| Revision as of 17:38, 15 April 2009 editDigwuren (talk | contribs)11,308 edits →On editing early and editing often← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:26, 21 April 2009 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 5d) to User talk:Colchicum/Archive.Next edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| You are absolutely right. I've turned the page into a disambig. Someone still needs to rectify the backlinks, though. Cheers,—] • (]); 19:43, December 12, 2008 (UTC) | You are absolutely right. I've turned the page into a disambig. Someone still needs to rectify the backlinks, though. Cheers,—] • (]); 19:43, December 12, 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == On editing early and editing often == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| I don't think you've ever edited for more than 18 hours in a row. Even more than 17 has happened only twice: back in February 2007 and August 2007. ]<sub>]</sub> 06:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's my very point. Sleepless people tend to become grumpy, or even worse. Machines are different. ]<sub>]</sub> 12:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I did a thorough cleanup of the Safka article. Could you take a look? I'd hate to have missed a spot. ]<sub>]</sub> 14:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| See? Only a short day ago I talked about deletion of {{tl|Notpropaganda}}, and it's on TfD already! Those humourless people from the future past ... ]<sub>]</sub> 16:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Russavia has found another article he never edited before: ]. He's got this fanciful theory that valyuta roubles and common roubles were one and the same thing. Go figure. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| On a completely unrelated note, you might find interesting. ]<sub>]</sub> 17:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Kadyrov's opinion on Politkovskaya and Berezovsky == | |||
| While I agree with your comment removing Kadyrov's statement, I don't see a violation of ] here, despite my considering his opinion highly unreliable. The ] does not apply to public figures, I think. I am not sure if the figure mentioned in Kadyrov's statement can be considered public. This is a grey area to me. --] (]) 23:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *I have moved the info from ] to ]. I do not see Kadyrov's opinion as to be notable enough for the main article there only a brief summary is given. It might go as an attributed opinion to the assasination article though ] (]) 01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **Well, we don't quote every goatherd and his goat in such cases. Kadyrov has nothing to do with the investigation and, one obvious hypothesis aside, could know nothing about the assassination. If I wished to discredit a certain position, it would be hard do find anybody who could do that better than Kadyrov. No, not really hard. Bäckman could do better. ] (]) 10:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *** I think Misplaced Pages rules direct its editors to record rather than seek truth. I understand that almost every editor IS motivated by truth seeking, but sticking to the formal rules helps CLASSIFY CONTRADICTIONS.--] (]) 15:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Except that apparently, Bäckman is not very good at ]: . Surprising? I know the feeling. Since it's a job requirement for spinning this sort of ], I'm not sure he'd be better. ]<sub>]</sub> 17:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ***Back to Kadyrov - since he is the prime suspect in the assassination his opinion is indeed notable. You might have noticed that I have put Kadyrov quote just below Pribylovsky accusing Kadyrov in complicity ] (]) 01:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ****And this doesn't put him in a position to know whether Berezovsky is implicated there. But whatever, from my POV Kadyrov's rant is badly needed there. I am just not so sure that it is encyclopedic. ] (]) 10:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *****Well, Kadyrov is not the first person pointing out the ''possibility'' of Berezovsky's involvement. I remember reading ] writing something on similar lines two years ago, most likely basing this on other Russian sources. Kadyrov may just be the most notable person saying this. -- ] (]) 11:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::How unfortunate that Hietanen is not a reliable source. She's not a historian, and her journalistic stories have nontrivial issues with facts. ]<sub>]</sub> 18:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, it seems to me that Putin was the first one, but I don't remember this well enough. ] (]) 18:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:26, 21 April 2009
Sverdlovsk
You are absolutely right. I've turned the page into a disambig. Someone still needs to rectify the backlinks, though. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:43, December 12, 2008 (UTC)