| Revision as of 08:19, 7 August 2008 editBobanni (talk | contribs)3,605 edits →Speech freedom in Russia -- Andrey Kuznetsov← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:40, 20 May 2018 edit undoTheRealWeatherMan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers728 edits Notification: listing at articles for deletion of Glutamate permease. (TW) | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| --- | |||
| ==Welcome!== | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and ] 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: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ''If you are interested in Russia-related themes'', you may want to check out the ], particularly the ] and ]. You may even want to add these boards to your ]. | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692040667 --> | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of Template:Pfam domains == | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 18:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| Again, welcome! ] 00:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 23:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| {{User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report}} | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi - I thought this might be of some interest to you. One area you might want to expand is the influence of Solzhenitsyn on the Cold War (and human rights/Helsinki in general); also, the space race and scientific competition is only mentioned (Sputnik specifically, but no mention of the moon landing) - perhaps also areas you may wish to look into. Still, overall it's quite good, I think. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I made a few random comments just to start from something. There are many more.] (]) 06:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks - I appreciate it. I'll look into the points you raised and see what I can come up with. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, on the Korea/Vietnam point, here's the situation. Plenty of sources say there was no direct military engagement. And depending on how you define that, it may be accurate. However, the Soviet role in both Korea and Vietnam ''was'' probably big enough that it merits a footnote. Here's what I found: , , , , , . Would you like to use these sources to write a footnote? Something like: "While no full-blown shooting war ever took place between the superpowers, Soviet involvement in Korea and possibly Vietnam saw direct clashes with American forces. In Korea, Soviet pilots engaged in every major air battle from 1950 on and inflicted heavy casualties on US/UN air units.<sup></sup> In Vietnam, the Soviets provided weapons, advisors and ground-based air defense personnel".<sup></sup> (Or: "The Soviets sent around 1000 pilots and additional aviation support personnel to North Vietnam, where they often sortied against American aircraft conducting air strikes".<sup></sup>) How does that sound? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::You should keep in mind that the involvement of Soviet air forces (actually ''all'' "Korean" air forces were Soviet) was an important factor of this war. That was ''the only'' war after WW II when US had no air superiority. The beginning of the war was ordered personally by Stalin, and the war ended the day he died. Sorry, I have an urgent work this summer, and can not do anything serious here.] (]) 04:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's fine, I'll propose it on the talk page. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Internet brigades == | |||
| While the first time I voted to keep this article, now unfortunately I have to change my opinion, since over the time the article failed to substantiate itself as a new concept. By no means this is a disrespect to your contributions to wikipedia. A suggection for a better place for the information you collected in described in my nomination. ] (]) 17:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If you suggest renaming of an article, you should not nominate it for deletion.] (]) 18:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I suggest splitting it into several ones. Well-knownn Chinese govt intervention in internet has little in common with alleged russian "web brigades" ] (]) 05:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::What is exactly the difference? They seem to be the same, as has been confirmed by users from China during previous AfD discussion. Perhaps the inclusion of CIA was questionable, but this should be established by consensus. So far, all three people who discussed the matter had come to an agreement that, yes, they belong there, and I do not see objections at the article talk page.] (]) 15:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I was not reverting you last time. I was reverting an occasional editor who jumped into the revert war: from false accusation in his edit summary I concluded that he has no idea what's happening here. I do believe that your information is useful, but I also continue to believe that it is badly misplaced. ] (]) 19:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Compromise approach=== | |||
| I have a suggestion of a compromise solution as follows | |||
| #The article renames into ], which is a direct translation of the russian term. | |||
| #The major content is about Russian issues. | |||
| #Other countries are described in a section titled as, e.g., "Similar developments outside Russia". In this way you will avoid resorting to conclusions and generalizations, just presentation of facts, hence no OR. | |||
| #Do not use the term "web brigades" for non-russian topics. | |||
