This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished user 05 (talk | contribs) at 13:13, 21 February 2010 (→Was it you?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:13, 21 February 2010 by Vanished user 05 (talk | contribs) (→Was it you?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)See older threads in the /archive.
Other pages: /list (not updated), my /sandbox
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".Biophys (talk) 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.
- ellol (talk) 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. ellol (talk) 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. ellol (talk) 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". ellol (talk) 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.Biophys (talk) 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?Biophys (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I sent you nothing in 2009. As you remember, we exchanged some mails in 2006. ellol (talk) 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. ellol (talk) 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.Biophys (talk) 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. ellol (talk) 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. ellol (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am talking about this. 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.Biophys (talk) 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? ellol (talk) 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.Biophys (talk) 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. ellol (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, we must always do only reference job, but this includes selection of the best available sources. And WP:RS 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 Satter, "Age of assassins" by Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky, Blowing Up Russia: Terror from Within by Litvinenko and Death of a Dissident by Alex Goldfarb. What did you read?Biophys (talk) 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. ellol (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, we must always do only reference job, but this includes selection of the best available sources. And WP:RS 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 Satter, "Age of assassins" by Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky, Blowing Up Russia: Terror from Within by Litvinenko and Death of a Dissident by Alex Goldfarb. What did you read?Biophys (talk) 17:40, 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. ellol (talk) 16:19, 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.Biophys (talk) 16:08, 20 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? ellol (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am talking about this. 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.Biophys (talk) 22:54, 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.Biophys (talk) 19:50, 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?Biophys (talk) 14:30, 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.Biophys (talk) 14:17, 19 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 expert 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?Biophys (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I read different books. For example, this one. ellol (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)