Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:47, 18 September 2011

Welcome!

Hello, Kolokol1, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Misplaced Pages Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 00:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gurianova1ap.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gurianova1ap.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.65.227 13:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Trepashkin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Trepashkin.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Boris Berezovsky (businessman)

{{3RR|Boris Berovosky}}

• Dear Off2riorob, it is a mistake, it was not me, who reverted your post, but user deepdish7--Kolokol1 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your correct, please excuse me. I gave you one just so as not to be accused of one sidedness as to the issue but I agree with you in regard to your contributions - basically its a ping pong match in out in out.. and even if the man is accused of this and that he is still a living person and we need to have a NPOV well written well sourced article. with deepdish7 wanting to keep it as it is I see improving the article as not going to be easy. Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I see deepdale is blocked for a week - during this time some discussion of the content and the sources can happen on the article talk page so that when he returns thee is some focus as to the problems with the current content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we can have a good article with or without disinformation efforts, because the facts speak for themself and are easily verifiable. I am working on this at the talk page--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice one, way to go. Looks like some progress towards article improvement at last. From what I have read, some sections could use a fair bit of NPOV rewriting. Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, would you consider endorsing the sandbox porposal for the Berezovsky page, pls? http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)#Sub_page_.28sandbox.29_idea_for_testing_revised_outline --Kolokol1 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I will have an hour to look at it in depth tomorrow afternoon/evening. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The subpage

Hi Kolokol1,

How do I find the subpage to look at it? I have forgotten what it is. I need a link. Why not here? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to do two things:

1. Leave the subpage where it is until you can get back

2. Go into the edit of the main article and save the whole edit or the whole article on a word processor. In that way, if the article gets heavily vandalized you will have an easy record what it was like. Also, remember that other editors of good will may work on it while you are away. It could get confusing, but at least you will have a record.

I am very involved in attempting to save an article from deletion and can't offer much editing energy at the moment. But I will be pleased to give some quick thoughts. Also I have learned about the help me mechanism. There is a team of admin helpers who respond quite quickly. Why not, on this talk page, set up a new section. Clearly identify your questions for them and then put this at the top of the page without the spaces except between the two words. eg. { { h e l p m e } } Cheers. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear DonaldRichardSands,

The link for the revised article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)/new Thanks for taking a look. From what you wrote above, I understand that you do not mind replacing the old version with the revised text on the main page. I would very much want to get other editors of good will involved. All best--Kolokol1 (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think it would be more accurate to say, the revised outline seems to resolve the sensationalist approach of the old version. However, and this is what will take the time, the old version does have merits which should not be lost. There is an energy among some people to show that Berezovsky is a mafia-like boss. When I told a friend about Berezovsky and the accusations of his involvement as such a boss and how I would like to email him and ask him to donate a picture for the article, my friend expressed shock and dismay that I would risk my life so. The article needs the balanced outline of the revised version but should deal with both sides of the view of him. This balance is what takes the time. I would enjoy helping. Your energy for the article is obvious. If we could get an editor who wants to portray Berezovsky as a mafia boss to agree to the balanced outline and then to enter some careful rules of collaboration, the article could strengthen quickly. In the article I am working on presently, one other editor is active and he is very critical. But, he and I have finally agreed to work with the talk pages and to talk more civilly with each other and things are progressing much better. Similar cooperation could happen for the Berezovsky article. Rely on Secondary Sources. Insist on a conservative, scholarly examination of all aspect of Berezovsky's life. And, yes, I still want to email him, ask him for a picture, and perhaps go for coffee. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Dear DonaldRichardSands, thank you for your input. Of course, Mr. Berezovsky is a highly controversial person, and I think, all these controversies are reflected in the revised text. But he is a major figure, who influenced Russian political history over two decades, and his biography deserves professional approach not only for his own sake, but for the sake of the whole Russia block on Misplaced Pages. With respect, the belief of "some people" that Berezovsky is a mafia boss is an opinion, which is not supported by facts. If an opinion is poorly sourced and potentially libelous, it has no place on Misplaced Pages, regardless of how many people may hold it. Otherwise we should change the rules and make Misplaced Pages a collection of opinions supported by a majority vote. Under current rules, we should work with well sourced facts. The facts in this matter are as follows. (1) That particular opinion has originated from a single source (Mr. Klebnikov), whose antisemitic bias has been noted by three respectable independent sources. (2) The publication (Forbes), which printed his opinion has unequivocally retracted it as lacking any evidence in a libel court hearing. (3) Dozens of profiles of Mr. Berezovsky in major world newspapers, which adhere to the standards of fair and responsible journalism - including serious Russian sources - do not repeat these allegations. I believe that Misplaced Pages should adhere to the same standards. The revised article states the sourced facts as they are: there was an opinion voiced, which was then discredited. Of course, if anyone can quote another reputable source, which supports this opinion with evidence, it should be mentioned. Since I am going on vacation, I have put the revised text on the main page, and leave it for the community to compare it with the previous version (which can be accessed via History tag), amend, challenge and comment - as long as it is done by the rules. The last thing I want is another edit war. On the other hand, seeking consensus is just one of Misplaced Pages rules. Avoiding pushing opinions, and removing unsourced slander is another.--Kolokol1 (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Report the controversy: You may already be doing this. When a controversy exists among a significant group of people, report on the controversy. You mention Klebnikov. Be sure to include in your article a paragraph that reports what Klebnikov has said. Use solid secondary sources to report his role in the Berezovsky story. Keep balance. The first article seemed all about the controversy. Don't ignore the controversy. Report objectively. Try to stand back from your strong feelings and just report what your third party sources are contending. And, get a good picture of Berezovsky, if you can. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks. But this is exactly what I, and another editor, have done:--Kolokol1 (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Berezovsky's meteoric enrichment and his involvement in political power struggles has been accompanied by allegations of him belonging to the criminal world from his opponents. After his falling out with Putin and exile to London, these allegations became the recurrent theme of official state-controlled media, earning him comparisons with Leon Trotsky and the Orwellian character Emmanuel Goldstein.. While he successfully defended himself in the West in four consecutive libel suites, his image in his homeland is that of an incarnation of evil, "the most hated man" in Russia.

