| Revision as of 12:51, 9 May 2010 view sourceVanished user 05 (talk | contribs)6,607 edits →Arbcom proposals← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:31, 25 November 2010 view source Avraham (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Administrators49,160 editsm Protected User talk:Vanished user 05: No reason for a vanished user to have edits to their user or talk pages. ( (indefinite) (indefinite)) | ||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| See older threads in the ]. | |||
| Other pages: ] (not updated), my ] | |||
| ==Was it you?== | |||
| Maybe it's time to talk. You now indicated your name. Was it you who sent me an email to my '''work''' with concerns about my health? It was signed "Filatov".] (]) 22:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : No. Whatever it was, it was not me. Period. | |||
| : What was the email address in the field "FROM"? Ok. My email addresses are 1) filatovev@mail.ru, 2) filatov@issp.ac.ru. If neither was hacked, you must have seen a different email address. | |||
| : That's nasty for me to think that someone could use my name. Yet. I did not authorize anybody, ever, to use my emails. And as for signature, everybody could write any word. It could be "Obama", "White elephant", or "Filatov", what's the matter if it's simply a word? | |||
| : Okey. So the letter you speak about is '''anonymous'''. You can propose that person to provide a copy of his documents to identify himself. If that can help you, I can provide a copy of '''my''' documents, and you can always phone the governmental body which issued them, and check that the serial number and the ordinal number of my passport is true. | |||
| : ] (]) 09:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : | |||
| : Anyway, it was wise for you to address me. You are encouraged to address me in cases of any possible misunderstanding. As for political affiliations, I don't think they are very important. I have a close relative with political affiliations resembling yours; what then? he is no less dear for me, because of that. ] (]) 10:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : | |||
| :I am also very interested to learn 1) When did that incident occur? 2) What was the FROM address used in that letter?. Okey, it's very serious for me. You can write to any of the above addresses, or use Misplaced Pages mail. ] (]) 11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : | |||
| :Besides, I revealed my identity as soon as I started contributing anything substantial to Misplaced Pages, i.e., 2006: . So, I don't quite get your idea that I "now indicated my name". ] (]) 14:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's precisely why I have asked. So, that was your impostor who knew your name. The message came during the EEML case. I thought it might be you, but did not see your name posted at your user page at the time. Now I saw. Nothing more to tell at the moment. Thank you.] (]) 14:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::BTW, I also received other emails, presumably from the same person, but sent through wikipedia email, unlike this message. Did you ever sent any emails to me?] (]) 14:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I sent you nothing in 2009. As you remember, we exchanged some mails in 2006. ] (]) 17:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: By the way, I would like to know the identity of the impostor. I won't even beat him, but if I ever meet him, I would like to look in his eyes. ] (]) 17:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To be more precise, you sent me at least three emails through wikipedia system, but I never responded and never sent emails to you. Right? Sorry, but I do not know who that impostor was. Let's drop it and debate on-wiki any problems we might have. Yes, there is a problem. ''You followed me a lot.'' Looking at your edit counter, I am your best talking partner: you made 111 edits at my talk page (your second best talking partner was Muscovite99 who is now indefinitely blocked). First, you followed me in any articles related to Putin. I stopped editing there. Then, you followed me in articles related to human right in Russia. I stopped editing there. You followed me in articles on internet subjects. I almost stopped editing there. Now you follow me in terrorism-related articles. Well, I appreciate when someone follows my edits to improve the content and fix errors. But all your recent edits related to my contributions were ''reverts'', no matter that everything was on the subject and perfectly sourced (I do not provide supporting diffs but can easily do it). Would you please stop doing this? Thank you.] (]) 19:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Biophys, what's the problem? Provide the facts, and I wouldn't ever revert. Do you think I'm pro-Putin or pro-Medvedev? Holy crap. What kills me is the inconsistency of what people say with the reality. That's double thinking, and everything else depicted by Orwell. That's why -- provide facts, not mere speculations, and that's what I wouldn't revert. Hope, that my point is clear. ] (]) 21:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In other words, I don't like the situations when emotions in the text overrule the reason, and it's when I make reverts. ] (]) 21:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I am talking about . You almost never edited this article in the