Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:49, 24 January 2008

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)

Fd

Sorry, but I think we might both have been working simulataneously on images of Fd's. These articles really need a biophysicist. Best,--Smokefoot (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for intervening. Please correct whatever you think should be corrected.Biophys (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holiday season and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Misplaced Pages:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 07:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages rules (this discussion is over)

Well, I would very much like to meet an administrator. I've been harrassed, lied about, insulted and continually reverted by a trolling Wikipedian, but no administrator will take action. Nor will they do anything about serious problems with a number of articles I and another editor have flagged up. So, please report me to an administrator so I can actually speak to someone instead of being met with a wall of indifference.--Conjoiner (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I only wanted to advise you and your opponent. I have no desire to report anyone. Such cases can be reported to WP:3RR noticeboard here. Biophys (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on the 3RR notice board, I was warned not to revert by you and Míkka not to engage in reverting. I took this on board and in fact have not made any edit to any article since let alone revert anyone's edits, while User:Ghanadar galpa has ignored you and Mikka and continued reverting. You can look at my contributions record. So why now push for me to be blocked when I have fully complied with these requests?--Conjoiner (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I did not suggest to block you. I only told at the noticeboard that Mikkolai has made a technical mistake by blocking User:Soman instead of User:Relata refero (he left a notice to Relata but blocked Soman). Sorry for misunderstanding.Biophys (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's OK. It seemed to me that you were saying that it was unfair for User:Ghanadar galpa to be blocked and not me. I just wanted to make clear that I had not made any edit since you told me not to continue reverting, to set the record straight. Sorry if I made a mistake.--Conjoiner (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I left a message at 3RR noticeboard. Please do not take it personally. It seems there are two groups of Indian users who revert each other. This is not good.Biophys (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that it is the result of frustration that one particular editor is not taking the talk page seriously and instead has engaged in persistent personal attacks and ad hominems, while unilaterally reverting while calling others' edits "Communist vandalism". It has made it impossible to improve the article or edit it, hence the reason for the revert war. In my opinion, the disputed articles should be frozen until there is a consensus on the talk page, developed through moderation by neutral parties. That way, those who are unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion (and I must stress that, apart from this one editor, the discussion between opposing editors has the potential to be productive - Otolemur crassicaudatus appears to be fairly reasonable) will effectively exclude themselves without causing further problems in the article itself.--Conjoiner (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

But his edits look more or less reasonable to me. Could you please follow WP:AGF policy and try to find consensus with User:Ghanadar galpa?Biophys (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You obviously have not seen his deliberate misrepresentation of the texts he has quoted to push his POV - he has quoted articles to support his arguments regarding the CPI(M) before the party even existed, made claims about texts that did not stand up to scrutiny, made libellous remarks about someone contrary to Misplaced Pages policies, accused editors of anti-semitism and made references to their supposed politics and ethnicity, claimed that opposing editors were paid propagandists, etc. He has been repeatedly warned, eg , but seems to ignore such warnings. (If you want me to list the links, I can do so.) And now you tell me to assume good faith? I can't debate with someone in good faith when they so blatantly attempt to disrupt debate and aggressively antagonise people, but neither can I stop them from being involved. Whether he changes his behaviour after his block has expired will determine whether one can debate with him in good faith.--Conjoiner (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not buy this. No need in any further "proofs". It is enough that I have seen this: . First, you have violated WP:3RR rule trying to repetedly delete a sourced text, which was relevant to the subject of article (or at least one can reasonably argue that it is relevant). Second, you just refused to assume good faith and refused to debate the problem with your opponent. Finally, it was User:Ghanadar galpa who came first to Red Terror page followed by Soman and you. I do not blame anyone of WP:STALK yet, but this looks really bad. Now I believe this incident is over, and please let's stop this discussion, since it leads to nowhere.Biophys (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

