User talk:Kulikovsky/Archive001

Thanks for uploading Image:Historic building in San Carlos, California 001.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALL allegations can be questioned by some. And the article in TOTO consists of allegations of various sourcres (Some you like, others you like to question). Please read carefully: (NPOV:) "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one."[1].Muscovite99 (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am all for NPOV even though it is really hard to reach if possible at all, but
  WP:BLP written specifically about the subject of dispute governs the matter and in my interpretation prohibits allegations from questionable sources in BLP. Are you contesting that? Kulikovsky (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • Again, you are mixing up the terms: we do not allege anything; we simply provide information about facts on the ground. The FACT is there have been a numer of ALLEGATIONS about his private wealth, voiced, as they are, by very well-known persons (Rybkin having been a top-ranking Kremlin official) and publish in credible publications. The edir-war takes 2 to wage. I am simply recovering WP:Vandalism that you are engaged in in my interpretation.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if you read policies you refer to.

And please note, that WP:Vandalism is not open to interpretation. I commented on your point that I confuse terms here on

Hi Kulikovsky. Re: your re-revert at Northstar, please understand there are far greater policy and guideline issues than "bad wording", as evidenced by previous edit summaries, the AfD and the conduct to date of the editor who previously reverted the content. Please don't restore this content, but feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss this further. Thanks, Deiz talk 21:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me. I am against deletion of valuable content. I do not believe there is a policy violation bad enough to warrant the deletion. I think if an editor does something wrong, even systematically that is no way an excuse to delete good contributions. I understand the wording is far from neutral, I am all for rewording, but against deletion. Kulikovsky (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a couple of important mistakes here. One would be

WP:V. You've now restored problematic information twice with no evidence that you understand why the content was cleaned up in the first place, no reliable sources and no meaningful discussion about why you are restoring it other than through after-the-fact edit summaries which do not address the issues. Have you looked at the previous deletion discussion related to this article? It can be found by clicking through the link on the article talk page. I appreciate you are editing in good faith, but that will not prevent your edits from being considered disruptive if you continue to edit the same way now that you are aware of your problems. If you wish to improve the article, please find sources for the information, and use appropriate style and formatting. Do not simply restore the dumped information again. Sorry if that's a little blunt, but this will be an important lesson if you plan to contribute to Wikipedia in the long term. Again, please contact me with any questions. Deiz talk 01:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Just to note that a couple of the above points were made after checking your edit count, but without realizing your edits were spread over the past 12 months. Hence on the one hand, I appreciate your commitment to Wikipedia, but on the other you should therefore be aware of some of the problems with your reverts. Deiz talk 02:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, there is no reliable source to support claims. You seem to acknowledge that. So, this is nothing more than gossip, right? Would you agree the policy says the gossips should be avoided? Would you agree you did not follow the policy reinserting gossip? The same policy (

WP:BLP) says that removal of disputed material is exempt from 3RR rule. I would also like to request you to avoid reinserts until this dispute over the policy and the matter are resolved. Thank you. Kulikovsky (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, the base of your premise is false. I do not agree this is gossip. Also, if you're going to quote policy I suggest you quote it accurately: "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced...". Regards, I will post on the noticeboard to get more comments. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I did not quote the policy here, but rather referred to it. I do not know any reliable source supporting claims, and you seem to know none either. In that sense the claim is unverifiable. And unverifiable claims do not generally belong to WP. Would you agree with that? Kulikovsky (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are not saying these claims are true, they're saying they've been made. And well-sourced claims certainly do belong in WP if they are notable. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at this from another side for a minute. What is the value of having said that some unverifiable claims have been made about Putin? Thanks. Kulikovsky (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated

• Thanks for noticing. I'll revert. Kulikovsky (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note on my talkpage. I have left the following message on the above's talkpage. Should the content removal, without first arriving at agreement, recommence when the block expires please let me know. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking action. Kulikovsky (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your further comment on my talkpage. I had queried with Ender78 the possibility of opening a

