Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:41, 1 November 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Hodja Nasreddin, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages
• 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 need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Russia Portal, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Misplaced Pages notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist.

Again, welcome! Alex Bakharev 00:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin, Quotations

Hello, Biophys. I've removed one of your contribs and moved other (see history). But it's mostly technical, i.e. your work is appreciated. I've noticed some of your interest to Quotations -- let's work together to improve them. The thing is, the majority of the section was contributed once by me, and there was no one pro or contra voice. I would give B for the section, but not more. It still needs a large work of adding, removing, and refining. And, again, your work is valued. Remember one of basic principles of Misplaced Pages, be bold! Thank you. ellol 13:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested...

I noticed your interests that you stated on your user page, and I just thought that you might be interested in the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject. If you like, drop by. I think that you may find it interesting. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 20:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Welcome. :) – ClockworkSoul 07:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-postulated relativity

Hi Biophys, I don't have the impression that his approach is really original. You may see that as a negative remark, but for Misplaced Pages it can actually work out positive, as such an approach (which I would call "Lorentzian") that was shared by a number of notable, even "authoritive" physicists is certainly more notable (= encyclopedic) than that of one physicist who is unknown in the west.

Thus it may be worth writing a slightly more general article about it, if a respected journal article or book can be found that already discusses the subject (in order to avoid WP:OR). Possibly either "Lorentzian relativity" or "Physical relativity" could be sufficiently general as well as notable topics to which that book belongs. But probably you'd need help from other editors to make such a new article live up to its scope... Harald88 21:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Regards, Harald88 21:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's simply a new way of teaching SR, then there are two ways it could be included in Misplaced Pages:

1. It was a notable minority viewpoint among teachers of SR.
2. Our editors thought the pedagogical approach would be useful for our readers, and found it not to have any major philisophical differences from ordinary SR teaching.

Is either of these things true? -- SCZenz 17:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I can answer for Biophys (Biophys where are you?).

Point 1: Yes, that is verified to be factual (Lorentz, Poincare, Langevin and several other teachers as well as a number of notable experimantal physicists such as Ives)

Point 2: Not clear what you mean. People such as Bell and of course the above Russian author, if I understand well, emphasized the pedagogical usefulness of the physical interpretation that we inherited from the stationary ether model, even if we don't explicitly use it.

Regards, Harald88 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Peripheral membrane protein

Did you notice that this article has been nominated for the MCB Collaboration of the Month? I see you've been putting alot of work into it, so you might want to add your vote to the stack: it's currently one of the front runners to be next month's collaboration. – ClockworkSoul 18:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yuri Shchekochikhin and Sergei Yushenkov

Hi, thank you for your hard work in developing Yuri Shchekochikhin and Sergei Yushenkov. If we can get them to a really good condition within five days, I am thinking of nominating one or both of these to appear on the Misplaced Pages front page in the "Did you know?" column of newest articles. Let me know if you have any suggestions for a good "Did you know" phrase for the page. Best wishes, Dryman 21:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Biophys, thanks for your further edits. I have nominated the articles, I think they are in good shape and should have a good chance at being on the front page this week! If you think of any other important facts feel free to add them. It might also help to make a short stub article for Liberal Russia with anything you know about it. I have read that Yushenkov was assassinated just hours after registering Liberal Russia in the 2003 Duma elections , if this is true I think it's a very striking coincidence. Dryman 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

On November 29, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yuri Shchekochikhin, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

On November 29, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sergei Yushenkov, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Well done Biophys. Top work, a double strike. Dryman was the kind nominator. Feel free to self-nominate, as the vast majority of entries are such. Thanks again, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Alexander Litvinenko

Okay. You want to take a look at it and cleanup and stuff? Maybe it will be more effective that way? I'm not too familiar with the whole apartment bombing thing. Nishkid64 02:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Galina Starovoitova

Ok, I'll try to take a look at it today. Dryman 18:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RE:Communism and Nazism

One interesting point I found there is that Soviet occupiers in East Europe were actually worse than Nazi occupiers. - Indeed, the Baltic States suffered considerably more from Communist repressions than under Nazi rule (Estonia/Latvia lost about 1/4 of population during the WW2 - mostly due to Communism). Hence the alleged pro-Nazi tendencies (?!) there. The number of victims of Communism of course exceeds that of Nazism , since Nazism was obvious evil and was quickly defeated, but commies managed to hold power for 70 yrs. Constanz - Talk 08:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Suvorov on Berlin wall

Hi, I added Suvorov's citation on the wall & communism here. If you happen to take interest in it, you might improve the translation. The original text is here .Constanz - Talk 11:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

C2 domain

Hello! A bot caught your creation of C2 domain as a possible copyvio from here. Usually, we delete them under a general speedy criteria (G12), but in this case it is not entirely clear. In the terms of use the site claims the database is public for any purpose. Can you confirm this is right, and information copied from such database is not copyvio? You can either reply at my talk page or at Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations, as I will leave the entry listed there until this is confirmed. Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo 04:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it was a false positive. As User:Wherebot is likely to catch new additions if they are copied, could you please add a note in their talk pages either pointing to the WikiProject discussion, or to the C2 domain precedent? It will make things easier for us to remove them from the copyvio list as soon as they appear. Thanks again! -- ReyBrujo 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Allow me

Re: C2 domain, Pfam/Interpro summaries, and copyright

Sorry for the long response time (I was on wikibreak).

As Misplaced Pages is under the GFDL, and not the GPL, I am not sure if we can use their summaries. What do you think of the matter?

-- Where 00:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Novartis/GNF has contacted us to talk about collaboration and importing data. This could fit well with your use of Pfam. The talk page is here. Thanks. TimVickers 19:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. If they gave permission, then it is fine. I was under the impression from the letter posted on the talk page that they only gave permission provided derivative works were distributed under the GPL though? I'm not sure. If you think you have permission, I will add the links to Wherebot's ignore list. -- Where 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein!

