants to kill the truth, is that if the case goes forth, it will encourage hacking. A counter-argument is in order: if this case is does not go forth, it will encourage both, hacking and formation of illegal Wikipedia groups. If this case is not investigated, it will give a blank check to the formation of illegal Wikipedia groups. It will lead to not merely a single group being formed, but multiple groups. These multiple groups will begin to fight each other, ignite a major war on Wikipedia; here hacking will not only be used for gather information on illegal activities, but also for sending worms to each other's computers, catching innocent victims in the crossfire. To prevent the innocent from getting hurt, Wikipedia must investigate this case.

No e-mails have been released. No personal information has been released. No legal information has been released. No crime has been committed. What's the harm of investigating, what appears to be a blatant violation of Wikipedia Policy? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your support. It looks like a member of the secret email list leaked their archives to Alex Bakharev (or some other admin). I don't know who it was, but I'm almost convinced that there was nothing illegal going on. It was a public email list with many members -- not private communication between two persons. At worst, the rules of the email list have been violated ("please do not give these emails to others"), but not the law. I believe this is similar to posting someone's real name on wiki; it's not nice, and it's against Wikipedia's rules, but not illegal.

At the moment I think ArbCom is examining the evidence, and I'm sure there will be sactions against some of these users. Offliner (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, here's some more stuff:

Criminal Law requires a "guilty mind". Mere hacking cannot, in and of itself, produce a "guilty mind", as a "guilty mind" requires "guilty actions" that are "intended to cause harm to another". Furthermore, a civilian can act under "legal authority" to relay the messages to the proper authorities. Tort Law requires there to be damages to the plaintiff. However one cannot collect damages on illegal activities. "You hacked the banked accounts that I robbed" - is not a proper Torts claims. There is no violation of Contract Law, because there is no Contract (K). "Don't give this data out" - is not a K, as it is too indefinite to be enforced. The only way that Russavia and/or Wikipedia can get in trouble, is if some information that is unrelated to the illegal activities of the group is published. Furthermore, illegal activities caught by illegal means do not enjoy any rights, unless the legal rights of the persons are disrupted.

For instance, say cops without a warrant break down a crack dealer's door and destroy all of the cocaine. He cannot sue them for the destruction of the cocaine. However, he can sue them for destroying the door. However, if the door was open, or was opened but still usable after it was opened, he cannot sue them at all. Naturally, I will continue, to the best of my abilities, to ensure that no legal threats, or scare tactics, get this case thrown out. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for leaking, the arguments still stand. It's not a crime. Well, then I shall wait for more information to unravel. This has the potential to become very interesting. I might even find out whose sockpuppet Samogitia was. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New account

Hi, Offy. I don't have access to my old user account at User:PasswordUsername, as my computer had serious hardware malfunctions earlier this month, and I still don't have the machine working correctly. I'll still be able to do some things intermittently from another place, but I don't have my old user access since I never had e-mail enabled (though I've gotten myself an e-mail account for this new user space). For now, I'm Anti-Nationalist, which in all likelihood will probably be my permanent identity, since the odds of recovering the old machine are pretty slim. (I will be adding more evidence for the Arb case.) Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's good to have you back :) I'm sure you will have some good evidence to present and I'm looking forward to your comments. Offliner (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome back. I'm developing the evidence page – what I've got so far is the tip of the iceberg, but you can glance at it at User:Anti-Nationalist/EE evidence. The 'net access is kind of hard to get at, so feel free to add this to your own evidence or link to it at your own discretion if you think it might be helpful and I don't get around to presenting it by the deadline (though I'm very sure I will.) Best, 01:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think your evidence is great and very well presented. I guess it would make sense if we concentrate on different articles, so that there won't be too much overlap (which seems to be what you're doing.) Offliner (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks for giving me the Barnstar. Much appreciated.

You're welcome :) Offliner (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing

Hi Offliner, could you please convert the quote you use here to a paraphrase of what was written? Daniel (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Offliner (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Daniel (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny. Now I see Poeticbent has reposted the quotes in his evidence section: [2]. Offliner (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's been handled. The only other thing I need you to paraphrase is the quotes in the "Early June edit warring" section. Please be careful to be very general and not use the same words as the quotes; it's better to describe what was said in ambiguous terms rather than definitive ones when paraphrasing, as a general rule. Daniel (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Daniel (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Põhja Konn

Offy, I'm sorry but I haven't had the privilege of really taking the time to familiarize myself with this user's contribs. I'm really busy with looking over more evidence (I've gotten a first peek at the secret archive just around an hour ago) and have really limited time I can devote to devoting my evidence for this ArbCom case as it is, as the computer I'm on is not even mine. Since Diggy did discuss coming back as a sock persistently, I think there are various things worth looking into, but I don't want to rush to judgment, since I honestly have next to no familiarity with this user, the pro-Digwuren coincidences on a number of articles notwithstanding. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. I think the evidence I posted at ArbCom should be enough to get him checkusered. Offliner (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked again, I very much agree with you. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant cat

Taken care of. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:30, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Team member sock?

