| Revision as of 16:36, 20 June 2009 editColchicum (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers19,162 edits →Eastern Europe: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:04, 20 June 2009 edit undoColchicum (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers19,162 edits →AE report: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
| Thanks, ] (]) 16:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) | Thanks, ] (]) 16:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == AE report == | |||
| I have reported you to ]. See ]. ] (]) 19:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:04, 20 June 2009
I think they shuted-up
Theres nothing left for them to say. M.V.E.i. 16:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Three Medals
Please enter your old page and go down http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Beatles_Fab_Four#3_Medals_from_me M.V.E.i. 20:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
Siberia dab
Looks like JHunterJ is handling this fine so far. I have this dab watchlisted and will intervene if necessary. Thanks for the pointer. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank You!!!
Hhh, thanks you your translation the Russian version looks better then the English one. Thanks! M.V.E.i. 16:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad you like it. Beatle Fab Four 16:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Messege from M.V.E.i.
Hi, as you can see, i'm blocked for like, forever? and i don't know for how long my IP will be unblocked, anyway, it was nice meeting you so if you want my ICQ or Messenger number, sent me an email to Maksim2@bezeqint.net and i will sent you them.
M.V.E.i.'s talk page
Hi Beatle Fab Four.
"Unfair. He is young, interested in music, not politics. Think about it, please."
I don't understand what you mean by this; by his edits, M.V.E.i. seems only interested in politically charged subjects. Could you explain, please? Neil ╦ 08:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Neil,
Out of 5 articles he created (see his user page), only one is about an obscure political party (discussion page is empty). You can also look at the images he created. I dare to say they are wonderful. As to political clashes, he took part in them AFAIK mostly to defend friends. For instance, I asked his help in some occasions. Beatle Fab Four 12:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Bronze Soldier of Tallinn
I didn't understand your e-mail. Otto 21:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Beatle, i'm back
?
Afraid to discus things? See Talk:Russia#Current Russia shouldn't take the credit for the works of SU and Russian Empire -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Reply
In reply to your email message, I think you could either revert yourself in article Artyom Borovik to prove me wrong (I am not going to edit this article to provide you this opportunity), or you could bring some evidence to ArbCom in your separate space. Regards, Biophys (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I owe you nothing I presume. Since you did’t delete your (weeell, say) ridiculous comment, my reply is on Request for Arbitrations page. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- That was my good will gesture. If you do not want to prove me wrong by reverting yourself, this is up to you.Biophys (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don’t revert to edits which I consider weak. I tell you once again (and probably last time). You're deep in a trap of your childish logic. "I disagree with him on the article content. Hence, he is a KGB (FSB, whatever) agent (squad member, whatever)" Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have never said this about you. It was User:Russavia who promised to bring members of his "brigade" , and then ... you miraculously appear only to revert me in an article that you never edited before. Note your previous history of collaboration with MVEi and others, and you get the picture.Biophys (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Let's not exchange pretty silly questions like 'Why do you edit AB article?' 'And why you?', 'Your history draws a clear picture', 'And yours?'. See basic principles of Misplaced Pages and my reply on RfA page. Bye. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have never said this about you. It was User:Russavia who promised to bring members of his "brigade" , and then ... you miraculously appear only to revert me in an article that you never edited before. Note your previous history of collaboration with MVEi and others, and you get the picture.Biophys (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don’t revert to edits which I consider weak. I tell you once again (and probably last time). You're deep in a trap of your childish logic. "I disagree with him on the article content. Hence, he is a KGB (FSB, whatever) agent (squad member, whatever)" Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- That was my good will gesture. If you do not want to prove me wrong by reverting yourself, this is up to you.Biophys (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Question
So, if I understand correctly, you also edited under a different name, Beatle(s) Fab Four: . Could you please explain where is the edit history of Beatles Fab Four? Has it been deleted by someone? Did you also use other alternative accounts? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- For example, is that your IP address: 85.140.211.220? Also that IP. Biophys (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- 85.140.209.146 - 11 May 2007 - my IP. Account Beatles_Fab_Four doesn't exist since ... mid-2007. I do not use multiple accounts (except when I forget to log in). Similar question is addressed to you. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. It seems that you use multiple IP addresses that begin from 85.140. Right?Biophys (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. I asked because first thing you did as "Beatles Fab Four" was asking to protect an article.Biophys (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, maybe it was first thing, but rather it wasn't. So what? And what about your accounts? Beatle Fab Four (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. I asked because first thing you did as "Beatles Fab Four" was asking to protect an article.Biophys (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The Horn-breaking brigade needs you!