– ClockworkSoul 18:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding to Category:Integral membrane proteins

When you add article to this category make sure this category isn't a subcategory of another category the article belongs to - for an example some of the articles are already in the category Category:Proteins, so when you add the same article to Category:Integral membrane proteins, which is subcategory of Category:Proteins down the category tree, things get a little redundant. What you need to do is to remove the parent category. -- Boris 05:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I will do it. Biophys 06:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Shchekochikhin

As you seem interested in his biography, could you please take a look at Three Whales Corruption Scandal and edit it if necessary? I feel unable to deal with lengthy articles now. Colchicum 18:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

O'K, I will take a look. But you know this subject much better than me. Biophys

internet police squads

Very interestiing topic. I am quite sure that Russian secret services take this issue very seriously, even with paranoia. I don't have any sources, but I a have a similr experience, on a related issue. In early 1980s I was approached by KGB to make for them an expert's conclusion of the possibility that the computer viruses are in fact warfare of the West agains the Soviet Union. When I demonstrated them that viruses do immensely more economical harm in the West than to Soviets, after some thinking the KGB "experts" reformulated the question: is it possible that the computers the Soviet Union buys in the West are "pre-loaded" with software or microchips that may be activated by computer viruses to do some spywork. Later KGB elaborated the idea of "computer polygons", where a PC from the West would be placed into a mock network with simulated activity that may be of inrerest for Western spies, and all the transmissions (network, radio, UV, etc) of the suspect PC were to be monitored to "catch the spy" and figure out how it does this. I bet that good money was allocated for this. Unfortunately, when all this started I got a chance to work abroad, so I don't know how it ended. But I am sure that this kind of ideas didn't die, and with the proliferation of internet they got a new life. Good luck, `'mikka 18:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Could you help with any reliable sources on this subject?Biophys 14:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Try fsb.ru. Don't know if it speaks much about the subject, but at least it is reliable source. ellol 05:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting tool

Use Google Print: .-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try.Biophys 17:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you want some scholarly sources on Russian disinformatsia, active measures and propaganda?

Biophys, I found your article on Internet Brigades via slashdot. Mate, your article on this form of propaganda is a brilliant synthesis. I can name several excellent sources on past Russian active measures, propaganda and disinformatsia that correspond exactly with the phenomenon you have described here. See here for most of the sources: http://intellit.muskingum.edu/russia_folder/russiad%26d_folder/russiadis%26dectoc.html In particular you might want to look up the works of 'Dezinformatsia:The strategy of Soviet Disinformation' by Richard H Schultz and Roy Godson (Two highly regarded intelligence scholars). Ladislav Bittman's books 'The KGB and Soviet Disinformation: An insiders view' and 'The Deception Game'. Also see 'The New Image Makers: Soviet Propaganda and Disinformation Today' which is edited by Bittman and contains several scholarly articles by intelligence experts. Two other books which you might want to check out are 'Double Lives: Stalin, Willi Munzenberg and seduction of the intellectuals' by Stephen Koch and 'New Lies for Old: The communist strategy of deception and disinformation' by Anatoliy Golitsyn. These books are 10-20 years old. They don't describe current dezinformatsia operations but Godson and Schultz believe the same active measures infrastructure is there. So the Russians have probably kept the framework, they've just evolved the way the execute the operations. Which is historically how the Russians evolved their disinformation campaigns i.e they were always looking for new ways to propagate the disinfo and propaganda (see part three, especially chapter 9 'Soviet Manipulation of "Religious Circles" by J.A. Emerson Vermaat which describes how soviets moved to targeting international religious movements leading up to and beyond glasnost, which is part of 'The new image makers'). If you have any specific questions for research that might help you shoot me a list of questions here and I'll try help you out with the answers (plus with sources). I have all the books listed above a fair few other texts that might be helpful. Evud 11:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Unfortunately, I do not have these books with me and busy at work. Could you prepare some suggestions or text supported by references for inserting them in the article? Or you can go there and edit the article yourself. Most of these books are rather old and do not describe anything about secret services on-line activities. Biophys 17:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

IPN

Please avoid massive deletion of other people's work. It is sometimes necessary but only under few exceptional circumstances. The edit you reverted may not be optimal but there are some suggestion at talk and none of them includes revert warring or wholesale deletion. Please try to promote a healthy climate of collegiality. Such edits certainly won't help. Yes, sometimes (only sometimes) deletions are unavoidable and I am not telling you they you should never do it. Just show some openness and flexibility as everyone's goal here should be the improvement of the articles by developing their informational content, reliance on sources and style. Thanks, --Irpen 18:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

O'K. Understood.Biophys 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, your contributions are appreciated in that article. Excessive, POVed and unrelated information has no room on Misplaced Pages, and it needs to be deleted. Hoping to see you around that article and others more often!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to express my appreciation for your patience, perseverance, erudition and sheer dogged determination in ensuring that various referenced viewpoints are reflected in encyclopaedic articles. Keep up the good work and don't let the various WikiLawyers grind you down!...Gaimhreadhan • 18:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And this is especially hilarious, for it is exactly user Piotrus who wrote that Russian sources are not reliable just because they are Russian. So it's basically "look who's talking"! Vlad fedorov 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

May I clarify that my compliment was in regard to Biophys since this is his talk page.

(Which is not to say that Piotrus is not a wonderful fellow too. And while I'm handing out plaudits may I also take this opportunity to confirm that you appear to be a pretty persevering, dogged sort of character in your editing history too, Vlad!) Enjoy the springtime! ...Gaimhreadhan • 12:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points

Hi. Could I please have your opinion on:
This
And on the recently-added last sentence in the article on Russia ("According to Mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles (former head of the Council of Europe human rights division), 'The fledgling Russian democracy is still, of course, far from perfect, but its existence and its successes cannot be denied.'")? I'm not sure this sentence really fits - at least we need a more critical view, but then again, there is already a section on politics, so I'm not sure it's needed at all. Anyway, thank you for your input. Biruitorul 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with your second point and made some changes. First edit needed some sourcing. Biophys 23:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Great - I appreciate it. Biruitorul 01:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a read

• Chronicles of three nights in Nord-Ost (in Russian) ellol 23:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, may I ask you a personal question? Would you agree or disagree with the following quote:

НА ХРЕН ВСЮ ВАШУ ИДЕОЛОГИЮ! Никакой идеологии в стране не осталось кроме одной еще живой - “Валить Путина! Валить вертикаль!”. Все, кто против Путина, - мои единомышленники. Мне плевать, какие там у них политические взгляды. Раньше не плевать было. А сейчас плевать. Потому что вся политика вс стране кончилась. Потому что вся философия и идеология в стране закончилась. Ее растоптали АКАБным сапогом самые фашистские из всех мировых фашистов - полицейские изверги чекистской хунты. Никакого выбора у нас всех не осталось. Есть только черное и белое. За Путина или против Путина. Третьего не дано.