| In this way you avoid all major objections: OR, WP:SYNTH and neologism. Since the phenomenon is definitely notable and expected, I am sure sooner or later articles in academic sources will appear and probably a good term will be introduced. When this happens and many content will be available, the topic will be split into per-country sub-articles, with one summary main article. ] (]) 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems that we have a content disagreement here. This is very common situation. But such problems are not resolved by nominating an article for deletion, per WP rules. If you withdraw your AfD nomination, I am very open to discuss any issues.] (]) 03:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :No; we have subject disagreement here. Internet brigades is your neologism. Russian term is ]. Your page was original synthesis from all over the world, which must be deleted. I insist the article restricted only to verified domain of the term application as supported by citations: Russia. I find it strange you don't want to start a new article strictly following wikipedia rules. Hey, you may even nominate it at ] as a new article! ] (]) 23:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == The Internet in Putin’s Russia: Reinventing a Technology of Authoritarianism == | |||
| Found this reference on the net. Did you heard or read about it ? | |||
| Also this might be useful | |||
| --] (]) 21:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you! This is a good source on ] in general. I am glad that you was unblocked. Hope to see you around.] (]) 21:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC).] (]) 22:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I tried to rewrite the intro/lead of the ] article but since I'm more interested in Ukraine my knowledge is not so big. The original lead was a bich of non-information + 1 soapboxing statment. It's hard to believe that some Russian editors believe there helping there country by downplaying things that are wrong in there country. I contected you since your edit's make sence! ] (]) 22:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Award!== | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|blue}}}; background-color: {{{color|yellow}}};" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="top" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''For Bravery''' - 3rd degree | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | You are hereby awarded this Ukrainian National Award "For Bravery" for starting ] and being brave enough to write/edit articles about controversial Russian subjects. ] (]) 22:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)</sup> | |||
| |} | |||
| It is nice to know there are Russian editors who are not constantly writing about controversial Ukrainian subjects (], ]) but who know there are things wrong in there own country, hence a Ukrainian award! Not everything in Ukraine is stellar too BTW :) ] (]) 22:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == rolex == | |||
| Hello, Biophys; could you please look at the article ]: it seems to be just adverticement of the company; even the note NPOV is systematically removed. ] (]) 23:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Dima, I think this article provides some interesting information. Why do you pay so much attention?] (]) 02:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Biophys, thank you for the quick reply. The "Interesting information" would be how to neutralize Rolex. My colleagues and I get too many rolex messages. The antirolex sites offer the service of authomatic removal of the rolex messages from the mailboxes. For this reason I believe that the main meaning of rolex is "spam", but at least two users (one of them is admin) insist that this menaing should not appear in Misplaced Pages. I can easy imagine that "rolex" and "anti-rolex" sites are in the same hands. As they send the rolex messages to me, I am supposed to become the rolex specialist. I know your contributiuon as constructive, so, I communicate you. If you have no time to deal with rolex, just say, and I understand; I shall find other rolex victims. ] (]) 03:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::To be honest, I have no idea about the rolex and anti-rolex problems, and this is very far from my interests (I may look at this later). But why should you be involved there with your background in physics? (I assume you are Dima K. who worked in Japan). Regards,] (]) 03:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: From my point of view, I should not be involved at all; but distributors of rolex have opposite opinion. Would I get all the watches offered by email, I could live without to work, just selling these watches. Unfortunetely, it is only spam. ] (]) 09:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I do not see any spam or serious ] problems in article ]. If you wish, you might add something sourced in article ]...] (]) 02:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Web Brigades == | |||
| Not sure if you have heard this, but according to this (July 19, 2008) many are speculating that the FSB is "making appeals in Russian Internet forums calling for all Russian hackers to unite and launch a large-scale attack" on Ukraine the Baltics etc. Could this be used to help the article? ] 03:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, . If you can read Russian, you might also read . This is not a joke and corroborated by other sources like books by ]. ] (]) 03:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Citation? == | |||
| of yours does not restore a citation, despite an edit summary saying that it does. It does restore an uncited quotation. Also, the first portion of it restores a sentence fragment "He conceded that". Could you please take a look and work out what you meant to do? - ] | ] 06:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you. This is direct citation from book by ] ''Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime'', Vintage books, Random House Inc., New York, 1995, ISBN 0-394-50242-6, page 259. - as indicated in the page (see the diff). Word "conceded" can be replaced by "asserted" or something else.] (]) 16:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah! The citation should come after the quotation. It was completely confusing as it stood. I'll fix. - ] | ] 19:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Zemskov's data == | |||
