User talk:Alex Bakharev/Archive3

User_talk: 70.225.171.96 has not deleted any part of Intel Core Microarchitecture. Rather, he has added numerous lies and instances of defamation to the page. Reverting my edits and claiming that he blanked pages is wrong. Jgp 23:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing. I apologise if I came off as overly harsh in this message. Jgp 00:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you were online and thought I would pop by and give my belated congratulations for finally achieving adminship. I'm glad you were able to make it. --

]

Copyvio

Hi Alex,

I noticed you tagged the page History of religions in Azerbaijan as copyvio. Would you also be able to check the page Religion in Azerbaijan? I have to go soon. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 07:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex. The guy who posted the article is the owner of that website, so it is not copyvio, he owns that material. Grandmaster 08:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Alex, thanks for you comments on Nagorno-Karabakh RFC page. What’s your take on dispute 3 position 1/1 ? You may wish to have a look at previous discussions on this topic here and here. Regards, Grandmaster 08:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, I believe the only way when we have a contraversial topic is to include all the relevant information. Otherwise we are going nothere. With the Khatab we could say there were rumors that Khatab... and put the reference on the source abakharev 11:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s what’s actually done, but rumors kind of don’t belong to a good article, it’s preferable to include proven facts. Grandmaster 13:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, I see your point, if we put all the rumors into an article we might not have the space for the facts. Still sometimes rumors are important by themself and sometimes we do not have much information of an event, just a bunch of more or less credible rumors. I am not sure if this is the case here (in fact I never heard this particular rumor before), but if a rumor is credible enough to get its way into a neutral and respected news agency and important for some involved editors enough to insist on its inclusion, then I think it may belong to Wiki. Obviously it should not be labeled as a fact. This is just my opinion (and a pretty weak one actually) on the matter. abakharev 20:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Alex, thanks for your opinion, I appereciate it. Take care. Regards, Grandmaster 05:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't spoken with him since he was banned. He may still check his talk page, but I guess he can't enable his email if he is banned, if you were to ask him to do so. I'll have a look at his images and see what I can do.--MONGO 05:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article about

. You really think Polish population supported Soviet partisants who just a while ago were people sending Poles to Gulags and Kazakhstan ? Anyway ok, I shall bring references tomorrow, alongside testimonies of local Poles regarding Soviet partisant units. I really would like your explanation regarding your revert ? What is POV ? That Soviet partisants didn't turn to banditry ? I will gladly support this with quotes even. That they didn't murder Polish civilians ? IPN is making a invistigation into several such cases. That Poles didn't view them as hostile ? Please answer. --Molobo 04:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Rudniki.html 19 1/44 In the operation to destroy the 30 Jacob Prener armed village of Koniuchy, 30 fighters took part, of the units "Avenger" and "To Victory." http://www.ipn.gov.pl/eng/eng_inv_koniuchy.html --Molobo 04:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Territories of Poland occupied by the Soviet Union" currently have names Belarus and Western Ukraine. They were populated by Ukrainians, Belorussian as well as Poles, Jews and Russians. Quite a number (I would dare say most of them) supported Partisans and one way or the other, otherwise the partisans would not have a slim chance to survive in the marshes and forests of these territories. Germans murder a quarter of population of Belarus but did not stop the partisan movements. It is ridiculous to state that they were all Soviet soldiers and communist activists. Indeed as in any popular guerrilla movements partisans committed a number of atrocities, but to paint them all as the bandits is a spit to the face of the dead. Communists indeed were not particularly nice to the population of these areas (and to the ones from the other places too) but it so happen that the German were worse. abakharev 04:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Territories of Poland occupied by the Soviet Union" currently have names Belarus and Western UkraineOf course, but in the timeframe of the article they were territories of Poland occupied by Soviet Union. Only in 90s they regained independence.