ellol 23:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I strongly disagree that "Все, кто против Путина, - мои единомышленники." I disagree with these young people from National_Bolshevik_Party, although they only make minor civil infractions. Real fascists (one of them Ramzan Kadyrov), who killed Nikolai Girenko, Anna Politkovskaya and many others, either work in FSB or controlled by FSB. So I would probably agree with the statement about "самые фашистские из всех мировых фашистов - полицейские изверги чекистской хунты." Biophys 01:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

May I ask another question? How do you understand the following phrases: "Сколько метров у твоей видюхи?", "Меня прёт его гламурная тёлка и навороченная тачила", "Бабки рулят", "Путин меня не вставляет", "Пацанские распальцовки на стрелках -- всё-таки цивилизованнее, чем заточка в бок", "КГ/АМ", "Западло не отвечать за базар", "Дело ЮКОСа разрулили по понятиям, а не по закону", "Задолбал толкать фуфло"? I'm certainly interested to understand your level of modern colloquial Russian language. ellol 21:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? What is exactly your point, unless you want to make a WP aricle about new Russian language, which would be an interesting proposal, because it tells a lot about people's everyday life. That point was made by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his book Gulag Archipelago. Or perhaphs you want to tell that I deserved "заточка в бок" "по понятиям, а не по закону", because "Западло не отвечать за базар"? Biophys 00:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Нормально. Про КГ/АМ можете прочитать например здесь. Моя точка зрения, если хотите знать -- Александр Исаевич конечно хороший человек, но глупо и неправильно строить своё мнение о России на основании его книги, написанной хрен знает сколько лет назад. Вы ведь ничего о России не знаете. Вы читаете только книги "либеральной" тусовки, абсолютно односторонний взгляд, а думаете, что это божественная истина. В принципе, нам не о чем говорить. Вы понятия не имеете о той России, которую я знаю и люблю. ellol 07:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Я иногда пытаюсь давать Вам какие-то ссылки на культурные источники, например, на последний альбом ДДТ "Прекрасная любовь" (кстати, перекликающийся с творчеством знаменитого барда ХХ века, Владимира Семёновича Высоцкого). Но Вы не понимаете, что ваши потуги судить о сегодняшней России сродни попыткам химика судить о тензорном исчислении. ellol 11:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

А слабО посчитать свёртку ${\displaystyle e_{ijk}\delta _{jk}}$? ellol 07:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that Russia is increasingly transformed to one big КОНТОРА (KGB headquaters). Sorry, but I do not want to be a human subject of "контора" - not there, not here, and even not in Misplaced Pages.Biophys

Мог бы и по-русски сказать: отъебись. А я бы тебя по-русски послал. Ладно, забили. ellol 16:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No way, I am not that stupid. See, you just hinted using Russian criminal slang about stabbing someone to death for making too much noise (of course you did not mean me!). Now you are using f... word, but nothing will happen. If I did someting like that, I would be blocked for a long time, just as Hanzo Hattori. Fine, I must admit you are more civil than Vlad.Biophys 18:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I need to say that I've proposed this user a simple test to check his ability to speak in modern colloquial Russian, for my personal interest. Phrases I selected for that do not have much sense neither taken altogether nor each in particular, because primarilly I tried to use as rich lexics as possible (yes, including criminal slang too, which is however strongly required for anyone pretending to understand society of Russia). I regret, that my actions were considered hostile. ellol 20:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Mansoor Ijaz

I have no idea why you want to support the propaganda for this guy. Everything he had said was a big lie. Which has been proven. The fact that the 911 commission contradicted this guy and that Fox news no longer uses him is proof enough.. As I had said earlier, everyone of his quotes was self made and placed by him. So the fact that he claimed that he did a ceasefire between india and pakistan is bull.

No one knows him in Pakistan. I have relatives who are in the military and was the Pakistan Ambassador to UN he does not even know of this man. He is just a one man ega trip guy. So stop making this up.

trueblood 23:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss this at his talk page. You are very welcome to improve this article. I only asked you to follow WP:SOURCE and WP:BLP policies. This is all.Biophys 00:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to get the tape from fox news on rangel and ijaz

trueblood 04:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Human rights

Hello, Biophys. In 10 December 2006 you've inserted POV of Sergey Kovalev in the article Human rights in Russia: "He provides the following well known examples of the extrajudicial punishment of people by the State: murdering of hostages by the poison gas during Moscow theater hostage crisis, burning school children alive by spetsnaz soldiers who used RPO flamethrowers during Beslan school hostage crisis, death squads in Chechnya, and assassination of Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev", providing a link to his 2006 interview:

Take for example monstrous terrorist act, either in theater, either in Beslan. In fact the decision to apply in "Nord-Ost" poisoning gases had the highest sanction. I am not going to state, that it was authorized personally by the president. But what it means? Any expert can prove as 2x2=4, that at such usage victims are inevitable. In huge volume of theatre it is necessary to use concentration which obviously exceeds the minimal lethal dozes. It is absolutely evident for anybody who understands, what is diffusion of gases in gas medium. Along with that there were no guarantees that insurgents wouldn't explode the building.

We know similar things about Beslan too. Instead of first priority for authority being preservation of lives of hostages, instead of this the first priority was empty boasting, empty state ambitions or some other sort of political reasons. And investigation of these acts as it is usual, as well as in case of explosions of houses in Moscow and Volgodonsk, is surrounded by absolutely senseless secrets and a heap of lie.

I point out, that Kovalev didn't speak about RPO flamethrowers, it wasn't HIS point. I also point out that he said that authorities couldn't not to understand that usage of gas during Theater Siege would cause casualties; it's a bit different from the point that authorities has murdered hostages by gas.

Please, be a bit more careful in future. Happy editing. ellol 10:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I will deal with these issues later, as time allows.Biophys 15:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Btw. Could you please add info on Anatoly Babkin and Valentin Moiseyev into "Politically motivates espionage cases" section? My religion doesn't allow me to do that. ellol 13:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Has no-one awarded you a barnstar yet? Axl 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

		The Society Barnstar
		Biophys, for numerous contributions to political articles. Axl 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Having your own page deleted

If you create a page, and before anyone else edits it you decide to have it deleted, like what seems to have happened with Category:Ionophores, please put a {{db-self}} at the top of the page, in stead of blanking it. This will attract an administrator to it to have it deleted. I've marked this one for you - since you blanked it, that's enough.