This user, [3], is likely to be a sock of the Digwuren team. He revert-warred against me at the Soviet Story article where I removed his poorly sourced and unsourced material, patiently explaining to him the different policies on talk, about which he's been more stubborn than anyone I've seen. From his latest comments there re. Bernard Shaw, it seems he's well-aware of the relevant policies regardless. He's also shown the same exact interest in articles that were closely followed by members of the mail cabal, and seems to be a SPA for the Soviet Story (a Martintg-made article) and a few other things they'd have cared about. I very much doubt it's an authentic user, but it could be an account of some other crazy nationalist. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that this is a suspicious account. Someone should do something about it; also, the Konn account should be CheckUsered immediately, but this seems to be taking time. Offliner (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up

Hey Offy, I have posted at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Another_query_to_clerk_or_arbitrators concerning what appears to be some overlap of our evidence that is being presented. Would you have any objections to this? Anyway, I will see you at the talk page on that issue. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something funny

Is this interesting? [4], [5] and [6]. ;-) Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITN for 2008 South Ossetia war

On 1 October 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2008 South Ossetia war, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Space institutions

Okay, but by former do you mean [:Category:Soviet and Russian space institutions]] because the other one refers exclusively to Russia and not the Soviet Union. Maybe this category should be renamed Soviet Space institutions and kept along with Category:Space industry companies of Russia as they do not refer to the same thing.

Whoops, I meant we should use the latter, i.e. Category:Space industry companies of Russia. I think renaming Category:Soviet and Russian space institutions => Category:Soviet space instutions is a great idea, and then we can keep the both cats. Offliner (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry I forgot to sign in previously Tec15 (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YYYY-MM-DD numerical date format in footnotes

Hello, I think you commented on this issue earlier, and you may like to know that there is now an RfC under way on this question, at Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal_on_YYYY-MM-DD_numerical_dates. -- Alarics (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Russia

As a member of WikiProject Russia, you might want to take a look at how WikiProject:Russia rates the Battle of Tskhinvali. I think it's at least High Importance, possibly top, as a major military victory after the two Chechen Wars, I think it's crucial for Russia. I'm working on Ossetian ratings at the moment. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacurek and IP edits

Jacurek is from Canada and so is the IP, aren't they? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Embassy of Russia in Copenhagen

On October 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Embassy of Russia in Copenhagen, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Team members to protect sockpuppets

Hey Offy, in relation to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Team_members_protect_sockpuppets, you may want to enhance this evidence somewhat to demonstrate the reality that the web brigade attempted to undermine WP, particularly in regards to community bans. It also goes to show that Biophys, and the brigade at large were aware that he was sockpuppeting in violation of his community ban, and nothing was done about it by the brigade, except for protecting the sockpuppet, and then fighting to allow a disruptive user to continue to edit. This obviously goes against evidence that Biophys has presented in relation to his reporting of sockpuppets.

Some relevant links, in case you don't have them, are:

The fact that this brigade knew of the socks of this community banned user, and did nothing about it, except to try and undermine the original community ban says a lot, and should be presented as evidence. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added some of this to my evidence. Offliner (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:EEML

Hello, thank you for the advise! M.K. (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I "stolen" your table :) I hope it is ok. M.K. (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nadym-Pur-Taz region

I think "around the Ob bay" or "in the Ob river basin" are the best choices. Describing this region via the districts is fine, too, but, as you correctly noted, we will need to have the articles about those districts in order for such description to be useful. Another possibility (if you need to be more specific than "Ob") is to define the region as an area "in the basin of the Nadym, Pur, and Taz Rivers"—we already have articles on each of these rivers.