They were populated by Ukrainians, Belorussian as well as Poles, Jews and Russians. Actually the population count in terrritories Soviet Union occupied from Poland in 1939 was as follows: Poles 38 %, Ukrainians 37 %, 14,5 % Belarussians, 8,4 % Jews, 0,9 % Russian, 0,6 % German. I am using a work here that analysed various population statistics given by various authors regarding that issue.They are of course higher estimates but this what the author gave as sensible conclusion of his research. The work is P. Eberhard "Polska granica wschodnia" Warsaw 1993. As you can see Polish population was quite high in those areas(circa 5 milion)

It is ridiculous to state that they were all Soviet soldiers and communist activists. Of course in territories that were part of Soviet Union before they weren't and received much support, but you have to understand that Soviet Union in 1939 acquired also territories that did have areas mostly Polish(of course I am not saying that Poles were majority of people, only that still there was a high population count, and they were areas were Poles formed majority-villages, small towns etc), and as the Soviets discriminated Polish population, Soviet partisants in those areas consisted of such people, and received little support, being seen as just another occupier. Indeed the whole communist movement in Poland reached only 6.000 soldiers. So you see I am writing about a specific area and issue-mainly the territories of Polish Second Republic that were acquired by Soviet Union in 1939, where the issue of Soviet partisants is different from other areas of SU due to presence of large Polish minority and conflict between them and Soviets. Quite a number (I would dare say most of them) supported Partisans and one way or the other, otherwise the partisans would not have a slim chance to survive in the marshes and forests of these territories. Actually those partisants were despised by most Poles, at least that is what there is in publications regarding those issues. Most of Poles there were local peasants that had little arms, and even little training, while the partisants were former soldiers, with good training and very well armed. The in effect terriorised the local Polish population with threats and acts of violance. When resistance to banditry was made as in Koniuchy they resorted to massacres. And of course they and Home Army often fought which each other. So the picture presented in the current article is quite unrealistic, rosy and simply untrue. --Molobo 14:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes partisans killed 30 civilians in Knyuchij and probably thousands elsewhere. German occupants killed millions abakharev 04:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why nobody disputes that Germans murdered milions. But this doesn't mean that the fact that Soviet partisants persecuted Poles and turned to robbing and murdering civilians should be deleted. --Molobo 14:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alex. Although, I didn't know anything about Gnawa Diffusion until two days ago, apparently it's a well known French band. Here's a google result with 119,000 hits. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're the first one who dealt with Randazzo56 and Fat Carl, I thought I'd go ahead and bring this up. User:205.188.117.12 just vandalized my talk page, so now I'm beginning to heavily suspect these three guys are related somehow. I'd like to get this issue resolved as fast as possible, so please leave me a reply ASAP. Thanks. --ApolloBoy 03:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems I have a new problem; Randazzo56 replyed back and has now accused ME of vandalism. Something clearly needs to be done before he can attack me any further. I also request that you protect both my talk page and user page so that he and his suspected socks can't do anymore damage. --ApolloBoy 02:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirlandajo constantly deletes information that she annexed territories of other countries[1]. --Molobo 12:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All this information who had owned the lands is already in the article - in the

Catherine II of Russia#Foreign affairs

. I am second to Ghirlandajo's opinion that there is no need to duplicate all the article's information in the very first sentence. The second additions consists of two sentences. One stating that annexation of Poland caused keeping of the absolute monarchy that is extremely dubious and unreferenced. The second sentence that the annexation caused tensions and uprisings up to the twentieth century is true but not particular relevant to the biography of Catherine II.

In short, I incline to support Ghirlandajo's version and urge you to discuss your inclusions with him and other editors on the talk page before reverting his changes. abakharev 13:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but the current version "absorbed" seems to indicate virign wilderness that was joined with Russia. I shall return objective description -mainly that Russia gained the territory by conquering nearby states as soon as possible.Besides I wonder what part of Ukraine or Russia is Poland which was acquired as well. It saddens to see that despite your promises you promote the same view promoted by Ghirlandajo. --Molobo 13:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my additions will be a sufficient compromise? This important article desperatley needs more references.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for Ghirla: you are right my edit on PWNB was somewhat out of line. But over the past week I (and other Polish contributors) have found ourselves involved in an extremly increased number of edit conflicts with Ghirlando (just look at his contribs, see also my msg on Irpen's talk page). We always had our occasional runs-ins with Ghirla, but nothing on THAT scale. Of course, as usual, he is tearing appart WP:CIVIL and failing to provide any refs for his POV. It would appear his RfC had no effect on him. I am really worried, especially as I have better things to do than waste my time reverting his unsourced POV. I'd really like if people he respects more than Polish editors (:/) would try to talk to him. If mediation will not help, there is only one more step after RfC than we can try, but I'd really want to settle this affair before it comes to that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I convey my greetings to you on my completion of one year as a wikipedian. Come here, we shall have a party tonight. --Bhadani 15:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you. I just wanted to inform you that despite your warning to MB not to remove sourced material [2], he's still insisting on removing that sourced section of Ibn Khaldun [3]. --