According to User:Biophys, I am now a leader of a criminal brigade that breaks horns... (I'll be honest I feel like the candidate character in this film. Only problem is after Biophys gave me such an "honourary" title, my brigade so far contains only two people... and a typical Russian Army Brigade can be between 2 up to 8 thousand men. So I guess I have some recruitment work to do. Remember we don't edit war, we don't meat puppet, we don't vote stack. We only break horns! --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, thanks. I prefer "пасти рвать" (, 4:55, English subtitles, excellent Russian comedy). So, I can't be a member of your gang. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the movie is funny, but your behavior in WP is not.Biophys (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Mind your own your behavior. Best. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the movie is funny, but your behavior in WP is not.Biophys (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Valeriya Novodvorskaya
In regards to Valeriya Novodvorskaya, I have for the time being removed the 'controversy' section. There is no doubt that she made these claims, for they are sourced to her own political party website. However, the key to presenting information is to do so in a NPOV way, so I am suggesting that instead of inserting and reverting, etc that it be discussed on the talk page on how to present information in the article. --Russavia 15:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is already discussed. No one is obliged to write the whole article. I'm curious how one could present her ridiculous views and quotes in a "NPOV way". These are her words. The can be added and were already added. That's all. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Whilst she did make the claims, as I have explained on the other users who have reverted (Biophys/Colchicum), they need to be provided in context, and in an NPOV way. Also do you have any other sources for information which can be used on the article? Bring it all to the talk page, and it can all be discussed there, and WP:CONSENSUS reached on how to introduce it into the article. As I mentioned on Colchicum's talk page, the claim that Basayev was a democrat is highly inflammatory given his history, and needs to be laid out in the article. So come to the talk page, and we can all discuss it in a civil manner and agree on how to introduce said info into the article. Don't worry, the info is still in the history so we still have access to it, but WP:NPOV is something that we need to attain. Agreed? --Russavia 15:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Section Controversies by definition implies some criticism. See, Gryzlov, Zhirinovsky, etc. I see no need to "balance" it. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that other articles may be unbalanced, well let's not worry about that for the time being. Let us concentrate on this article for now, and then other articles can be looked at later. Don't allow the state that other articles are in to affect how this article is approached. Go to the article talk page, and discuss it. We aren't a battleground, so simply point out what information should be included, and how you would word it; try to do so in a NPOV way, and then it can be discussed, tweaked, and then inserted into the article. OK on that? --Russavia 15:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- No one is obliged to write the whole article, to balance it, etc. One CAN add relevant information in any article. This is the basic principle of WP. The section Controversies as it is now is ok as these are her quotes, sources are reliable. As I have shown this is not a mockery. You, Biophys, whoever, may add additional information, improve the article and so on. What's the problem? Beatle Fab Four (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Instead of simply placing a 'bullet' list of things she has said (I for one, and many others, don't like lists of such things) write it in WP:PROSE. For example, instead of simply saying she said Basayev was a democrat, write in such a way, for example, in an interview with Echo Moskvy on (date) she made a statement that Basayev was a democrat because (paraphrase her reason), and further claimed that it was Putin who turned Basayev into a terrorist. This is NPOV, because she did in fact say these things, and it doesn't prove her as being a nutter, or whatever. It is our job at WP editors to simply present what other sources state, and then let readers make up their own minds. And look, I agree with you, a lot of other articles are not NPOV, but getting into an edit war, particularly when it is evident that others object to the facts being inserted, is not the way to go. And I do agree with you, in that the information needs to be presented, but it needs to be done in such a way that abides by WP:NPOV. Colchicum has already agreed that this can be discussed on the talk page. If you agree also, and start discussing, it is better for the project as a whole. Do you understand what I am saying? I sincerely hope you will take this to the talk page. --Russavia 16:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm curious how would you balance her claim "Апартеид - нормальная вещь". See also VN article in Russian (Section Критика). It is pretty the same as it was in English WP. What you're doing now is just deleting referenced material from the article. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Instead of simply placing a 'bullet' list of things she has said (I for one, and many others, don't like lists of such things) write it in WP:PROSE. For example, instead of simply saying she said Basayev was a democrat, write in such a way, for example, in an interview with Echo Moskvy on (date) she made a statement that Basayev was a democrat because (paraphrase her reason), and further claimed that it was Putin who turned Basayev into a terrorist. This is NPOV, because she did in fact say these things, and it doesn't prove her as being a nutter, or whatever. It is our job at WP editors to simply present what other sources state, and then let readers make up their own minds. And look, I agree with you, a lot of other articles are not NPOV, but getting into an edit war, particularly when it is evident that others object to the facts being inserted, is not the way to go. And I do agree with you, in that the information needs to be