past, but you came there only to revert my edits, ''ten times at least''. ''I tried at least three different versions of the introduction'', but you always simply reverted everything. This has nothing to do with emotions or "facts". Everything was fully sourced to books. You did the same in a large numbers of other articles, forcing me to stop editing there. That's all I wanted to tell.] (]) 22:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I understood your point. Thanks, and you are always welcome to sound your criticism. But I disagree. "Sourced to books" is not identical to the use of factual evidence. Do you agree with that? ] (]) 11:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Remember, "verifiabilty, not the truth". We prove nothing here. This is not a court room to provide any real life evidence. This is reference work.] (]) 16:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::The concept of "verifiability, not truth", presumes that there are some people who have already taken the labor to find out the truth. And now we have only to do a reference job. And I like this concept. But, unfortunately, sometimes there's a situation where a reference refers to the other work following the principle "verifiability, not truth", and that other work references a different one which reduces this concept to "no matter, truth or not". And that, IMHO, offends Misplaced Pages principles. ] (]) 16:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::No, we must always do ''only'' reference job, but this includes selection of the best available sources. And ] explains which exactly sources are the best. The best sources are secondary sources, such as books written by experts. Experts are people with appropriate background, such as historians who published numerous books or security experts (if this is a terrorism subject). There are different books of course. Some of them mention the events only briefly; others are dedicated exclusively the event or analyze it in great detail in one or several chapters. The latter sources are obviously better. I am personally familiar with four books that belong to such category: "Darkness at Dawn" by ], "Age of assassins" by ] and ], ] by ] and ] by ]. What did you read?] (]) 17:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Yet, somewhere in this chain, there must be the facts. The list of facts which prove the conspiracy theory must exist somewhere, in some work, if you want to claim that that theory is correct. Up to the moment, I did not see such a list of facts. | |||
| :::::::::::::And why are you selecting such dubious sources, as the book of Litvinenko, a former FSB agent? | |||
| :::::::::::::Answering your last point, I read no one of these books. ] (]) 18:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I fully agree that we must separate factual events and "comments" and focus on the former. Let's do it. However, we should not focus on proving or disproving anything at all. I focus on the book by Litvinenko because he was an ] on FSB operations, just like Lunev and Suvorov are experts on GRU operations. Yes, all of them were "bad guys" (Litvinenko was basically a "kum" - you know how it sounds in Russian), but these people know what they are talking about. If you did not read these books, then what did you read?] (]) 23:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Biophys, I don't have to confess which books I am reading! That's first. Then, second, you did you answer my question, what evidence can you provide that would prove the conspiracy theory? ] (]) 14:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, I do not really know what to do with your constant blind reverts. So, I asked for advice .] (]) 17:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I knew that you would. But thanks for warning me, any way. Again, you are very welcome to discuss things at my talk page, and I actually appreciate you coming. Thanks. ] (]) 17:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I also asked an advice from Alex because he is familiar with the subject.] (]) 15:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You are welcome. ] (]) 16:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I am not sure what you are talking about . I said: let's talk instead of edit war (and we made good progress) and Alex is very welcome if he wants. What else do you want?] (]) 22:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::. ] (]) 23:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Bombings article== | |||
| I suggested "Take two" at the article talk page and asked Alex for comments. You are welcome to respond and add something.] (]) 19:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I made a suggestion . You may respond if you wish. Thank you.] (]) 13:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::What do you want from me? I told you once ago that if any topic is fairly discussed and a consensus found, I would not edit differently. ] (]) 16:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I suggested the following. We have a number of disagreements in ]. Would you agree if Alex, Ezhiki or any other administrator ''of your choosing'' (or any established member of Mediation Committee) be our judge? We do the following. 1. We find such person. 2. We create a list of our disagreements (this is mostly done). 