| Sorry for delayed response. I don't share your doubts about Zemskov'd data for two reasons: | |||
| First, Zemskov used KGB's data that were intended for internal use only. So peoples who wrote those papers had no reason to conceal anything. Sometimes, they even had to exaggerate a number of prisoners: you probably know that during a 'big purge' they had a 'plan', a minimal number of ''people's enemies'' to be arrested for certain period in certain region. Of course, sometimes they, probably, had to understate those numbers, but, again, I see no reason for them do that systematically.<br />Second reason to believe those numbers is as follows. I looked through several research papers that criticized Getty, Ritterspoon, Zemskov's articles. I found that the major criticism was focused on conclusions they made (they tried to estimate a number of Stalin's victims based on Gulag population). And this criticism seems quite reasonable, because far not all victims were Gulag prisoners. However, as regards to the data themselves, no serious doubts in their validity were raised. Therefore, I conclude Zemskov's numbers to be trustworthy, although his conclusions drawn from them are sometimes dubious. <br />I agree that those numbers are lower estimate rather than a real number of victims, however, the only unbiased way to deal with it is to show those numbers and then explain concretely how many victims left unaccounted and what are the reasons for these statements. Otherwise it would be a fiction, not a Misplaced Pages article.<br />All the best--] (]) 04:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for response. First of all, could you please provide correct citation as I asked? Who is author and what is the title of the article (in the book by Russian Academy of Sciences)? You have inserted this segment to many WP articles. As about Zemskov data (used by many researchers), they were disputed for example by Antonov-Ovseenko. The numbers of prisoners in Gulag produced by NKVD/KGB itself is possibly 10 times lower than in reality, according to him. Soviet Union organizations are famous for producing completely bogus numbers, as can be supported by many sources. All economic production data for example are fake, and Gulag data are possibly not exception. One of problems: old Soviet military and intelligence archives are actually closed, so verification is not really possible.] (]) 12:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Sourcing=== | |||
| You have ZERO credibility when it comes to editing Soviet related articles since you have a massive anti-Soviet POV. You only believe sources which make ridiculous claims about the USSR (such as the Guinness Book of World Records claiming that 61 million people were killed by the Soviet regime o:) :)). All you want to do is make the Soviet Union look as evil as possible, and because of that you ignore the studies of actual historians and demographers that are based on real data and not propaganda. -] (]) 15:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, we both have zero credibility per ]. Everything should be based on published sources. ] is a sufficently reliable source. Furthermore, what I cited was a scholarly book by a notable researcher on the subject, ] who get her PhD at ]. By using whatever source in her book, she actually endorses it as a reliable source. So, this is not just the "Book of records".] (]) 15:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The Guinness Book of World Records is not a serious source when it comes to this, especially when compared to detailed studies of historians I sourced. Albats is not a historian; she might be a good journalist, but she is not an expert on this and neither is she objective when it comes to Soviet history. If you think that whatever she "endorses" is the absolute truth then there is something wrong with you... -] (]) 15:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::''"Guinness Book of World Records is not a serious source"''. Says who? "''Albats is not a historian"''. Says who? She get PhD in political science in Harvard, authored several books, and has international recognition.] (]) 15:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Being a political scientist does not make her a historian with detailed knowledge of Soviet history. International recognition might be in journalism, not history. -] (]) 16:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Although she is a ] (see the article), it does not really matter. Her book published at several languages qualify as a reliable secondary source. If you have concerns, please ask at ] noticeboard.] (]) 16:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Various fictional books are also published in different languages, so what? Whatever she published should not be given precedence over detailed research by experts. Her detailed research was what? Opening the Guinness Book of World Records? -] (]) 17:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Please see ] and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick. ''The State Within a State: The KGB and Its Hold on Russia - Past, Present, and Future'', 1994. ISBN 0-374-18104-7 . ] (]) 18:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Biophys, "pretty obvious what"? Who told me 5 minutes ago that Misplaced Pages is not about truth, but about verifiability? It's funny to see spiders in the can, when there are no scientific sources. ;) ] (]) 21:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It tells: ''Much of Dyukov's work challenges the studies by other historians, particularly those critical of ] or the role of the USSR during World War II''. Of course it does. "Obolgannya voina", etc. But let's use talk page of the article for that.] (]) 23:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Zemskov data, take two=== | |||