]

Russian connections in Australia

Don't you think the article is good for DYK? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... for picking up on Ivan Shokoloff; I had just noticed that article myself, and was starting to look around for a Russian speaker to help. It's almost certainly a hoax. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, and thank you for taking time to vote on my RfA. I understand that my last 6000+ edits were not sufficient to convince you that edits like some of my early ones would never be repeated again, but I sincerely hope that at some point I would be able to convince you of my transformation. Looking forward to working with you in future. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block on EatsWontons overrode Pathoschild's indefinate block for his vandalism. thought I'd let you know.

]

My RfA

My RfA recently closed and it was a success, passing at 84-02-00. I would like to thank you for taking the time to weigh in and on your subsequent support. And I know it's quite cliche, but if you ever need any assistance and/or want another opinion on something, grab a Pepsi and don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks again. Pepsidrinka 04:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks man!! I feel like a Soviet commander, if you know what I mean. ;) You said that I could ask you for any help, would you be able to do me a favor? Please protect the

]

Thanks, I really appreciate it. --Khoikhoi 07:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I have a question - when should I start sending out my thank-you messages for my RfA, and do I only send it to the people that supported, or everyone? --Khoikhoi 02:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I'll go with the only-support-method. Hehe, I usually try to take user talk pages off my watchlist if I don't know the person, usually if the person gets a lot of messages it's always at the top. ;) --Khoikhoi 03:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alex, I'd really like thank you for taking the time to vote at my RfA. I withdrew due to certain controversies, but I appreciated your vote and hope to see you here in the future. Thanks again. --Khoikhoi 05:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I'm a teacher at a school in Sydney, I was having a browse on the staffroom computer and noticed new messages, and the repeated times that there'd been vandalism from this IP address. (203.166.99.250) I had a look at what some of them were, and a some of them seemed like they had definitely been done by girls, and this is a boys school. So I wouldn't be surprised if large chunks of the majority of the state schools get given a relatively small range of IP addresses.

As an IT teacher, I know that it's impossible to monitor every second what kids are doing, and editing wikipedia is not something they need to be doing in school anyway. However if the NSW Department of Education (or individual schools) blocked wikipedia entirely, we'd be losing a great resource.

Personally, I have no problem with you putting a permanent edit-block on all IPs used by government schools. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the range is, or how to find it out though...

I realise you symphatise with views of Ghirla, but sorry spreading Tsarists propaganda about Poland can be seen in fact as vandalism. I didn't blank but simply moved propaganda presented by Irpen to appropriate article. If you continue to support such nationalist propaganda and blank pages dealing with Soviet atrocities -as you did in Soviet Partisans, remember that mod status can be revoked. Also as you are in conflict with me, remeber that mods in conflict with users shouldn't block them. And trust me I shall move the Russian propagandainformation about Uprising against Russian occupation of Warsaw to its proper page. --Molobo 03:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It has nothing to do with me sharing Irpen's or anybody else's views. If you have better sources about the beginning of the Warsaw Uprizing, please provide them. If you suspect that they are not show the complete truth please spend some of your valuable time looking for better sources for the start of Uprising. If you have reasons to completely discard Irpen's sources (other than been Russian) please discuss it with him and the other editors. If you think that facts are present with a biased manner please discuss the ways to improve their presentation. If you do not have time for this, please put {{povsection}} on the sections. Simple blanking of relevant, sourced info is unacceptable. abakharev 03:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but Imperial Russia as source of information about Poland isn't acceptable. It was known for spreading anti-polish propaganda[4] And I am sorry but in view of your attempts to blank atrocities of Soviet partisans or present their victims as Nazis, and delete info about Partitioning of Poland combined with desire to give Ghirla a special status, your claims about neutrality seem to very dubious. --Molobo 03:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Poland as a source of information about the
  Soviet partisan is acceptable? Please find Polish sources about the beginning of the Uprizing and we will compare. In Soviet partizans I went into great length to accomodate all your concerns abakharev 03:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