Another thing I wanted to clarify is whether we should even have an article about the "Nadym-Pur-Taz region". From what I've seen, it's a convenience term used by Gazprom and as such is unlikely to be a notable subject deserving its own article (please correct me if I'm wrong on this point, though). In my opinion, inline clarification (whichever one you eventually select) is quite sufficient, unless there is enough content (even if it's all Gazprom specific) to warrant an article. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:12, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the answer. I think I will use "around the Ob bay" or "in the basin of the Nadym, Pur, and Taz Rivers" for now. Yes, it does seem that Nadzym-Pur-Taz is just a convenience term used by Gazprom, although I'm not completely sure. Offliner (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Well, gee, thanks! Although, you know, the things you said are actually something our policies and guidelines require of all of us anyway :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:26, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Relocation of EEML evidence

Just a notice: For a few users I have relocated your EEML evidence to a sub-page.

The reasons for this are because your sections are now so long it was becoming impossible to navigate and decipher who wrote what, particularly towards the end of sections. This effectively rendered your evidence as unusable, which was not a good thing.

Rather than reduce the size of your evidence (which I deemed as unfair) I have removed them to private subpages. These are yours and yours alone to edit. They certain make interpreting your evidence MUCH easier.

The downside is that when you update your evidence it does not go into the history log of the principal evidence page. Hence I suggest you add a brief "Updated evidence on ..." note beneath your evidence heading on the main evidence page. This will alert people to changes on your subpage. An extra bit of hassle I know, but it a small price for having evidence which can be understood.

Also feel free to create a single sentence description of your main headings and insert it on the main page below the link I have added. See for an example from a previous case.

I hope none of you are upset by this - I assure you my only objective was to increase the usability of your evidence.

Sincerely, Manning (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koronas-Foton

Howe do you know Koronas-Foton is C and Low? Are you the authorities here? I leave questions everywhere and everyone ignores me. Can you punish WikiProject Russia for being lazy sobs? THANK YOU IN ADVANCE!!!--anonimous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.215.165 (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing your message, I immediately called the relevant authorities and they told me that Koronas-Foton is C-class and low-importance. Offliner (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU! How can i reach these authorities? Everyone is ignoring me! I have a bunch of cumplaints to file!--anonimous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.215.165 (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PMSL, nice one Offy. :) --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 11:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for the Economic Section Contribution in North Ossetia-Alania Article

Yes, I know it took a while to notice, but better late then never! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 2004 Russia-Belarus gas dispute

On October 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2004 Russia-Belarus gas dispute, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contribution Victuallers (talk 14:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stern magazine

The quotes from Stern magazine are out of sync with all other public estimates, let alone even the German intelligence agency. Further, there is no way to corroborate the source. Do you speak German?--72.255.94.143 (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do speak German. Please remember WP:Verifiability, not truth. Offliner (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember undue weight, among anything else.--72.255.94.143 (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journal article request

Hi, back in August you posted a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Small Wars & Insurgencies, Volume 20, Issue 2 June 2009 for some articles in the journal Small Wars & Insurgencies. I've just posted an offer there to provide these if you still need them. Just drop me an email and I can send you the pdfs. Dr pda (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd still very much like to get those. I've sent you an email. Thanks a lot! Offliner (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email received. I've just sent the pdfs to you. Dr pda (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heroin use in Russia

I have a couple of questions regarding the recent news about record levels of heroin use in Russia (70t/y, 20% of world consumption) and AIDS and HIV epidemics (related to the drugs) running out of control. Is there a WP article discussing these developments? Also it seems that spike in heroin use could be an unintended consequence of the US operation in Afghanistan. In fact when I discussed it with my friends in Russia they say there is a sentiment growing in Russia that it was not so "unintended" as it seems. Have you heard anything about that? (Igny (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry to but in here, but I have. Basically someone is trying to sponsor Dokka Umarov's acts in Ingushetia with the Heroin sales. On the one hand, Russian Youth gets attacked. On the other, Caucasian Region gets destabilized again. It's a win-win for that someone. Surprisingly, I haven't heard anything about Washington's involvement in this, so it shouldn't be too hard to combat. I doubt Obama knows about it, he's got Economy and Healthcare on his hands, and Clinton's messing up again in Pakistan. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the drug issue, since I haven't been following it. Dunno what is the correct article for this, but Health Care in Russia comes to mind. Offliner (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture for Deletion

