![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There's a discussion at WT:AIR/NC#Infobox data for companies about adding a field for OKBs and for the actual builders of Soviet aircraft. We're probably going to add a "builder" field for "Who actually built the aircraft if different from the design organisation". We may add a separate field for "design organisation" for "Company or bureau who designed or holds the design rights to the aircraft", or we may use the existing field. If interested, you can add your input.
We're going to need data from reliable sources on the builders/constuctors of Soviet/Russian aircraft, and if you have any sources you can add for this to the articles, that would be very helpful, even if you choose not to participate in the discussions. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 17:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
An example of some of the pics are:
Any ideas on how to get all hands on deck? -- Russavia Let's dialogue 12:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I've added a 'background' paragraph of the team to the plane crash article. It's pared down from what was proposed, to be relevant. I put it first after the lead, but maybe it belongs in another location in the article. I am adding cites, and there are several already. ʘ alaney2k ʘ ( talk) 20:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Please be aware of WP:EW with regard to the Occupation of Balitc States article. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Russavia I really like the fact that a change has been made to Template:Foreign relations of Russia but I am very dissapointed that the flagicon is removed from the template. Why did this happen twice. I always liked it very much and I feel very sad that I can't edit that template to put the flag of Russia there. I want the flag back. I want you to put the Flag back as soon as possible. Please put the flagicon back in Template:Foreign relations of Russia. Please do it. All of the other foreign relations templates at Wikipedia have flagicons on their templates as well as the Coat of arms. Please put the flagicon back on.
RohilPCS ( talk) 10:37 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Russavia - Please be advised that this issue has been discussed previously at CFD. There is a clear concensus that diplomats (including ambassadors) are not -- I repeat NOT -- to be categorized as "Expatriates". (Have a look thru the other 200 categories if you would like confirmation of this point.) I hope I can count on you not to revert my forthcoming edits in this regard.
As for Russian/Soviet categories, there doesn't appear to be a clear pattern in that area, so I will leave those as-is. Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 13:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I translated your request into Hungarian. I hope some people will start uploading those photos. Misibacsi ( talk) 18:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
That's just a small selection of what is available. Eastern not too sure about as yet...
They can all be uploaded to Commons - just use the templates as described on my Commons user page. And of course, pass the word around to other editors.
If you see a photo on there, and need the photographer to be contacted, drop me a line, as it is possible I have already contacted them - I have an excel spreadsheet of 250+ photographers already contacted, and some I have already heard from, others i am waiting to hear from, etc.
any other questions, fire away. -- Russavia Let's dialogue 19:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Air Jamaiaca 727s
-- Russavia Let's dialogue 19:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to see you go, although I do understand that at some point the stress simply becomes intolerable. You had to put up with years of harassment by the EEML. And now, suddenly, many editors have joined them in attacking you.
I think your main problem was that you really cared about NPOV (I don't know anyone who has such a perceptive eye for NPOV violations). This put you into conflict with editors who wish to insert their nationalistic bias and conspiracy theories everywhere. The admins and arbitrators were too blind, ignorant or even biased; mostly they could not comprehend what you had to endure due to the constant harassment. And when they did understand, they only offered useless solutions that did not solve the problem. And yes, the EEML has always been very effective in lobbying the admins and getting them to do what the EEML wants.
You were one of the best editors in Wikipedia. But you were a fool, because you did not understand that everyone who tries to fix NPOV violations by certain editors gets attacked, sanctioned and eventually psychologically destroyed. Nanobear ( talk) 19:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll be honest that you sometimes irritated me by your lack of response to messages on certain things but I always thought you were an excellent editor. As Ezhiki said, when it there not anything which is disappointing on wikipedia.The fucktards exist, you should know this by now. Don't let them get the better of you and return and do what you do best.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 24 September 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the articles Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
GreyHood Talk 22:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Please change your mind and come back. Laissez faire, it doesn't matter. Do get involved again.
P.S.: I started to upload the images you suggested to Commons, and also started to include them in a number of articles.