About Soviet Partisans yes. About OUN subject to be sceptical. In Soviet partizans I went into great length to accomodate all your concerns No, you left a edit implying their victims were Nazi's and didn't leave anything about attitude of Polish population towards them. --Molobo 03:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually addressed your concern about the labeling all their victims Nazy [5]. If you will provide any sources about the attitude of the Poles to Soviet partizans, I would see that they will find their place as well. abakharev 03:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I am writing a reference like that shown by Irpen as we speak. --Molobo 03:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thats good abakharev 04:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked a page calling it MOS ? I don't want to attack you so please explain what is MOS. All references to be made in such way ? If so I shall return to your edit. --Molobo 05:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat what is MOS ? --Molobo 06:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:MOS = Manual of Style. I was specifically referring to Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources abakharev 06:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thank you. --Molobo 06:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you care so much about blanking of pages, perhaps you wish to give the same warning you gave to me to Ghirlandajo who lately deletes sourced information out of hand. --Molobo 07:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please provide the diff abakharev 07:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[6] [7]

I would also like your comment on this : [8] --Molobo 08:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think there is a difference with Irpen's edits in
    Warsaw uprising, etc. and your edits in History of Poland. The former are certainly relevant (the beginning of the Uprising in the article about it) but may be untrue, the later are almost certainly true, but maybe irrelevant (one isolated although colorful episode in such a general article). I have no doubts that Ghirlandajo's was trying to exclude the lesser important info in the general article for the benefit of the readers. I have no doubt in your good intentions as well, but the method was wrong. I am happy with Halibutt's recent rewriting the Warsaw Uprising article and think he addresses most of your concerns, tomorrow I will try to slightly NPOV Irpen's additions, I think it will solve the problem. I have answered the Talk:Alexander Suvorov concerns on the Talk page itself abakharev 16:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

DaGizza's RfA

Hi Alex Bakharev/Archive3, thank you for supporting me in my RfA which passed with a tally of (93/1/2). If you need any help or wish discuss something with me, you are always welcome to talk to me. Gizza^{Chat ©} 12:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to save typing? I did not see the TfD when I created it, and I did not re-create the deleted template, which was ascii art, I created the template on my own account. Saying "please do not feed the troll" is not necessarily a personal attack, it will depend on the context. {{

]

thanks; the immediate cause of my creating it has now been banned, as a troll, so I have no use for it just now :) I'll abstain from the tfd vote, and we'll just see how it turns out. regards,

dab (ᛏ) 15:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Help with some pages - 68.71.99.45

Hello, there is this Iranian that is trying to mislead people on some articles. Despite have a compremise by both ends in a couple articles, this single person keeps rving everyday with propeganda. These two pages are

is listed under the name of the Iranian groups. This is the list: Persians Tajiks Tats Pashtuns Kurds Baloch Gilanis Mazandaranis Bakhtiaris Lurs Laks Talyshi Zaza Ossetes

So you see, Mike Agassi cannot be under the title of

."

As for

Ramona Amiri

, both sides agreed to the sentence of : "is a

Persian

heritage" but the same guy keeps rving it too: "is an

Persian

heritage"

She is only half Iranian, and her father side, the dominate side, is Assyrian.

So I ask you to ban 68.71.99.45 from editing those two pages, as he keeps rving and putting in properganda over and over again, everyday. Chaldean 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but he has registered a s/n now and has changed them back. Chaldean 03:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i was seeking your help regarding the

) says that she is an iranian-canadian. both her parents are from iran, that makes her an iranian canadian. she is already on the iranian canadian page. i hope you can review the matter, thank you for your time

Rugsnotbombs 00:01, 30 March 2006

hi, i was seeking your help regarding the Andre Agassi page as well. i see the point Chaldean is making. so i have changed the link on his father to the page on Iran. he is an iranian national and was a boxer for iran, there is no dispute on that matter, so hopefully changing it this way will satisfy everyone, and hopefully you can review this matter as well, again, thank you for your time

Rugsnotbombs 00:01, 30 March 2006

Why you reverted, what I've removed? At the discussion page I've told exactly why. It's definetly not correct. It's yellow-press-niveau!