There's a really cool picture in the Invasion of Dagestan Article up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dagestan_1999.jpg Can you do something to prevent it's deletion? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Offliner, thanks for your enquiry. This is a non-free image, and we use these only where they are absolutely indispensable. What needs to be done with this image is that somebody who wishes it to be kept needs to file a "fair use rationale", i.e. an explanation why it should be kept in light of the rules of WP:NFC. In particular, such a rationale would have to address the question of how "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (NFCC #8), and why the same purpose cannot be served by alternative free content. Once somebody has provided such a rationale, there may be a discussion about whether it is valid and meets the requirements; if we don't agree about that it may be brought to a deletion discussion. I personally cannot add such a rationale, because I honestly can't think of a valid one. This is just a generic photograph of commandos being landed by a helicopter – but our readers already know what a helicopter looks like and what it looks like when commandos are landed from one. Our readers do not need to see this picture, or this particular scene, in order to understand a statement such as "During the Dagestan invasion, Russian special commandos operated with helicopters"; there's nothing crucial in the photograph that is not equally well conveyed by the text itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've made an enquiry, but personally I agree that there is not really a justification for keeping this non-free image and it should be removed. It's unlikely that a free picture about the war will be found to replace it though. Offliner (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, oops, sorry, it was actually Russavia who asked on my talk page, but it was triggered by this posting here, so I sort of got you mixed up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SEVMASH

Per your note, much more added to the articleФедоров (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Yes, this is great info. Offliner (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your correction of my correction is WRONG! Whoever captioned the photo that was placed in the Wiki page was WRONG! Please take a close look at the photo. To Medvedev's right and below where Medvedev is standing you can see the after end of an incomplete OSCAR Class submarine (two tapering sterns with screws attached. Immediately in front of him and below you can clearly see an externally framed cylindrical submarine section. And, by the way the Prirazlomnaya rig was built in the old big construction hall - there are pictures of the huge pieces being assembled on the SEVMASH website. Further, the Prirazlomnaya had already long been put into the water by the time Medvedev was in Severodvinsk in July 2009. There are publicly available pictures of Medvedev standing next to the actual Prirazlomnaya rig riding in the water in July 2009.Федоров (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is from here. If it's a mistake, then it's a mistake by the Kremlin website. Offliner (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the disputed photo with another one. Thanks for pointing this out. Offliner (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EEML case

Are you active on the WP:EEML case or not? You seem to be the only Arbitrator who hasn't voted yet — are you responsible for the latest delay? Offliner (talk) 11:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not voted yet as I expect to make some alternative proposals, and some proposals concerning users not already addressed by the existing proposals. I have nearly completed re-reviewing the evidence, and I expect to be voting shortly. As you are no doubt aware, there is an exceptionally large volume of evidence in this case, more than in any of the cases in the last two years, it seems, and I would not wish to overlook anything. --bainer (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sevmash

On November 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sevmash, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Nanobear~enwiki. You have new messages at Tuscumbia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ArbCom deadlines

Unfortunately, in this case the target dates do not mean much. This is about the 5th missed one if I recall correctly. Manning and I have bugged the arbitrators each time a date has passed. We have been told that the committee is working on wrapping the case up as fast as possible, but things have been delayed due to the sheer volume and complexity of the evidence. I join you in wanting this case to close as soon as possible. Let me know if you have any more questions or if I can help with anything. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Times

I don't believe we have a bot that supports freezepage. You might want to try probing the owners of this or this one to see whether they'd be able to add such support; it sure would be helpful! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:38, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Latest developments

Radeksz is proxying for banned User:Molobo. On 29 November, banned user Molobo sends an email to Radeksz containing text he wants added to Schieder commission. Radeksz then does as told: [56]. It can be clearly seen from the format that Radeksz simply cutpasted the text from Molobo's email - the lines in the diff are cut off in exactly the same way as they are in the Polish text of Molobo's email. The result is similar to what one gets when cutpasting text from Gmail to a Wikipedia article - everyone is welcome to try it for verification. Notice also, how the line containing the Google books link is longer than others - this will happen when pasting text from a Gmail email. However, Radeksz copies too much text and pastes the contents of his Gmail account on the page as well.

I've seen a lot of mistakes in my time, but I've never seen anyone do that in main space before. What is interesting to consider is this: Through this "mistake", Radeksz has artificially extended the length of the case just as it was getting ready to close. What do you think of that coincidence? Granted, it would be a huge stretch to think that this error was intended. But it is interesting to consider that they have received an extension as a result. Either way, the outcome may not be good for them. If Radeksz really was proxying for Molobo, that's a very serious offense. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re insanity

See here in regard to the insanity comment you linked to on my talk page. KnightLago (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also addressed the liar remarks. KnightLago (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About SSJ-100

Hello, I´m a russian aeronautics products follower... and building aircarfts for Flight Simulator, the most of my airplanes are russians, so the article about the SSJ-100 is very interest to me. In fact I´m trying to build this aircraft for FS but I have not a 3d views plans to make the job... maibe you know where I can get this plans? thanks for your time... --Guinart (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]