Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished user 05 (talk | contribs) at 18:02, 7 November 2009 (→Arbitration). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

See older threads in the /archive.

Other pages: /list (not updated), my /sandbox

Articles for deletion nomination of Vladimir Vasilyev (writer)

I have nominated Vladimir Vasilyev (writer), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Vasilyev (writer). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Remurmur (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of the press in Russia wondering...

Hi! I was wondering your motives when you reverted the version you wanted in the article Freedom of the press in Russia. I'm little suprised that we have some editors (with Russian connection) who deny that there is nothing wrong with press freedom in Russia (for example according to the latest IPI report the press freedom in Russian sinked in 2009 under Belarus). I tell you a story: During the perestroika years, in late 1980s, did not only mean freedom of speech in the Soviet Union and East Europeans countries, but also in Finland. Though the country was/is democratic and capitalist, Finland was under heavy Finlandization and the term itself was well-known among Finns even before 1980s. But people and media denied it - "How those arrogant Swedes and Western-Germans could say in aloud that we Finns are under self-censorship due the Soviet influence?". This was not bad, because the term was presented in abroad. But in late 1980s some of Finnish intellects said also this aloud. I remember that even I was angry: "who dared to say such stupidities" and "bring dirty to our homeland". Well, after the Soviet collapse the Finlandization became wellknown historical fact. Peltimikko (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Freedom of the press in Russia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Peltimikko (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm grateful for you for your generous warning. I think it's very great for you to inform me that you are engaged in an edit war with me. I certainly lacked of that information. Thank you very much, my dear person.

However, I point out that you made all the same three reverts in 24 hours: , , . So I am afraid you may be in the same sort of trouble that I am. Anyway, it was very generous for you to come here and to warn me. I am happy that there are so warm-hearted people in the world. ellol (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion of compromise

Considering the article Freedom of the press in Russia. User Vlad fedorov's comment and my reply gave me an idea: How about we use only sources which are not U.S.-based (such as Freedom House and United States Department of State)? I think we could get a big picture with International Press Institute, Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. However, the result is/will be negative for Russian contemprorary situation of the freedom of the press; one cannot make other conclusion after these reports. Also, Gil-Robles long quotations should converted to sensible sentences. However, we could use headings as I suggested in talk page, but there could some sort of balance of powers, as 50% negative and 50% positive (exaggerate by generalising), giving readers a freedom to choice. How about compromise? Peltimikko (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Peltimikko, the IPI, PWB, HRW and AI make certain points about certain real existing troubles -- like, high number of assaults, partiality of judiciary, or some other issues. All of these issues are discussed in the article to greater or less extent. If you are eager to expand any topic or cover it in greater details, who holds you? Nobody.

But I certainly resist the idea of creating any sort of a "big picture" where some sources will be banned, and only others would be used. At this point I can't agree with you, at least being a Misplaced Pages contributor who seeks to follow the WP:NPOV policy. The real situation is very complex, I fear that an attempt to reduce that complexity to an easy picture will ruin the credibility of the whole.

All of those reports are equally valid and I see no major contradictions between Gil-Robles and Amnesty International, for example. Their major difference is the topic selection that's naturally more broad in Gil-Robles'es report. For example, when Gil Robles speaks about assaults of journalists he is no less critical than the Amnesty International, albeit slightly in a more diplomatic tone perhaps. In this situation, I don't see how banning one source will work to add credibility to any other source.

By the way, if you read Gil-Robles report, you would see it's roughly 50/50 positive to negative. Not anything you are looking for?

Currently as Vlad appeared on the talk page and seems to be interested in the discussion, I strongly advise you to continue discussing the topic on the talk page of the article. Misplaced Pages articles are the public property. Users who participate in the talk need not to be ignored, it's a generally recognized requirement.

I agree that some Gil-Robles quotations can be reduced to shorter statements. I see no problems, if that won't alter the sense of the quotation, and won't lead to silencing points made. ellol (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do not know what to do with you. You repel multiple reports by human right organisations (many, recent of them are published in 2009) and highlight a single report from 2004. If you are a man of science, you should follow evidences, not beliefs. Anyway, seems we can not find a compromise. However, I edit the article without U.S. based sources, because there is a doubt of these sources. Peltimikko (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Peltimikko. Please, tell me when did I repel those reports? All the new sourced information you introduced to the article is still there. ellol (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

For example. You inserted a section Pressure on independent media, with the following passage:

According to the World Press Freedom Review 2008 by International Press Institute, Russian independent media is under increasing pressure. The goverment use variety of methods to control of broadcasters, to sideline critical journalists, and to intimidate them into self-censorship. According to the Freedom House report the Russian constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, but in reality, the politized and corrupt court system is used against independent journalists.

In the recent version, there's the section Trends, which sais:

The World Press Freedom Review 2008 by International Press Institute stated that Russian independent media is under increasing pressure:

ellol (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, note the following: this particular source emphasized the particular event -- the elections to the State Duma and the Presidentials. In your version the statement made by the source is generalized, intentionally or unintentionally. The source sais somewhat different thing than the way you used it. Please, take it as a piece of friendly critique. ellol (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

I think you should have filed a 3RR report instead. It's very unlikely that the Arb case will be accepted. Offliner (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you much for the information, Offliner! It would be bad to go the wrong way with this case, as I was intended to do. Thanks again, ellol (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Very fun. But anyway, I wouldn't have broken the 3 RR policy. I had only the choice of either breaking the 3 RR myself, or reporting the violation. Why the hell I would break a Misplaced Pages policy. ellol (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You might want to consider reading the actual policy here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. But after that, my version of that article is more neutral and less opinionated. The currently existing section -- "Issues under debate" -- is essentially an euphemism for "Strong POV pushing", where one can not care about making accurate use of the sources, and is absolutely free to bash. I object the existence of this section in such a form. The other point is, that Peltimikko's version lacks of certain actual viewpoints made by the European Commissioner for Human Rights. Those viewpoints are not simply shortened, moved to other section or anything. They are simply removed. What is it, if it's not the POV pushing? ellol (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Vanished user 05 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not break the 3 Revert rule, either in November 7, or previously: . I follow the Misplaced Pages policies.

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for breaking 3RR, you were blocked for edit warring, as was the other person in that dispute. Use the talk page and this won't happen again. --jpgordon 17:03, 7 November 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.

1. International Press Institute: Russia
2. Cite error: The named reference freedom2009 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).