In 1996 Forbes, an American business magazine, published an article by Paul Klebnikov entitled 'Godfather of the Kremlin?' with the kicker 'Power. Politics. Murder. Boris Berezovsky could teach the guys in Sicily a thing or two.' The article, which Klebnikov subsequently expanded into a book (see below), fulfilled the promise of these phrases by linking Berezovsky to corruption in the car industry, to the Chechen mafia, and to the murder of Vladislav Listyev. The decision of Berezovsky and Nikolai Glushkov to sue for libel in London raised questions about the jurisdiction of the UK courts, but the case slowly proceeded until the claimants opted to settle when Forbes offered a retraction. The following statement appended to the article on the Forbes website summarises: 'On 6 March, 2003 the resolution of the case was announced in the High Court in London. FORBES stated in open court that (1) it was not the magazine's intention to state that Berezovsky was responsible for the murder of Listiev, only that he had been included in an inconclusive police investigation of the crime; (2) there is no evidence that Berezovsky was responsible for this or any other murder; (3) in light of the English court's ruling, it was wrong to characterize Berezovsky as a mafia boss; and (4) the magazine erred in stating that Glouchkov had been convicted for theft of state property in 1982.

What else could be said?--Kolokol1 (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: I hope you won't object against my copying this discussion to the article talk page? All best--Kolokol1 (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Boris Berezovsky

Hi. I made some technical edits to Boris Berezovsky (businessman). Please have a look and notice that on Misplaced Pages we 1. do not use capitals in headers of sections after the American fashion 2. references are placed after punctuation. Thank you for your attention to these details, and keep up the good work. 04:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Debresser (talk)

Also, I am missing in that article a section "Personal life". Articles about people almost always have such a section, especially such a large and detailed article like this one. It should contain some information about parents, religious beliefs (which might be the subject of a separate section in this specific case), wifes and (girl-)friends importantly (just that such information should be reliably sourced), charitable activities. Debresser (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Berezovsky

Hi. Please stop edit-warring with Deepdish7. Even though technically reverts of BLP violations are exempt from WP:3RR, different admins may have different views on what consitiutes a BLP violation, so you are risking to be blocked. And there is no need to hurry. Colchicum (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, thanks, stopped already. I am referring the matter to BLP Noticeboard--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