3. We ask this administrator to decide each disagreement one way or another. I agree in advance with any his/her decisions. You agree too. Would that be working for you? ] (]) 17:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::P.S. You are well aware that there is no consensus in this article. None of us has any problems with technical edits by Ilgiz, and no one else currently edits there.] (]) 17:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I do not have anything against Alex or Ezhiki and if they come to the article talk page to have their say, I can agree for them to have the right of a decisive voice, no problems for me with that. However, why not just to discuss the disagreements at the talk page? At least, we have no disagreements in regards of facts. I think it's OK to find approppriate wordings, etc, in more sensitive cases. ] (]) 18:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Also in regards to this article (as well as the 2010 Moscow Metro bombing article and one or two others), this might be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/VictimsWife She seems to be editing articles to her biases, but I'm afraid to correct them, since I recalled being blocked randomly for trying to fix something like this before. I figured bringing it to your attention would work too. ] (]) 03:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Block of HW007 == | |||
| Did you ever start an arbcom to review the block of {{user|HistoricWarrior007}}? I am interested, because I also am questioning the motives surrounding the ban. Regards, ] (]) 08:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I did not. But now that I 1) Inquired admin Future Perfect At Sunrise about his motifs to ban HW007, 2) Asked him to unban HW007 and let that issue be decided by ArbCom, and did not receive any answer on my requests, starting ArbCom is absolutely logical. The ArbCom must not be limited to reviewing the block of HW007, but should also concern depriving FutPerf of his admin status. That man acts irresponsibly and clearly is not ready to held responsibility for his actions. Possibly he would do quite better as an usual user. What do you think? ] (]) 16:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well it's up to you. I don't believe the ban was justified, but it seems that HW007 may have been sockpuppeting to circumnavigate his block. If this is so, is really hurts his chances for being unblocked. The block was certainly wrong, and if a block had to occur, if it was warranted, it should have been done by some other admin, one who is uninvolved. If you go to arbcom, please let me know. Although, if HW007 is unable to participate, it might be useless as he knows more about whats going on here than anyone else (other than those who wouldn't want to self incriminate themselves. ] (]) 03:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Skype== | |||
| ] You might note that at least one of your recent edits{{#if:Human rights in Russia|, such as the one you made to ],}} also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and ] trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you.<!-- Template:Uw-skype -->--] (]) 17:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :That's twice you have done it now. If you want to diable the Skype extension on Firefox, you could look at --] (]) 15:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Note== | |||
| I responded to your evidence and commented here: | |||
| .] (]) 22:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == 2008 South Ossetia War title == | |||
| I would like to know your opinion concerning ] I made, which I think represents a decent compromise.--] (]) 03:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbcom proposals == | |||
| Ellol, can I recommend refactoring your proposals at ? That is a Workshop page, which means all filings in it should be suitable as drafts of actual proposed Arbcom decisions. They need to be made in the strictly matter-of-fact format used by the committee in its decisions. That page is not for free debate, re-hashing of evidence or stating your personal opinions. ] ] 08:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. But I do not believe ArbCom can do anything. There's nothing to ban Biophys for, and he is too old to change. All what can be done is to 1) again explain the situation to him, 2) bring the attntion of more users to his actions. I do not expect my proposals to have any different effect, and I understand it's useless in other respects. Sorry, ] (]) 09:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: You have ignored my point. Whatever the situation, what you posted doesn't belong on the Workshop page, it is only disrupting it. I strongly recommend you remove it. ] ] 10:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Future Perfect is right. The Workshop page is for presenting proposed findings, remedies, and so on - you may want to read ]. What you wrote is more argument or evidence, and as such I have . If you can avoid making an argument you can work some of that material into your already presented evidence, just stay under the word limit. Alternatively, you can provide some actual proposals or comment on others'. Thank you, ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(] • ] • ])''</small></font> 12:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I apologize. Indeed, that's an evidence or argument, but not a proposal. ] (]) 12:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC) | |||