]

Re. warning

You recently left a warning on my talk page about "blanking", but you did not take the time to investigate the existing dispute between

]

Compass and straightedge

Please

]

Igor Klebanov

You mentioned concerns about the notability of Igor Klebanov on the page. I am not a string theorist but know that he is one of the most prominent figures in the area. List of string theory topics was linking him before I created the article. He is the top cited physicist in brane physics [9]. I think he well meets the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I added as much as information as I can and added expert banner. What do you think? Should we keep him? þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 00:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Privet, Alex, I have added the four links that I used in my discussion with the original author to external links. Can we now take away the unreferenced flag?--pgp 21:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you let me know from which sources you are obtaining information that the cathedral was turned into a Catholic "Cathedral of Saint Henric"? There is no mention of this in the extensive Polish language description in here. There is only some mention that the Germans used the cathedral as a garrison church in 1915-1918. Balcer 01:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. It seems to me that it was probably the Germans who made most of the modifications to the church when they used it. I am not sure whether the cathedral was used as a Catholic church after the Germans left in 1918, but at this point I cannot rule it out. I have rewritten the article to mention the German role in the church's history. Feel free to correct my changes. Balcer 01:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. abakharev 01:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may want to comment at

]

Request

Hey Alex,

Can you please help me out? There seems to be a revert war at the

]

Graciaaaaaaaaas. --Khoikhoi 03:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex Bakharev. Just a quick note to thank you for your support in my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I will do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 03:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your help with protection of

) to the initial sentence/reference that will lead to the naming dispute section. Now some users are not satisfied with that and initiated the current ongoing edit war, but I think it is fair to protect the compromise solution as the only one relevant at the moment. One of the compromise versions is this: [10]. ]

• Answered on the article's talk page abakharev 06:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Здравствуйте Алекс прошу Вас, как админа заблокировать

]

• Blocked User:Fokster and User:Duduvak as sockpupeets of permablocked User:Roitr abakharev 03:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roitr

Hi, If you suspect someone is a sockpupeet of a blocked user please not only revert his or her edit but also inform a sysop (e.g. me) or post to

]

Thanks for blocking him. I'm aware I risk violating 3RR, but I don't think I have violated it yet ;) It's just that sometimes a couple of reverts is sufficient to restore the order, but when it's not, I just file a request for assistance from an admin...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is

WP:RFI should deal with them, as per Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Help#What_belongs_on_this_page, and that's where I filed a request

:

---

• Fokster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
  • Duduvak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
  • Uyrik (
    already blocked sockpuppets. --Dmitry 16:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