3rr

3rr does not apply to reverting obvious vandalism from ip's that disrupt wikipedia to make a point. See Misplaced Pages:Three-revert_rule#Exceptions. Not to mention that this ip has been banned several times by admins, and therefore the edits are illegitimate anywayGhanadar galpa (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right if that is an obvious vandalism. But such things are not considered by admins as obvious vandalism, no matter what you or me might think. Note that you are reverting a registered user, not an IP. Therefore, you expose yourself to blocking for 3RR violation. In your place, I would revert myself back and tried to improve this article by providing more sourced content, editing some other parts, etc. rather than making blind reverts. Reverts are bad. Anyone can look at your edit history and see that you just came back from the block and making a lot of reverts (this is contentious editing). You can take a look at my block log and see that I was also blocked in the past. You must adapt rather than stubbornly revert.Biophys (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, many users found themselves banned from WP for one year. Continue this behavior, and you may be banned for Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing, which is pity since you are a productive editor and and it well may be your opponents who are actually doing the Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. Biophys (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately, from what I'm seeing, this particular case seems to be a clear cut case of tag-team edit warring to introduce inflammatory content that violates several wikipedia policies, not just the one against vandalism. Policies such as No Original research,Disruption to make a point, and others. Overtly tendentious and unencyclopedic edits should be dealt with ... overtly. I backed out of the Communist revisionism of their article, since I clearly see a systemic pro-Communist bias generally on wikipedia and that is not a case of overt vandalism, but part of a larger pattern of socialist trash touted in this place in the name of "Neutrality", but this case is not that case. This case is one of overt and ganged-up vandalism and POV pushing. Please explain to me where you see any equivalence between this situation and the previous one.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right - in theory. But in practice there are groups of users who claim "collective ownership" of certain articles (which is of course against WP:OWN policy). Therefore, there is a significant bias you are talking about. I think you need some patience. Mark unsourced statements as before deleting them, insert undisputable information to articles, use RfC about the articles, try Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution (although this is often waste of time). I do not really know any good solutions here.Biophys (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC) There is a good advise though. If you are alone against a "gang", leave this article to the "gang" and write down something else.Biophys (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Glycoside hydrolase

Обратил внимание на появление статьи Glycoside hydrolase family 1. Есть ли планы написать статьи по всей сотне семейств гликозидаз? --Daniil_Naumoff (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want, I can send you wikified Pfam and Interpro files (or their parts), so it would not be difficult to create such articles about other families of glycosidases (I think there are around 40 of them in InterPro/Pfam). Are you interested in any specific protein families? No, I do not have plans to make myself these articles any time soon.Biophys (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

У меня периодически возникало желание написать статьи про некоторые семейства в русской википедии, но пока я ограничивался лишь статьями про конкретные активности. А вообще мой взгляд на проблему неплохо отображает этот рисунок. А Вы как-то с этим связаны по работе? --Daniil_Naumoff (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not doing anything with glycosidases. What protein families are you interested in? If you want to be involved here, I can make stubs, and you would develop them further. But that would be English wikipedia.Biophys (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Меня интересует достаточно большое число семейств, но я в основном пишу в русскую вики. --Daniil_Naumoff (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Even in English WP, we have relatively few papers on protein families and individual proteins, partly generated by a bot . I do not think such specific scientific articles make a lot of sense in Russian WP. Such articles are hardly interesting for general public. All students and specialists know English and can read it here if there is anything to read.Biophys (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian Mujahideen

Remember Victor Bout? Read Golitsyn. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Litvinenko

Please stop deleting sourced content just because you do not agree with it, you are violating WP:NPOV.--Miyokan (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss this matter at the article talk page. As I explained, everything you want to include has been already included in the article and summarized in Introduction. Once again, this discussion is closed. This is not a proper place for content disputes.Biophys (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Now I see what's the problem. You said about yourself that you are "a member of the KGB Internet troll squad" - . Biophys (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Thank you for your support regarding the AfDs related to the Franco-Mongol alliance. A few editors are actually putting a lot of efforts into deleting a lot of the referenced material from the Franco-Mongol alliance page (all from reputable and published sources) in favour of a highly restrictive and dismissive point of view. Your help is appreciated. Best regards. PHG (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there are some problems with your articles. But I believe you can sort this out yourself. There was no need in AfDs.Biophys (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Felix Bloch (diplomatic officer) on List of Soviet agents in the United States

Your edit summary said the following:

this article is not a biography of a person. Hence BLP rules do not apply.

Please reread WP:BLP, especially the sentence that says

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles

Fact of the matter is, Felix Bloch is still alive. Thus, BLP applies to every mention of him in the encyclopedia.

You also said:

The statement is completely supported by the cited source.