These guys ask everyone about possible connections with Berezovsky . Do not pay attention. Biophys (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but the truth is that I am in a way connected, so I thought it would be right to declare it, and continue from that standpoint. Certain things are better said from the position of a wronged subject of BLP, than an outside observer.--Kolokol1 (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Simply knowing someone in real life does not create the COI. I edited several pages related to scientists I know, and no one objected (this is not related to Russian politics of course). Furthermore, having a COI is not a problem per se. It only becomes a problem when it leads to obviously biased editing and conflicts with other people. Please try to minimize your comments at ANI because they might be regarded as "disruption". Simply edit some content and Ignore all dramas. Biophys (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• stop commenting at ANI. You may be blocked for doing this . Biophys (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Hello Kolokol1. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Boris Berezovsky, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Misplaced Pages's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Due to your username, there is a real concern that you may have a conflict of interest in relation to Boris Berezovsky and associated articles. Having looked at your editing history, it is connected entirely to articles related to this subject, and your username could indicate that you are connected to a Berezovsky-funded entity. If you have a conflict of interest, you need to declare it, and refrain from editing directly any articles within the area of any COI. Russavia 09:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I have declared my association with the subject of this BLP, and acknowleged COI in this matter in WP:COIN#A Response, where I also explained why it does nor disqualify me from editing, as per current BLP guidelines--Kolokol1 (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring

It is inappropriate to make substantive changes to a post on a forum after others have already replied. See WP:REFACTOR. You can make changes before, and you can make very minor changes, like correcting typos, after. If you wish to make substantive changes, you can use html strike commands to strike out your previous text. Otherwise, replies from editors will not make sense because they will have responded to your original wording, not your changed wording.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• You are right, sorry -- heat of the debate. What specifically you have in mind? Will try to correct.

• It's not a big problem, just wanted you to know why I reverted your changes. I noted afterwards you made one more change, but I let it go because, although substantive, it wasn't a big deal. I don't follow your question about correcting anything. I wasn't suggesting there were things you should be correcting, just pointing out policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• • I see, ok, never mind--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• No, it is perfectly fine to refactor your own comments anywhere if you feel they are inappropriate for any reason. On the other hand, reverting edits of another editor on a talk page (as Bbb23 just did ) to restore questionable comments about living persons is wrong and against the rules. Biophys (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Refactoring may cause confusion if improperly applied to an ongoing discussion; an editor should take great care to preserve all such discussion and all relevant details to its context." "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." I have seen other editors use this guideline precisely for the same reason I did, that removing and changing even one's own text can destroy the context of subsequent comments by other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Kolokol, the correction you just made to one of your posts at ANI is precisely the kind of correction that is permissible as it doesn't change the substance of what you said earlier, it just corrects the number of the noun (essentially a typo). Just thought you might like a positive example.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop refactoring. With great difficulty, I have backed out some of the changes you have made to the discussion at ANI. You added subsection headers in the middle of discussions that had already taken place, and, more egregiously, you added something to MY comment. Do NOT do this again.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

He did not modified anything except adding a neutral header ("discussion"). But yes, altering another editor posts may be a blockable offense . However, refactoring your own comments is usually fine (in fact, I never saw anyone objecting this).Biophys (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• I inserted two subsections (see diffs below) with the sole purpose of making the reading of this oversized discussion easier for the users. Please don't brand this well-intentioned purely technical improvement as an act of malice - this not constructive and is simply not worthy of everyone's time. And what is the "something" I added to your comment? I don't think I did. Please provide diff. Thanks --Kolokol1 (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)--Kolokol1 (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=450871837

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=450872055

It is not necessary (and often not helpful) to answer every single comment around. Let them speak for themselves. Na kazhdyj chix ne nazdravstvueshsja, as they say. Colchicum (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Of course you are right. As I said on the ANI, I heed to Biophys' advise and rest my case. This subsectioning was supposed to be my last contrib, and -- here you are. Amazing!--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23, for accepting my explanation that an insertion of gibberish into your post (diff ) was inadvertent and probably caused by an equipment glitch--Kolokol1 (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still laughing at your recent change to the translation of the comment about Black Kite. Now, there's a refactoring I can support. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Notice re ANI

A discussion concerning you has been initiated at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you must be very careful with your comments. There was another user who was telling something similar . Where is he now? Banned at English and Russian wikipedias. It's OK if someone asks me such questions . Do not ask others. Biophys (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. But, as they often say in nowadays Russia "power is in the truth" (сила в правде) :). Why should I be careful if I know that I am right? I am new here, but I find WP body of law a remarkable mechanism, which really should work. If there is hidden malice in a particular person, it will eventually show itself. However, in order for this to happen, you have to engage him in a dialog, in good faith and assuming good faith. This is what I am trying to do. Overreaction is usually a sign of guilty conscience. However, if someone acting in good faith - as I do - ends up kicked out of here for asking a legitimate question, it would be a disappointment, but not a great loss for me Cheers.--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

1. http://www.barricades.ca/articles/3_2/Boris_Berezovsky.htm
2. http://www.russiajournal.com/node/4816
3. "Russia's 'most hated' tycoons" BBC News 8 April 2003