With warmest regards -- Jetstreamer ( talk) 10:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Good to have you back Russavia!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Re [1]: interesting. Collect has made similar implausible claims of uninvolvement elsewhere [2] William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Like you just did at RfArb/A: It's impolite, combative, and in the long run of things, fairly useless to the Arbitrators. See this discussion thread on more Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Statement_by_uninvolved.... Thanks. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I left you a message [3]. No need to discuss anything. This is simply my suggestion. Biophys ( talk) 00:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I submitted it here. Thanks, Biophys ( talk) 16:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice find! Since we do have an article for the Avicopter AC313, I'ved moved the photo there from the Aérospatiale Super Frelon/Z-8 page. - BilCat ( talk) 10:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
G'day and yeah, I suppose I really should get myself a Commons identity as well. Cheers YSSYguy ( talk) 22:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi buddy. Would you be so kind as to give your opinion on the Lizzie Phelan entry as a member of the Russian Mass Media task force? Cheers GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 15:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I would be grateful for some support at Ukrainians. Some discussion-ignoring vandals want me to break the 3RR rule. Thank you! -- Voyevoda ( talk) 15:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Livivske. Also, we must write from ukrainian point of view because there is to many different ponit of views, including russian one. To include everyone's opinion, sometimes it would no longer make sense, it is essential that we stick to facts and sources, primary Ukrainian sources because page is about Ukrainiansand their tragedy . There is no POV here, I believe Voyevoda understands that. Thanks!
That to me is the sign that you may have a problem on your hands, in that WP:ADVOCACY is going on in the article. That is most definitely not allowed -- ALL views have to be afforded equal consideration.
I also do support your comments on removing qualifiers from Holodomor -- there is no need to describe it as genocide, when only a small portion of the world recognises it as such -- the term itself is already heavily laden with POV, there is no need to destroy any notion of WP:NPOV any further.
You might be better off requesting an WP:RFC for assistance from uninvolved, third-parties if you still have any concerns. I'm sorry that this is probably not the answer you were hoping for; I have no desire to get involved with yet more editors with rabid nationalistic tendencies as is apparent from that talk page. Keep plodding along and try to find a solution amongst yourselves is all I can say. Russavia Let's dialogue 16:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Sp33dyphil has given you some
caramel and a
candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun
Halloween treats, and promote
WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!
If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{ subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message! |
![]() |
I'm happy to open my doors to you, while some people aren't willing to do so. Nevertheless, have a good one! -- Sp33dyphil © • © 06:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
User_talk:Galassi#AE. GreyHood Talk 11:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I was checking my gmail account just now (gmail of course standing for ghost mail), and there was this:
Re: Payment Notification:
We are writhing to know if it's true that you are DEAD? Because we received a notification from one MR. Bob Chantler of USA stating that you are DEAD and that you have giving him the right to claim your outstanding inheritance fund of, 5.5 million united state dollars. He stated you died on a CAR accident. He has been calling us regarding this issue, but we cannot proceed with him until we confirm this by not hearing from you after 2 days. Be advised that we have made all arrangements for you to receive and confirm your fund without anymore stress, and without any further delays.
All we need to confirm now is your been DEAD Or still Alive. Because this MAN'S message brought shock to our minds. And we just can't proceed with him until we Reconfirm if this is a reality OR not But if it happened that we did not hear from you after 2 days, then we say: MAY YOUR SOUL REST IN PERFECT PEACE"
YOUR JOY AND SUCCESS REMAINS OUR GOAL.
May the peace of the Lord be with you wherever you may be now.
Your Faithfully,
Mrs.Farida Waziri.
It is nice to know that me being dead really must be true. And at least now I know how I died. But f' it, this isn't going to make my ghost stop haunting those who need to be haunted. Russavia Let's dialogue 15:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
To anyone who is interested, the photos above have been called "crappy" over at Wikipedia Review by a bitchipedian ( Archived link). To them, I say, who the f' cares what you think? Or is it that you simply have nothing better to do than denigrate everything I do on this project. Or perhaps you are just threatened by the very presence of myself on this project. But, hey, if you really think that way, why is it that you don't have the balls to say so onwiki, instead you have to rant about myself on a non-WP website? I guess it's just a sign of utter immaturity and insecurity about oneself.
But what makes it even worse, is that you are publicly denigrating the work of some of the 130+ aviation photographers whom I have contacted, and who have kindly made available their photos for use on the project. Such comments are reprehensible, and make me question what is trying to be achieved by that editor. Unbeknownst to them, I am trying to "recruit" new editors from amongst these photographers, and aviation enthusiasts, and the last thing we need is for totally moronic and denigrating comments like that being made in a public forum. The comments don't denigrate me, but denigrate other contributors to this project.
So please, stop and give yourself a big pat on the back. <begin sarcasm> You are an absolute legend, and we should be holding you up as a shining light of what we look for in editors on this project.</end sarcasm>
Perhaps WR should rename itself to Bitchipedia, after all that's all the site is good for. Russavia Let's dialogue 05:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Talking about dishonesty. I have been informed that Radek is now trying to excuse his behaviour with this, claiming:
Yeah, ok, I just said that to see if my off-Wiki activities were being stalked, which they apparently are. Some of those pictures are pretty neat-o.?