Thank you. I did not mean to delete it.Biophys 13:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Response

Hi—sorry for not responding earlier, I was out on a short wikibreak. Yes, the list you maintain makes much sense to me; what is its history, and why was it deleted? What needs to be done to make it acceptable? Let me know if I can help. Like many others, I'm pretty busy with other stuff, but I can try, especially if it doesn't involve prolonged flame wars with nasty characters—I just don't have the stomach for that kind of thing (though I must say I admire your fortitude, I don't know how you can handle it!) As for the second question—yes, sounds good to me. Turgidson 15:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I have created already as List of Soviet agents in the United States. Could you take a look? I deleted some agents whose articles were not included in WP and found references for some others marked in red, but not for all.Biophys 16:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reviews in Russian of Mikhail Meltyukhov

When you have a few spare minutes, could you see if there are any (particulary academic) reviews of Mikhail Meltyukhov in Russian? This Russian historian seems to be mostly unknown outside Russia (like most people who don't write in English :( ) but he has been used as source for some controversial information on Misplaced Pages; recently we found a source describing his views as 'neo-imperialist and stalinist' - see User_talk:Irpen#Mikhail_Meltyukhov. It would be interesting to see how is he viewed by Russian academia. Thanks, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is considered controversial, especially by "official" historians. He does not seem to be very notable (someone advertised him too much in English Misplaced Pages). Unfortunately, I am not aware about any contemporary "Russian academics"-historians that could be trusted. I prefer reading books by people like Edvard Radzinsky or "Beria" by Anton Antonov-Ovseenko. See also my comments at Mikhail Meltyukhov page.Biophys 04:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC) I think Meltyukhov satisfies WP notability criteria.Biophys 04:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on Irpen's talkpage. I admit my Russian is imperfect here, and machine translation can only go so far. On the other hand the viewpoint I am expressing is not only my own, but it is also that of Peter Cheremushkin (Moscow State University), who states: Russian historians were unable to take a united stand against those who claim that “nothing wrong happened in Katyn.” Some historical publications have appeared in this context, such as a book by Mikhail Meltyukhov called Soviet-Polish Wars: Military and Political Confrontation in 1918-1939.42." This (Meltyukhov's) point of view can be used to justify the execution of the Polish officers in 1940." "But can this point of view be considered correct if it is so close to Stalinist and neoimperial concepts?"

Anyway, I find Metlyukhov's mention of Katyn right next to the completely discredited claim that 60,000 Russian POWs were killed in Poland in 1919-1921, followed by a claim that this issue must be handled between our countries (as he is writing in 2001, that is presumably Russia, not the Soviet Union) on a reciprocal (!) basis clearly indicates to me that he is setting up a moral equivalence between the supposed 1919-1921 events and 1940 events (and hence implicitly justifying the latter). That is what I find abhorrent. Balcer 05:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I was not clear. Meltukhov did not tell: "It was O'K to execute them". But he almost tells: "the desire of Russians to execute them can be understood. Yes, he seems to try to whitewash the crime, but he is careful not to tell this directly.Biophys 05:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Meltukhov is an intelligent writer, and I am sure he knew what he was doing here. If his words create the appearance that he is trying to whitewash the crime, this must have been his intention. Anyway, as I explained on Irpen's talk page, his action is abhorrent. Imagine a German (or English, French etc) World War II historian who "seemed to try to whitewash the Holocaust, but was careful not to say so directly". Hey, there is such a person, the famous David Irving, and we know what happened to his reputation as a historian. Balcer 05:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that all his writings are like that (I just looked "Missing chance"). For example, he shows some data on Russian-German import/export. Great, but his conclusions and arguments look rather strange in light of these data. Again, he is not telling anything obviously wrong, but he is trying to implicitly imply certain points, and his major point seem to be whitewashing of Stalinism (but of course only as much as it can be whitewashed - he is clever enough to understand that).Biophys 05:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think you now understand the concern me and other editors have with this author, and the use of his works to reference controversial events. We are arguing, in the most reasonable way possible, to remove references to his works where they are used to justify controversial claims, mostly in articles related to Polish-Soviet relations. There have been quite a lot of instances where this has happened, with mainly his book Soviet-Polish Wars referenced frequently in such a fashion. But how can Misplaced Pages, dedicated to NPOV and reputable sources, trust a work that makes statements like that oune about Katyn. Surely there must be plenty of other reputable reference works about Polish-Russian history that can be used. Why must the most controversial one of them be used with such frequency? Balcer 06:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nyquist article

Hello Biophys, I am Lastingwar and I noticed that you made an edit over on the Nyquist WP article accidentally stating that J.R.Nyquist is currently a writer for WorldNetDaily. I don't think that this is the case any longer. I think that he resigned from WND when he started writing for Financial Sense and has never written for WND again since then. Do you have any information that Nyquist has written for WND since he resigned from there? If Nyquist is not currently a writer for WND (which I do not think that he is) please revise your edit on him being a current writer for WND. Also, if he is a current writer for other online news sites, please list them explicitly. He is a current writer for Financial Sense and that is stated in the article, but I am not aware that he writes either regularly or at all for other news sites. If he does write for sites other than Financial Sense, please list those explicitly in the article. Thanks. -Lastingwar 22:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not have such information. Could you please correct the article yourself? Please be bold.Biophys 22:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the article. I hesitate to make any modifications since I would rather not get into a reversion war with that anonymous person from the 217.134 IP pool. At first I thought that I might be able to contribute to WP, but after reading many of the discussion pages and modifications histories, I find this whole WP to be quite a hostile place -- something I hadn't really noticed before trying to contribute. I used to think that trying to get papers published was a fairly difficult experience, requiring patience with the peer review process, but this WP place is really quite uncivilized in comparison. I appreciate your efforts to try to bring some sensibility to WP, but I don't know if I'm prepared to do the same quite yet. Thanks. -Lastingwar 02:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I found no problems at all with Biology articles. Biology editors were very friendly, because there are no any divisive political issues there. Try to contribute first to any topics where you are an expert, or topics that are not politically "hot". Also please let me know if you need any help, or if you would like to contribute to any specific article and want an advice on wikipedia-specific problems. Biophys 04:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up those bad edits by that anonymous user (IP 217,134,x,x). I hope that he doesn't initiate another reversion war! -Lastingwar 00:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he did. If you care so much about this article, could you be more involved, please? I guess this article is in a poor shape right now. Biophys 00:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I'd just like to drop a note and thank you for your recent assistance at the Larisa Arap article. Your obvious knowledge of Russian history and culture is of far more assistance than I could provide. While I did attempt to explain to Dima that her edits were actually muddying things up, honestly, she was trying so hard, and I felt that as long as she kept my initial translations, it would help to have her doing general cleanup (like I requested she remove all the Russian names from the article, etc.). I expected once the article's AfD was complete, I would re-write from English articles, and Dima's input on items left out. But lo and behold, the angels bring us you! And I'm more than sure if you communicate with Dima on the article's talk page, she'll be happy to assist you or let you take care of things she's not able to do (her references were um... well, let's just say I fixed the obvious stuff, and I honestly figured I'd be re-writing it from scratch, so didn't feel it was worth the time to remove them all, and I did not wish her to feel as if her work was not helpful.) So, my most sincere gratitude to you for your assistance thus far, and if you're able to stick with it and "adopt" the article, so to speak, that would be wonderful, and if not, if you drop me a line I'll try to start from scratch. It is pretty messy as it stands now. With gratitude, 03:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for nice words! I would be glad to help.Biophys 04:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Biophys