WP:RfC on the matter. If you believe that your edits are in compliance with policy, etc., then it may be that you should pursue such a course of action. For the record, I don't think Ender78 has given an opinion on the validity of either editors preference - only on the disruption it has caused in the edit war around it. Perhaps this is an opportunity to resolve the matter? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your patience and attention to this matter. Ender78 has just rewritten the introduction considerably. I would just wait how this new version is received before RfC. Thanks for the idea. We may need it, but I feel it would be premature today. Many thanks again. Kulikovsky (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, LH vU and Kulikovsky. Putin's one of those folks who are interesting precisely because many people, usually depending on their nationality, would regard him as being either pure good or pure evil. But he's not, and that's what makes him a compelling biography: he's like Tsar Alexsandr, Napoleon, Rasputin, and Nikita Krushchev all rolled into one, maybe even with a dash of Stalin. (Just to give you an idea of where my opinion of the man actually stands.) Both folks have input that needs to be in the article, and I wouldn't want to assert any particular position on what content needs to be excised or added, only how it is organized. Cheers, all. ;) Ender78 (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please trust me and bear with me; I have a good idea of where this needs to go to neutralize the edit-warring. If you'd like, I'd be pleased to discuss the matter with you privately via IM, particularly since I very much want you on-board with this concept. There is indeed a good reason that G. Bush has a "Criticism" page and B. Clinton does not: B. Clinton is further in the past, and is not a current officeholder, so those controversies are all safely within the past. Long term, of course the criticism article will be brought back within the main article, but for now, it's a good way to redirect the energies of those who would destroy the readability of the main article with lengthy diatribes, however well supported, referenced, and cited they may be. Ender78 (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider: the whole reason there's been edit wars to begin with is that folks rightfully have varying opinions as to whether Putin's various acts in office are necessary, ethical, legal, etc.....having these separate articles gives everyone a "seat at the table", and will allow us to keep the main article under control, until such time as Putin has completely left office, and a consensus begins to emerge amongst historians as to the judgements of his actions as a government official. Until then, we're really just reporters: later, when the dust has cleared, we can have this article as a straight biography. Ender78 (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You proposed many good things about improving the article. As for criticism page I cannot convince myself that is the right thing and the right time for it. For most everything else you have my support. Kulikovsky (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the revert you had to do today is indicative of what I'm trying to avoid. :) I'd hesitated on reverting it myself, but figured I'd wait and see what others made of it. That's what I want to do with the "Criticism" article, is give folks like that a place to vent without it destroying the main article. Ender78 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<Here was something that User:Samstayton wrote.> My reply is below.

You need to back up your your claims with reliable sources. You have not done that yet. Wikipedia does not accept

I personally do not want to see any questionable material in the article. If you want to call that agenda, I do not mind. However, I believe that my desire aligns perfectly with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thank you. Kulikovsky (talk)

I will have you banned from wikipedia for deleting legitimate edits. You have retained edits invloving Chemezov and others but continue to delete edits on yeltsin era oligarchs. The forbes list clearly lists all the oligarchs and most of them are from yeltsin era. So I am going to put the edits back and report you on admin website to be blocked if you continue to delete these edits.

Learn some manners before visiting wikipedia. and also read on etiquette policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samstayton (talk • contribs) 20:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion was that references did not seem to support the claims. Please see

original research at this point. Thank you. Kulikovsky (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I am glad you liked that. Kulikovsky (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been nominated for deletion. After reading the rationale, you may or may not wish to vote. ~ smb 19:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that. There are so many issues with the article it would take more time than I have right now to list them all. Kulikovsky (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not required to list all the issues. Simply cast your vote (Keep or Delete) then provide a brief summary of why you think the page is bad. ~ smb 19:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since 19:51 UTC, 11 June 2008 it is too late. But thanks for letting me know. I guess you are satisfied with the outcome. Kulikovsky (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a poor page, so my answer is Yes.

This page describes exactly the same claim but it does not give undue weight to anti-Russian sentiment. ~ smb 20:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]