| Frankly, I don't understand this type arguments. Albats earned her PhD in Harvard and published several scholarly books ''therefore'' she is trustworthy. Zemskov's data, although they are being used by many researchers, are questionable ''because'' Antonov-Ovseenko raised a concern about their validity. <br />Many researchers and political writers like Albats, Solzhenitsyn, Mikoyan and others wrote books that contain ''estimations'' - and this was absolutely reasonable because archive data were unavailable. Oleg Khlevnyuk, Viktor Zemskov and Arsenii Roginsky provide ''numbers''. You are scientist and I am scientist too, therefore we both understand a difference between estimations and exact numbers. Estimations are handwavings, you cannot discuss them seriously. Numbers, even when they are not correct, are something you can discuss. <br />For example, if I tell you I don't believe Albats, you argue she got her PhD in Harvard. If you tell me Zemskov's data are incorrect, I can ask you what are possible reasons for that? For instance, if someone argue that unexpectedly large number of prisoners was liberated from camps means nothing ''because'' in reality they were seriously ill and were expected to die in close future, therefore the real number of Stalin's victims was greater that Zemskov's data tell - I take this argument seriously. However if someone tell me that archive data are incorrect ''because'' they produced by NKVD that is known to be intrinsically malicious, probably, even towards future historians - beat me, I cannot take it seriously. | |||
| By the way. Google Scholar gives 22 citations to the Getti, Ritterspoon, Zemskov's paper - and 15 to Albats' ''The State Within a State''. More interestingly, jstor gives only 7 to 9 papers discussing Albats' book, and about 100 articles discuss Zemskov's work. --] (]) 04:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Google searches do not prove anything at all. This is not a valid method to assess notability of anything. ''All'' estimates on this subject are based on unreliable sources. Therefore, they differ by at least ten times. I did not tell that researcher X is better than researcher Y (although Getty is an openly "revisionist" historian unlike Antonov-Ovseenko). I am telling that we can not represent any disputed statistics as fact, no matter if this is Zemskov, Albats, Ovseenko, or whoever else. All published alternative numbers (and yes, Ovseenko provided his numbers) must be presented per ].] (]) 04:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::You tell: "''However if someone tell me that archive data are incorrect because they produced by NKVD that is known to be intrinsically malicious, probably, even towards future historians - beat me, I cannot take it seriously."''. Yes, I can not take KGB data seriously because this particular organization was caught many times while planting some professional disinformation (there are many sources). ''Do you regard a proven professional disinformation organization a reliable source?''] (]) 05:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Speech freedom in Russia -- Andrey Kuznetsov == | |||
| Добрый день, Андрей. Извините, что на русском, но так быстрее и проще. | |||
| Прежде всего хотел бы извиниться за свои может быть, не всегда корректные действия в прошлом. | |||
| Теперь о главном. Прежде всего, хотел бы уверить Вас, что наши цели и задачи в общем и целом совпадают. Также как и Вы, я хочу демократии в России, соблюдения прав и свобод гражданина, свободной прессы. | |||
| Мои действия ни в коем случае не являются своего рода идеологической войной и т.п. Однако есть один фактор, который Вы, как житель Соединенных Штатов, возможно не в полной мере представляете себе. Неверно, что любая критика состояния России приведёт к положительному результату. К положительному результату может привести только адекватная критика, неадекватная может и приводит лишь к росту паранойи и негативного имиджа Соединенных Штатов, вызывая своего рода защитную реакцию. В любом случае, должен происходить здоровый обмен мнениями, российские журналисты в целом достаточно адекватны. Вы ведь не владеете парой-тройкой нефтяных компаний, чтобы обогатиться в случае серъезного похолодания русско-американских отношений? | |||
| Надеюсь на конструктивное сотрудничество на страницах Википедии. | |||
| Евгений. | |||
| ] (]) 07:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Rough translation courtesy GOOGLE TRANSLATE. | |||
| Good day, Andrew. Sorry, that the Russian, but it faster and easier. | |||
| First of all I would like to apologize for its perhaps not always correct actions in the past. | |||
| Now on the home. First of all, I would like to assure you that our goals and objectives generally coincide. Like you, I want democracy in Russia, respect the rights and freedoms of citizens, free press. | |||
| My actions in no way is a kind of ideological war, etc. But there is one factor that you, as a resident of the United States may not fully imagine. Is not true that any criticism of the state of Russia will lead to a positive outcome. By the positive result could only lead critic adequate, inadequate and can only lead to increased paranoia and the negative image of the United States, causing a kind of defensive reaction. In any case, should be a healthy exchange of views, Russian journalists generally quite adequate. You do not own a pair-troika oil companies that enriched if honest cold Russian-American relations? | |||
| I look forward to constructive cooperation on the pages of Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Eugene. | |||
| ---- | |||
| Please remember this is ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA ] (]) 08:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:40, 20 May 2018
---
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Pfam domains
Template:Pfam domains has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Glutamate permease for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Glutamate permease is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Glutamate permease until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)