DearBiophysThank you very march. Understand. Agree. :-)) --Zasdcxz 16:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

PS Need help copy picture. Copyright

FAC for Oxidative phosphorylation

Hi there Biophys, I was wondering if you were interested in helping review this article. Any comments or suggestions at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Oxidative phosphorylation‎ would be very welcome. All the best Tim Vickers 01:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work! I will look more carefully at the article.Biophys 03:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat

Hi, could you please look at the "moving views" section at the bottom of the talk page and write your thoughts? Someone moved your "outside views" section 20 min after you wrote it because of a policy misunderstanding so there was no opportunity to endorse for other editors. Before we close, we could put it back or we could leave it where it ended up (on the talkpage). Bigglove 00:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC (this discussion is closed)

I'm writing to let you know that Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat has been resolved and archived. Thanks for participating. Bigglove 23:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not really understand your actions and disagree with your RfC closing, as probably some other WP users who certified the case... Please keep me informed. I think this user violates a number of WP policies, and I am always ready to comment on that.Biophys 04:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Biophys, I brought a very specific case regarding CSloat's use of a personal attacks and saying he was justified to do this by an assumption of bad faith. He did eventually apologize for what I had complained about, and I accepted his apology. I felt it was right to close the RFC. Maybe I should have waited for the other certifiers; I apologize for not doing this. C Sloat did promise to refrain from personal attacks and assuming bad faith in future. There were other issues that others mentioned (and that I experienced too in more limited exposure). Given the extent of all of these issues, the number of users who have had the same exact problems, and the failure of a community enforced mediation between Sloat and others certifying this RFC, I think if there are further problems a more comprehensive case should be brought to the table. All the best, Bigglove 16:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I do hope that my assumption of good faith will be met in kind by both of you; instead of conspiring on future RfCs we should be trying to turn over a new leaf and collaborate in positive and productive manners. My interactions with Biophys have been very different than mine with you Bigglove; I think you will find that Biophys cannot even tell you which policies he thinks I have violated. The reality is that Biophys was at one time pushing incessantly to include violations of WP:OR and WP:SYN in an article and I resisted these attempts. There were no violations of rules or personal attacks there such as my comments on the Infocus page. Again, Bigglove, I apologize for accusing you of Islamophobia and I hope that we can put this behind us. csloat 17:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So, that is exactly the problem. After apologies to Bigglove, csloat comes uninvited here and blames me of something that I have never did, while asking me to "collaborate in positive and productive manners". Please stop. This discussion leads to nowhere. If it comes to RfC or RfA, I would comment there. There is a plenty of violations to talk about, including WP:3RR, WP:consensus, WP:CIV (intimidation and filing a false report to WP:ANI), deletion of relevant and referenced material, and violations of Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy Biophys 20:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make false accusations - it is disruptive and it violates several Misplaced Pages policies. I did not "blaim" you of something you never did -- if you really want, I can provide the diffs and links to the discussion to show that you were violating WP:NOR and WP:SYN, but I don't see why it is necessary -- you have ceased your violations on the page in question, which is excellent. But I do object to you carrying the grudge you have about that to a totally unrelated RfC and piling on old (and resolved) issues as if they were current incidents. Have a good weekend. csloat 20:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So, that is your "polite" answer. I can only repeat once again: please stop. Just like you said: "it is disruptive and it violates several Misplaced Pages policies to make false accusations", as you just did. I am only guilty of WP:3RR violation, which I did while trying to restore a referenced material deleted by you and Vlad fedorov. This discussion is over.Biophys 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Right; the material that was deleted was in violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYN. I'm sorry you find that impolite; best thing to do is let it go and enjoy the rest of your day. csloat 21:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is still on my watchlist as I left a comment here at the close of an RFC (I left the same notice the talk page of everyone who participated). Biophys said he/she disagreed with my closing the RFC so I explained why I did this and made note of other remedies available to address other issues brought up by certifiers that I didn't feel were relevant to the particulars of the original RFC that I had filed. This was a completely appropriate and reasonable discussion and in no way represents "conspiring on future RFCs". I am not sure why csloat felt a need to join this particular discussion on Biophys's talk page, and especially to include accusations of Biophys of improperly editing a Misplaced Pages article in the past, but those comments might be interpreted as harassment. This is concerning. Please try to avoid making more comments that could be interpreted as violations of WP:NPA. I am taking this page OFF my watchlist now as I believe I have closed the circle with Biophys. Bigglove 14:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Bigglove for closing this issue.Biophys 17:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin

The above arbitration case has closed and the final decision is located at the link above. Vlad fedorov is banned from editing Misplaced Pages for a period of one year. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 14:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, well. It appears that ArbCom can do something useful, after all.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is also a good lesson for me. To be honest, I interacted with at least 50 people here (not counting anonymous users), and the negotiations were always very helpful with only two exceptions: Vlad and the person who just left his messages here just before and after you. But this second person made a permanent mess only from one of the articles that I have created. That is nothing compare to Vlad.Biophys 20:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Piotrus, please feel free to ask me any questions about recent Russian history, or tell if you need any help. I hope we will be able to collaborate in the future.Biophys 02:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks against other users. Saying that a user has "made a permanent mess" of an article you created is not only a personal attack; it also suggests a need to pay attention to WP:OWN. Hope this helps! csloat 00:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack.", WP:NPA policy, second paragraph.Biophys 02:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

stalking again?