presented, but it needs to be done in such a way that abides by WP:NPOV. Colchicum has already agreed that this can be discussed on the talk page. If you agree also, and start discussing, it is better for the project as a whole. Do you understand what I am saying? I sincerely hope you will take this to the talk page. --Russavia 16:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- No one is obliged to write the whole article, to balance it, etc. One CAN add relevant information in any article. This is the basic principle of WP. The section Controversies as it is now is ok as these are her quotes, sources are reliable. As I have shown this is not a mockery. You, Biophys, whoever, may add additional information, improve the article and so on. What's the problem? Beatle Fab Four (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that other articles may be unbalanced, well let's not worry about that for the time being. Let us concentrate on this article for now, and then other articles can be looked at later. Don't allow the state that other articles are in to affect how this article is approached. Go to the article talk page, and discuss it. We aren't a battleground, so simply point out what information should be included, and how you would word it; try to do so in a NPOV way, and then it can be discussed, tweaked, and then inserted into the article. OK on that? --Russavia 15:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Section Controversies by definition implies some criticism. See, Gryzlov, Zhirinovsky, etc. I see no need to "balance" it. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Whilst she did make the claims, as I have explained on the other users who have reverted (Biophys/Colchicum), they need to be provided in context, and in an NPOV way. Also do you have any other sources for information which can be used on the article? Bring it all to the talk page, and it can all be discussed there, and WP:CONSENSUS reached on how to introduce it into the article. As I mentioned on Colchicum's talk page, the claim that Basayev was a democrat is highly inflammatory given his history, and needs to be laid out in the article. So come to the talk page, and we can all discuss it in a civil manner and agree on how to introduce said info into the article. Don't worry, the info is still in the history so we still have access to it, but WP:NPOV is something that we need to attain. Agreed? --Russavia 15:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Civility block
I've blocked you for 24h for incivility at WP:AN3 such as . Don't do it. In point of fact, comments by other users are not helpful there, and continuing the argument there is definitely wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Request for unblock
Beatle Fab Four (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My block is a result of a ridiculous interpretation of pretty obvious things by the admin who is likely to be biased against me (William M. Connolley: e.g., in reply to my obserbation he erases it and says ‘are you my pal?’ ). The whole story is as follows: User Biophys is obsessed by the idea of suspecting all of his wikipedia opponents of being members of secret brigades associated with Russian security services (KGB, FSB, whatever). He has been warned many times by other editors and even WP arbitrators about inappropriateness of such a behavior (see, e.g.). Today, in his failed attempt to block-shop user Offliner (whom I don’t know), Biophys once again called me a member of a ‘tag team’: (similar inappropriate claim was made by Grey Fox-9589 earlier), which is a clear another attack on me. Since he was definitely lying, in my reply I just presented facts, nothing more: “Biophys, I tell you straight into your eyes: YOU ARE A LIAR. I don't belong to any "tag team". I'm waiting for your apologies right now.” He didn’t reply and that is all. What do we have in the end? The regular offenders go unpunished. I, who tried to defend myself against the attack, am blocked. Though my response was emotional, I strongly believe that the admin’s decision is very unfair, and that I do not deserve this block.
Decline reason:
Wow, that would make a nice aria if you translated it into Italian and set it to music. But this is Misplaced Pages, not the opera house, and WP:NOTTHEM applies. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ice Hockey World Championships
Will you be interested to join the discussion on topic of Ice Hockey World Championships and whether medal count for Russia/USSR and Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia should be grouped together. The evidence I've provided from a reliable source in support of this argument is being rejected and there is seems to be a questionNeutral point of view. Please join in. Andreyx109 (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Blocked
Despite warnings on both the Russian apartment bombings page and its talk page, you have continued the edit war regarding the section. You have been blocked for 31 hours. When the block expires, please discuss this removal on the talk page. Nakon 21:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Beatle Fab Four (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The block is unfair. Ridiculous, I was blocked for a single explained edit! If you take a closer look at the discussion page, section Related events, you can see that I, Illytr and Offliner came to the same conclusion: this piece doesn’t belong to article’s narration and should go to section/article FSB involvement theories. And if you take a closer look at the article history you can see that it is Biophys, who started edit war (without any explanations) right after the article being unprotected. As to Nakon’s note , I’m sorry I didn’t read it before I made my edit. I apologize for this, and I can undo my edit. But, frankly, while arguments of one side are clearly stated, we see only reverts and little response on talk from the other side.
Decline reason:
Clear incivility. No valid unblock reason given. OhNoitsJamie 15:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Eastern Europe
You are likely to be involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Eastern Europe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use:
Thanks, Colchicum (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
AE report
I have reported you to WP:AE. See WP:AE#Beatle Fab Four. Colchicum (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)