---

But honestly, I have a long history of trying to bring administrator's attention to the matter using these noticeboard pages, but it always looks like personal requests to fellow admins are more likely to be carried out in an efficient matter. --Dmitry 09:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• All three socks are now blocked abakharev 12:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! -- Dmitry 11:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Уважаемый админ. После вашего блокирования у меня небыло выхода, как создать временный юзер. По другому я не мог написать Вам. Вы заблокировали меня и других подозреваемых, только потому что оя и они подозреваемся как sockpupeet, но как и другие Вы не привели везских доказательств что я и они являемся sockpupeet. Я считаю, что похожие статьи и не согласие с другими это не причина и не доказательство вины. Если Вы написали что это исходит из одной и той же страны, одного и того же города и того же адресса, то да вы правы. Но Вы как и другие не приводите никаких доводов. Только подозрения и обвинения. Википедия -это демократия. В ней могут быть разногласия. Но считать всех несогласных sockpupeet - не правильно и не гуманно. Как админ вы должны быть нейтральны ко всем юзерам и действовать в соответствии с законами Википедии, но я вижу что Вы предвзяты и поддержали только одну сторону. Если Вы боретись за соблюдения правил, то почему блокировали одних как sockpupeet, а другого не блокировали за violating 3RR. Вообще для справедливости по законам Википедии даже блокированный юзер может создать навый счёт и начать всё с нуля. Главное чтобы он опять не нарушал правила Википедии. Поэтому даже если какойто из подозреваемых и является новым счётом блокированного юзера, но не нарушал правил, он может продолжать быть полноправным участником. В моих действиях и действиях других подозреваемых я не заметил ни одного нарушения (не violating 3RR и не других правил). Я и многие из них пытаемся вести диалог и приводим источники подтверждающие правильность наших изменений статей, но всегда их возвращают только как подозреваемых. Вы сами можите посмотреть что некоторые данные внесённые мной или ими были абсолютно верными и причин для возврата их не было. Также оснований блокировать нас тоже не было. Но вы блокируете их и не даёте шансов на компромис. Это нарушение полномочий! Пожалуйста перед блокирование меня и других объясните мне причину блокирования только с доказательством. Втех статьях где я и другие подозреваемые вносили свои корректировки, с нами соглашались многие другие участники, которые не подозревались. Но и их тоже возвращали ДмитрийКо и Никсер.Я не могу понять. Что эти статьи лично их? Все кто хочет изменить или добавить в статьи что нибудь не имеет на это права? Это что диктатура? Даже если кто-то из подозреваемых и является sockpupeet, то постоянное блокирование не сможит остановить их. Они будут безконецно создавать новые имена и война быдит длиться вечно. Я считаю надо прийти к компромиссу и где-то в чём-то уступить друг другу. Я жду подробного ответа и всё ещё надеюсь на справедливость и жду блока для Dmitry за нарушение violating 3RR. Причина почему он сделал нарушение не имеет смысла и нарушитель должен понести наказание. Также я прошу снять блок с меня и дать мне шанс доказывать мою правоту. Также если не трудно разблокируйте других юзеров, которые были блокированы только как подозреваемые, хотябы для более тщательного раследования и приведения 100% доказательсть. Ещё раз говорю похожие вправки статеё по моему мнению не является доказательством. Надеюсь на не предвзятость и честного исполнения долга админа.--Fokster1 14:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think blocking is the answer he expected... LOL. -- Dmitry 11:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, I was advised to contact you by

]

Thank you very much Alex for your help. I think this will end this silly ethnic crap, which has paralyzed the advance of the article. Now we can concentrate on the expansion of the actual article. Jidan 03:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't sure, don't destroy. Xx236 14:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Alex. Can you please look into this. I strongly suspect that

]

Thanks for the swift action, and sorry to bother you again. I'm convinced that

ManiF 08:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Alex, I'm not the only Arab Science enthusiast student who studies at that university. This IP address is used for more than 50 PC's in that University. Don't you think that extending my blockage and blocking the IP address of an acadamic instiution like a university used by 15,300 students , because of a suspicion a little bit unfair? Do you know that If I wanted, I could have easly created an account, by which ManiF would never have guessed the IP address? Anyways, no hard feelings at all, and thank you for your input regarding

]

Sorry, Jidan. This is the way the blocking work, if we allow to circumvent blocks via anonymous or sockpupeet editing it would loose any sense in the blocking. And yes, unfortunately, sometimes there are innocent victims. I do not think there was ones in your case.

There is no shame in the 3RR block, it is usually just show devotion to your cause. I will be happy to help you wherever I can. So, please, in the future do not hesitate to contact me, if you think I could help abakharev 10:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, don't fight.

]

Explanation

I would like your explanation on deletion of referenced source in Alexander Suvorov article. You made no comment why it was deleted. --Molobo 08:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your deletions. Information shall be restored as soon as possible. --Molobo 09:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, I have a problem because I publish and article on the Russian painter Shcuchkin. The article have been blocked saying there is a problem of copyright which is wrong. The person have given their agreement. What can I do ? Do I really need to write a new article ? Russianart 00:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abakharev, Thank you for your eplanation. It is very usefull as I am new in Wiki. I will ask an email of conformation to the agent and will send it to you. Also I hope that I am using now the right way to reply to you ??? I would like to rewrite the text if possible but my english is poor ! Thank you again. warm regards Russianart 17:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Russianart 17:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at his contributions. What you will see is a POV warrior who has been blocked before for his behavior under this user name and also as DengXiaoPing. So this isn't new. "Productive user". Actually, it's a user who assumes the worst in users, who thinks he is correct 100% of the time despite evidence to the contrary and who uses personal attacks to try to get his way. He's very good at calling people "liars" and telling them that their views are "irrelevant" and he often says "of course you are wrong" to people who disagrees with. If you would like specific diffs, I can get them for you. He has spent the last few days virtually stalking User:Kurt Leyman. And as I said, he's been blocked for this behavior before, so this is hardly an isolated incident. I stand by my block. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alex,

I want to report the fanatical patriotism behaviour of a user

. The following are only recent examples.