Hi Biophys. Just curious what brought you to the Southern California InFocus page, where your only activity seems to be reverting my changes? This is the second time you appear to be violating WP:STALK. I realize you and I have had disputes over Misplaced Pages content, but I urge you to take those disputes through the dispute resolution process rather than following my edits on other pages and reverting them on principle. It is considered harassment by Misplaced Pages standards. csloat 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at CAIR article and related questions. Besides, I followed edits of User:Bigglove, which is not a wikistalking by any means. But I can see your concern and will try to minimize our interaction in the future, if that is what you are asking for.Biophys 23:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really asking for you to minimize our interaction, but when you appear to be showing up out of the blue on pages that I am editing only to revert my changes, that does appear to be harassment. If you want to participate in the page, go to the talk page and enter into the discussion. csloat 23:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I made only one revert at this page, a revert of anonymous user. I looked at the talk page, and arguments of armon seemed to be very convincing, as I wrote at in the edit summary. The edit was really such a minor thing. Yes, I will definitely try to minimize our interaction as to avoid discussions like this.Biophys 23:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Book on Ruslan Elmurzaev ("de facto leader" of Moscow 2002)

"Abu Bakar" apparently - it's interesting, because there's no Elmurzaev/Elmurzayev name in the current article, only "agent" Terkibayev as AB.

Also, "Elmurzayev, Ruslan Abu-Hasanovich, date of birth (DOB) 15.06.1973, born and residing in the CR, also known as Abu-Bakar, using the passport of a Russian citizen under the name of Aliyev" is "even" in the official documents. --HanzoHattori 11:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You remember our discussion here: . This Elmurzayev versus Terkibayev story looks to me almost like Anatoliy Golitsyn versus Yuri Nosenko. There are two agents, and one of them must be fake. I think we must find a Russin newspaper publication that provides a list of hostage takers one of which must be Terkibaev (accoding to Politkovskaya if I am not mistaken). If we find this, it means that Elmurzaev is fake, the court paper you provided is fake, and Dunlop fell a victiom of FSB disinformation. If there is no such publication, well, it would make things even more interesting.Biophys 19:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For example, how do you like that : "Публикация в "Новой газете" появилась после того, как его имя назвал Александр Литвиненко, утверждавший, что смерть Сергея Юшенкова связана с его участием в расследовании трагедии "Норд-Оста". "Я передал Юшенкову, - утверждает Литвиненко, - установочные данные Теркибаева, и он собирался проверить эту информацию по возвращении в Москву". Засвеченный таким образом сексот решил легализоваться, что дает ему хоть какие-то гарантии безопасности. На деле же гарантии эти весьма зыбкие."

So, Alexander Litvinenko passed informaton about Terkibaev to Sergei Yushenkov, and that is why Yushenkov perhaps was killed. Of course Terkibaev was killed as well ("гарантии эти весьма зыбкие" - I guess that was said before his death). So, all four people involved in this story, including Politkovskaya, were killed. What an interesting coincidence.Biophys 20:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Also see in your court source: "R.A. Elmurzayev, M.B. Salamov (Barayev)". So, Barayev had a fake name. But maybe "Elmurzayev" is the fake name of "Terkibaev" (aka "Abu Bakar") described by Politkovskaya?Biophys 21:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Also, this your "court source" claims that Elmurzayev is dead, which we know was wrong whoever he was. So, this source definitely contains at least some deliberate disinformation and hardly can be trusted.Biophys 21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

When I tried to collect some info on "Elmurzaev" biography, I found absolutely nothing (but there is a lot about Terkibaev). This Elmurzaev is a fantom, something like "poruchik Kize" (you know what it means)"Biophys 21:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Italian translation of integrin

A group of us in itwiki is translating the integrin article in Italian language, but we cannot understand this phrase: Experimental evidence indicates that integrins can be released from attaching the cell to the substrate near the back of the cell. Please, could you explain what the back of the cell mean, and write the entire concept in other words? Alternatively (or in addition) could you link us to a web site were this interesting process is graphically showed? Thank you (and sorry for my bad English)--Corneliae 13:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What they probably mean is disassembly of "adhesion complexes" at the rear of the cell during movement of the cell forward on a surface. These complexes consist of integrins, talin, vinculin and other proteins, see this ("Retraction"). This English WP article is not well written.Biophys 13:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

O'K, I corrected this puzzling place and introduction of integrin article. I hope that helps.Biophys 16:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, now is better! --Corneliae 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, Biophys, when will you at the end start to make professional job? I mean exactly this: . Well, it's a very interesting source, but you've failed to show their POV, and thus, by the way, you've compromised the Novaya Gazeta stuff and Ilya Politkovskiy. Why someone has always to clean up your work? Imagine you are writing a scientific article. When you are doing it, you of course pay a significant emphasis on credibility and telling as full truth as possible, because otherwise you would compromise yourself and your team. Here it's the same. ellol 16:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss content, not a contributor. If you disagree with some content, please use talk page of the coresponding article. I am not going to discuss any personal accusations here.Biophys 17:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There are no accusations, but disapprovement of quality of your job. ellol 18:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In your comment you criticized a contributor, rather than content of an article. Please avoid this in the future.Biophys 18:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you might be a wonderful person, but some of your contributions just aren't that good. ellol 18:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Response