I do not disagree with that. However, take a look at what the statement actually says:

Felix Bloch, U.S. State Department economic officer in Vienna (1981) probably blackmailed by Soviets into supplying information; not prosecuted quite likely because Robert Hanssen warned the Soviets about the investigation into his activities.

That is not nearly enough to include him on a "list of Soviet agents". If it were a "list of people who may have been Soviet agents", then it might be a different story, but there have never been any official charges or any admission by any parties that he was an agent. His inclusion in this list makes the de facto claim that he was a spy, which the sources do not support.

This is a serious BLP concern. I am removing him from the list again per this concern. Unless sources can be found to incontrovertibly establish that he was in fact a spy, he cannot be in a "list of Soviet agents".

If you have any questions, let me know. Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 13:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is encyclopedia. If he qualifies as an agent or not should be established by reliable secondary encyclopedic sources, not by courts or FBI. I am not sure if you familiar with his case (and his BLP article is in poor shape). This case has been described in a book "Spy handler" by former KGB officer Cherkashin. Bloch repeatedly received phone calls from KGB "illegals" who warned him that FBI is watching for him. So, I think he qualifies as a Soviet "agent" by WP standards. So, I will try to improve his BLP article at some point.Biophys (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is a source which definitively establishes that he was an agent, then yes, he can be included in that list. Otherwise, no he can't. WP is an encyclopedia, but BLP exists because of legal concerns, which are tantamount. - Revolving Bugbear 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

O'K I checked the book by Cherkashin and modified his BLP and the list accordingly. The book leaves no doubts that he was actually a spy, although I am not very good in understanding those spy stories.Biophys (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning Regarding Repeated Violations of WP:BLP

You need to read WP:BLP which states:

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

Contrary to your assertions on my talk page, it does not mater that there is no article on Fr. Victor Potapov in Misplaced Pages, nor does it matter that he made these comments on a talk page. The fact that he made accusations which allegedly are based on a book also does change the situation. If the book even makes the accusations he claims, the book does satisfy the "extraordinary claims" requirement in the verifiability section of Wikipolicy. Anyone can write a book and make an accusation, but if you are going to call a respected figure at the Voice of America a KGB agent, or a crook, or accuse them of engaging in illegal activities, you had better be able to present more evidence than "some guy named Gennady said...". Your repeated posting of libelous material about living persons is contrary to Misplaced Pages Policy, and it needs to stop. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Text in question

First of all, let me repeat the disputed segment of text at a talk page'. This is not something I claim. That was written in a published book.

You claimed that all Preobrazhensky' views are "lunatic fringe" because he suggested that Potapov is a KGB agent. I have checked a recent book by son of Arkady Shevchenko who knew Potapov. It follows from the source that Potapov is not only a KGB agent, but a criminal crook. The book tells that Potapov was engaged in a private "marriage business" of finding young Russian brides for wealthy Americans. Surprisingly, the wealthy Americans have died soon after the marriages. It follows that Arkady Shevchenko was one of Potapov's victims: he died soon after all his estate was transferred personally to Potapov and to the second Schevchenko wife. This second Shevchenko' wife was found by Potapov, and she was indeed a KGB agent, acording to the book. Perhaphs all other women ("chekist lastochkas") supplied by Potapov were also from the same "kontora". The book: Gennady Shevchenko, Escape from the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs, link. see Pages 284-292; 314-339.

Assessment of the source as highly reliable

This book is not self-published. It is published by a respected publishing organization, «Центрполиграф». It is sold in a large number of copies. It is writted by a person who holds PhD degree, author of 70 published scientific papers, and a former high-rank diplomate of his country. He writes about life of his own farther, Arkady Shevchenko. That is something he knows very well. Of course he might be wrong as any other source. That is why WP rules tell us: "verifiability, not truth". I have no idea if he right or wrong. I only cite the source.Biophys (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So... just to be clear here... you are asserting that Gennady Shevchenko accuses Fr. Victor of being a KGB agent, all the while working for the Voice of America and actively campaigning against religious persecution in the Soviet Union, and that he was engaged in criminal activity, and was an accessory to murder, and embezzlement. Now if I am able to verify that this book does not assert these things, would you accept without disputation a permanent ban from wikipedia as a punishment for your misrepresentation of this source? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)