Geber, although he was born in Iran(part of the arab empire at that time), his ethnicity is with most certainity arab: Columbia Encyclopedia , Ancients & Alchemists , Britannica Encyclopedia, Encarta Encyclopedia .

In the articles, where his ethnicity is not important, In good faith I removed info regarding his arab ethnicity, but this user inserted "Iranian-born" infront of his name to make the impression that he was Iranian.

• Hydrochloric acid
• Sulfuric acid
• Citric acid
• Alembic
• Alchemy - he removed Geber (arab) and replaced him by al-Razi(persian), although all discovires muriatic, sulfuric, and nitric acids, soda, potash) described were done by Geber.

• List of Arab scientists and scholars - wanted to rename
  List of Iranian scientists
  should stay. (I was blocked 24H because of this).

If I am wrong on this than please let me know. If not, then I ask you please to do what ever in your hands is to stop the fanatical patritiosm of this user, which is a threat to the success and credibality of Wikipedia.

Thank You. Jidan 10:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no substance to this "complaint". Whatever I have done has been in conformity with Wikipedia rules and regulations.

ManiF 11:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Kusma's RfA

Hello, Alex Bakharev! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 02:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've been promoted.

]

I wish to apologize

Hey Alex, I know you're an wikibreak and won't see this for a while, but I've been going over my RfA voting stats, and I noticed something interesting. You are the only person whom I've opposed in the face of majority support, and the only person for whom I've voted neutral where they were successful in their RfA. I remember why, and I set out in your contribs and admin log to check and see how right I was.

Well, guess what? I wasn't. Not one bit. You've been a thoroughly superb admin since you became one in February, and I eat every word I said on those two RfAs. To show my humble sorrow, I award you this

]

DYK

Trinity Church, Antarctica, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

deleted page?

Hi, why did you delete [18]? Was it anyhow violating wikipedia policy?

Many thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It was successful. Thanks again, Mark83 08:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You protected this about a week and a half ago. Since

]

Also Infosys. -Splash^talk 22:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kosovo#2 Administrator for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia- The voice of Kosovar

Христос воскресе! Welcome back to Wikipedia. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Barnstar of National merit

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		For contributing so many Russian related articles to wikipedia, I hereby award you this barnstar! Enjoy, ßlηguγΣη

Greetings from the Opera Project. I see you have put a notability tag on Elena Firsova. Would it be possible to explain the background to this in the Talk page? Best wishes. - Kleinzach 09:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns were based on the original version of the article that looked like a self-promo of a kind. The article has expanded quite nicely since then and I do not see any notability concerns as now. I have removed the tag. Thanks for contributing to a great article and thanks for your message allowing to remove my stupid tag. abakharev 20:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks indeed. Perhaps I can ask you about something else? Are there any rules for Russian transliteration. We follow spellings used by the

New Grove Dictionary of Opera but there are variations - in this case Grove gives Yelena not Elena Firsova. Are there any rules that Wikipedia follows? (Please note that I don't have any Russian myself.) Best. - Kleinzach 20:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the information. Much appreciated. - Kleinzach 21:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the correct procedure to tell an administrator that somebody should be blocked due to vandalism, but User_talk:66.24.245.49 has started to vandalize again. And how many times does a user have to be blocked in order to be permanently banned, since he or she has been blocked twice before for vandalism? Thanks. BirdValiant 14:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was the Thomas trevorrow article that started all this. He got into a nasty back and forth with several editors over the deletion of that article. It was pretty much limited to that article. He is almost certainly also User:195.194.111.2, who continuted the fight earlier today.

While I would not make the block indefinite myself, I would also not raise any objections if you felt it was warrented. It's up to you. - TexasAndroid 15:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on.

]