Please do not post sillly warnings on my talk page. You have been blocked repeatedly for edit warring, so you should be aware that making threats like this is not appropriate behavior. As noted in my edit summary, I reverted edits that you made that were not an improvement on the previous version. As has been made very clear by myself and another editor on the talk page, the material you are inserting has been removed because it is not properly sourced and cited. When you make specific claims about what a book says, you must cite a specific page. If you want to continue this discussion, please go to the Mitrokhin Archive talk page. Cheers. Notmyrealname 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You have deleted relevant and perfectly sourced material, without any preliminary discussion and justification. Hence my warning. See my reply at your talk page.Biophys 01:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with these silly "warnings" on my talk page. The edits I have made are all explained on the talk page and quite within the bounds of reasonable editorial discretion. All of this will eventually be worked out over time and with the intervention of editors besides ourselves. I would only suggest that you take the injunction to "assume good faith" to heart. Notmyrealname 02:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I left two my notes at your talk page with diffs that show your deletions of relevant and sourced text (I think). Was that a "good faith" effort? You think it was. Fine, that is your opinion.Biophys 03:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the changes I made were to text that was either improperly sourced or not relevant. We are engaged in an ongoing conversation on the Mitrokhin talk page. This is the meat of what content disputes on contentious articles are all about. Leaving warnings that read like threats (or "treats" is you prefer) on my talk page is juvenile. I've made several thousand edits on many difficult articles without earning any blocks so far. I'll assume that you're notes on my talk page were meant in a helpful spirit to keep my record clean. From now on though, let's keep the conversation to the article talk pages and let the admins worry about rule violations. Notmyrealname 03:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would rather suggest that we both stop editing this contentious article and do something else.Biophys 03:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Breaks are generally a good idea. There's hardly a sense of urgency to these articles. It looks like you've made a lot of valuable contributions to wikipedia in general. You also seem to have a keen interest in Mitrokhin and related subjects, and appear to own some of the books, so I hope you aren't suggesting that you'll stop editing these articles altogether. Seriously, my comments on sourcing are helping you to make stronger arguments (and are the result of other people drilling them into my head). So, I guess I'm just trying to say that I have no problem with arguing forcefully for a sincerely held position, but let's leave it to the admins to decide when we've overstepped the bounds. Notmyrealname 03:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean not to edit it at all. But you are probably right. I would rather add a couple of new paragraphs to this article each time when anyone removes some sourced content or anything like that.Biophys 02:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe

Hi Biophys,

I moved the page history of Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe to User:Richardshusr/Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe because I wanted to work on it. You are welcome to work on it also or you can take a copy. I am a little concerned about both of us having copies as that will certainly lead to two incompatible versions that have to be merged. If you really plan to do a lot of work on this article, I'm happy to have you move it to your userspace if you wish. Just let me know.

Thanx.

--Richard 06:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will not interfere with you.Biophys 13:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to interpret your second sentence. Of course, we should not "interfere" with each other. However, I urge you to edit User:Richardshusr/Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe enthusiastically or even move it to your userspace. I will be quite busy for the next week or two and won't have much time to work on it. I'm happy to have you work on it as long as you are open to discussing the changes if I or other editors have a different opinion.

--Richard 17:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I will copy some portions of text from your userspace as soon as I need them. Biophys 17:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

something that will probably interest you

Separatist Activist 'Abducted In Chechnya'

September 21, 2007 -- International rights groups say a prominent Chechen activist has been abducted in the restive Russian republic.

In a joint statement, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights said they believed Vagap Tutakov was abducted by armed men on September 12 in the Urus-Martan district of Chechnya.

Tutakov was an envoy for Chechnya during the 1990s, when he represented its separatist leadership before the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

The groups said there was "reason to believe that Tutakov was targeted for abduction due to his political ideas and affiliations."

He was also a representative in Moscow. --HanzoHattori 18:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So, another good man (I assume) just disappeared in Chechnya. This does not seem to be notable any more. Probably a more interesting case is this: . This happened not in Chechya and with ordinary Russian citizen.

Biophys 03:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Suvorov/Rezun as historian

"A historian is an individual who studies history and who writes on history. The person may be an authority (or expert) over history, but this is not a requirement". Good definition for ancient and medieval time, but nowdays history is a science and we have to distinguish between scientist and amateurs. We may agree or not with authors but in any case Gumilev and Radzinskii are professional historians and Suvorov, Yury Mukhin, Bushkov and Fomenko are amateurs. I have read Suvorov's books with great interest, because his is good writer and discuss very interesting issues, but his books aren't scientific books, they are more pamphlets then researches.--Ioakinf 19:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here to discuss this question. Could you please take a look at WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and especially WP:BLP policies? It is your personal opinion that his writings are pseudoscience. According to cited sources (his critics and supporters alike), he proposed a controversial hypothesis, which some believe is true,but others think is false. There are many scientists who propose some unproven hypotheses (almost every good scientist does!), but no one dares to call them "pseudoscientists".Biophys 19:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC issue

Hi Biophys, I saw the arbitration case. I don't think that CSloat actually moved your comments from the main page. That was done by RyanF, about 20 minutes after you posted them. He said he made a mistake so we have to belive him. Anyway, I asked Sloat if he would support putting back your comments and letting others endorse, since no one had had the opportunity to do so given Ryan's action and he did not support putting them back. He just wnted to close the RFC as is and was very anxious to do so . Anyway, I support the arbitration case, but think you should remove this comment since is is inaccurate and will detract from your overall presentation. Bigglove 14:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I corrected this.Biophys 17:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Please shorten your statement to 500 words or less, as per instructions. Thanks. Picaroon (t) 00:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

O'K, I will do it in a couple of hours.Biophys 00:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC) I made it shorter. I hope it is enough. Biophys 01:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole

I don't think there's any point in rehashing the merge of that page into Juan Cole. If you want to look at the edit history, it's right here and its talk pages are here for anyone to see. One interesting bit is how sloat is persisting in falsely stating that it was created as a POV fork, when it wasn't -see discussions here and here. I wasn't crazy about creating the V&C page in the first place, but he did obviously forum shop to get it deleted in an effort to keep material out. This led to further disruption on his part when things were merged back into the main article. I don't know what the page is like now and I don't care, I wasted far too much time on it, but that's a bit of the history anyway. <<-armon->> 03:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Armon. I just wanted to learn what had happened. I am not going to edit anything about Juan_Cole. It is strange that an article has been effectively deleted by making a protected redirect without proper AfD.Biophys 04:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

When I said it was created as a POV fork, I was referring specifically to the words of the editor who was most insistent about keeping it. If that representation was wrong, please take it up with him and try not to use such tangential issues as a platform for launching personal attacks against me, even if you think it will help Biophys' misguided RfAr case. Ludicrous claims about "forum shopping" and "disruption" are not necessary either. I have withdrawn from conflicts with you and announced publicly on the RfAr my full intention of treating future interactions with you in a polite and non-accusatory manner; it would be great if you could do the same. I'd appreciate it; thanks. csloat 04:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 00:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. May I take a look at RfC submitted by User:TDC about Csloat? I think this may be relevant.Biophys 01:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Long Vacation

Sorry I've been out for a long time. I've had a lot of stuff on my hands, and it looks like a lot has happened since. I read the ruling on Vlad Federov, and I'm glad he won't be stalking/ trolling me anymore. I also looked at my part, and I would like to apologize for the unnecessary ruckus I caused. If you ever need help with anything, you can always ask me. CPTGbr 02:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am thinking about editing Physics or Biology rather than political/history subjects. There are too many political "partisans" in WP, as you can see just looking at my talk page. This is not fun any more.Biophys 04:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile

why do you think I've pointed you on 2007 DDT album? Coz it's about life, not coz I'm a special DDT fan... Look at one track, it exactly follows our recent discussion: Yesterday I drank with FSB general. ellol 15:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have no idea.Biophys 18:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothink especial. Just there'a a music track about bloody Putin's regime which you really should hear! ellol 18:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, how can you write about Russia if you don't learn about it? Do you know that Dmitry Bykov has just finished his Eighteenth Ballad? Follow links on this entry -- that's total shit... like elsewhere. Go ahead. Your bloody KGB agenda has expired long ago... but look around, there are tons more of shit everywhere, and that's just great. I'm sure you'll successfully find lots more of shit and make us all in Misplaced Pages happy with contributing all it to the artoicles. ellol 21:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Or read this. It's exactly what I've said you: "Empire front was removed, remained the garbage dump". You understand nothing and it's correct, because nothing can be understood in the total brothel which prevails for the last couple of decades. But if you won't try to understand, even with zero results, you'll never have a right to call yourself a Russian because Russian is that who never gives up. Correct? ellol 22:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Better read this: - Vladimir Ryzhkov about shows by Putin. How about putting this in BLP of Putin? As you can see, I am familiar with some events in Russia.Biophys 22:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll read that. And you read this: . Or do you want to act like that guy in Soviet times, who's said "I've not read Pasternak, but I'll criticize him"? ellol 09:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is you don't appreciate reality (at least, Russia) in critical way. And you watch only one source of people who are good if not in radical opposition to the authotiries. I advise you to add Izvestia.Ru to your "menu" as pro-authorities source, and lenta.ru/rbc.ru/Kommersant as independent sources. ellol 10:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please stop coming here with advice? I can find reading myself. Thanks.Biophys 13:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am looking forward the frustration of the guys who now think of Russia as an emerging democracy in the nearest future. It is not fun, though. Colchicum 00:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it is absolutely not fun. But this is not only Russian problem. That is everyone's problem. People at the West are slow to realize that.Biophys 04:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not that. Russia is democracy in the sense that political power is nothing without people's support. Politicians stand on a pillar that's called: people's votes at elections. The question is -- what's the choice? And unfortunately, there is no adequate democratic alternative worldview. For the most part, the choice is either the current regime, either those who are in harsh opposition for it... But here wait. The current regime has created a number of economic opportunities. If to change the elite for those who deny any it's achievement -- what would happen with the economy?

I don't know if this is exact way of thinking. May be it isn't. But the result is, those forces which pose themselves as democratic alternative in Russia drastically fail in competition for people's minds. No wonder in fact: client is always right. If a person hears from ones that he's a citizen of a great country, which is democratical and free and so, and he hears from others that he is a damned Russian, who are a nation that feels proud of the murderer Stalin with hands for an elbow in blood, and the country itself is a damned totalitarian (ok, authoritatian) bloody regime which suppresses any dissent and kills journalists -- guess who of the two would this hypothetical man follow? Do you think he'll listen to both, and choose that force which is more correct? No, he'll choose that force which pleases him better. That's the core of any market institutions, no wonder it works here too.

Again: there's a need of a conception, political program, charisma, that people in Russia would buy. Without that there's zero opportunity of changing the regime. But moreover, Kremlin is excellent player on this field: as for now, it became a monopolist.

So, again: there's a need of democratical opposition. But if it doesn't cake a pie that people in Russia would buy, eat and enjoy, it has absolutely zero chances. Or that would be democracy like in Iraq, after an American invasion. Want to play nuclear football? Falling MIRVs are an unforgettable performance. And I ensure you, Russian MIRVs are not a bit worse.

ellol 14:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely you know this famous joke about a guy who had a choice of three brides. I do not exclude the possibility that success of Orange revolution and unsuccess of it in Russia is that Ukraineans voted for Yulia Timoshenko's tits, while Albats doesn't have enough of them. I don't even speak about respected V. I. Novodvorskaya. ellol 15:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ellol, I appreciate you coming here and providing some links and sources. Some of them are good and helpful sources. But my situation at work is not great. So, I am planning to spend less time in WP, and especially on political subjects. We could discuss this forever, but I simply do not have a lot of time. Sorry.Biophys 16:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Show me, whose situation at work is great? But I understand. NP. ellol 16:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Drozdov

Hi! Back in July somebody (guess who) got rid of information about Gleb Yakunin on Patriarch Alexius II and of references to his publications. I.e. there is still something about the controversy, but without reference to Yakunin. I think it is blatantly wrong, as Yakunin investigated the matter as a member of the parliamentary commission (albeit dissolved) and should be the main source. Well, I mean, be bold. Colchicum 00:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for telling. I am always ready to help. Biophys 03:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, see revelations by Gleb Pavlovsky who explains how he and others "made" Putin .Biophys 03:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Putinism

Please, don't remove referenced material. Putin's work under Sobchak is very important for understanding of his political system, and corruption and privatisation during Yeltsin's presidency is key to development of corrupt state under Putin.DonaldDuck 05:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, let's continue this discussion at the talk page of Putinism article, not here. Second, the text you inserted is not related in any way to "Putinism" as phenomenon. This article is not about Putin. If you want to make a point that "Putinism" system was borned in Yeltsin's time, this should be described as such and supported by sources that claim exactly that. Most important, you are welcome to add more relevant and sourced material in the article. But your deletions of sourced and relevant material without any justification will be resisted.Biophys 14:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if Felshtinsky is right that all the Russian population consists of FSB agents, you have to admit I'm also the one. And knowing you you can't not to consider seriously such possibility. Answer this, Biophys, I'm very interested to learn: what do you feel communicating with a suspected FSB agent? Aren't you afraid? interested? intrigued? all together? Believe me, your experience is unique and I would be very glad to learn a bit of that, because unfortunately in my life there were too little a possibilities to speak with a real FSB agent and I want to know how does it feel. ellol 01:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Good article status

Thank you for contributions making the article on Politkovskaya good.ilgiz 18:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for attention and help. Please let me know if there is something to be done.Biophys 22:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)