Frankly, it's rubbish. I was alerted to his initial thread by another Bitchipedia reader. Radek/Volunteer Marek claims that he wants me to stay the hell away from him; one would then assume that he would stay away from me as well. He obviously has been following my edits on Wikipedia, because he has referenced my edits on WR. He could also have referenced those edits that he is seeing from not stalking me, in a more appropriate tone, without denigrating the work of myself on the project, and without denigrating the contributions of other non-editors. Unfortunately, Radek/VM has a long history of denigrating other editors and their work, and often in the most incivil way. Refer to this, where he engages in some heinous personal attacks on User:Estlandia (formerly Miacek), calling him an asshole. Or refer to this ( Archived) where he accuses myself of "cheating" at DYK. Such nice behaviour from Radek isn't it?
Now bring this back to his recent stalking of me to Controversies and criticisms of RT. It is obvious from the above he has my talk page on his watchlist.
Here is the version of events:
However, the 62 minute time frame between Biophys coming to my talk page, and Marek's revert, is a pretty good indication of how he got to that article. Taken in with the fact that he is now bitching about me on WR, it is obvious that he is watching my talk page, and his first edit upon his return from a break was to stalk me to that article and engage in an outright revert -- given the nature of Biophys' stalking, which Marek would be aware of (I don't AGF in that these editors always plead ignorance -- only ignorant people will believe it continually), his revert was does knowingly to provoke myself, and given Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Russavia (where Marek was blocked), he was well aware he was breaching his interaction ban. He did this to provoke a reaction in a most disruptive way.
As to Marek claiming I am stalking him over at WR, as one can see, I've been way too busy uploading to Commons, and doing other bits and pieces to bother with stalking others to see what they are bitching about. One can only take his comments over there as another attempt to dig himself out of a hole. Don't let him get away with it yet again. Russavia Let's dialogue 14:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
In relation to where I am to post anything onwiki, can someone please advise me where this should be done?
Also, I would like to request the committee to consider that there are 3 distinct issues that need dealing with and/or clarifying here. As such, I would like the committee to deal with one at a time, and in doing so forbid the usual peanut galleries from both sides from commenting.
Issue #1 -- following of my edits by Biophys, his using of a one-way interaction ban as a weapon to lock me out of articles I am clearly editing at the time, and his following my edits in the obvious hope of finding something he can report me for. Only Biophys needs to comment in relation to this -- no other editor has anything of any use to add in relation to this, due to their uninvolvement. There is still an open request at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Russavia in which FPaS is looking at the placing of discretionary sanctions on Biophys forbidding him from interacting with myself. Whilst I thank FPaS, is this still able to be dealt with at the AE level? Or would the Committee prefer to do it?
Issue #2 -- following of my edits by Volunteer Marek, his claiming that he wants me to stay away from him, yet outright reverting of any of my edits, his overly combative attitude (not only directed towards myself, but other editors as well), and successful claim of ignorance of what interaction bans entail, and other information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Russavia#Bitchipedia - no-one else can add anything in relation to any of this due to uninvolvement, except perhaps with the exception of Miacek (now Estlandia), who I know has been attacked continually by Marek (as per the links on my talk page)
Issue #3 -- interaction bans between myself and Martintg aka Tammsalu aka Nug, and to a lesser extent Vecrumba. No-one else has anything of use in relation to this.
I am requesting the above because editors who are not involved directly in the issues above have unfortunately resorted to misrepresentation of issues, either possibly due to their not being involved, and in a couple of cases, due to long-stated desires that I should not be dealt with on a collaborative basis and trying to get me sanctioned for things that are based on pure hogwash.
Please advise, and I will post this on my talk page as well so that it is in the open. Russavia Let's dialogue 21:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I have been doing a bit of maintenance, adding infoboxes, among other things, and have found that the majority of articles in WPAviation requiring infoboxes are airline articles. As you seem to be active on the airline front how about adding a few info boxes at Petebutt ( talk) 14:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
notability guidelines for artists (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Saatchi Gallery, London, UK is 100% such resource not mentioning others in External links section.
Proposed deletion And also: Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again. It also has Old prod full tag for further editors
Please open Deletion discussions if you still consider it for deletion.
Lavd Let's dialogue 17:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Just come across this File:UA Express CRJ.jpg image from airliners.net taken by Alejandro Torres, do you have a list somewhere to check if he is one of your uploaders before it is tagged as a copyvio, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 09:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There's a discussion at WT:AIR/NC#Infobox data for companies about adding a field for OKBs and for the actual builders of Soviet aircraft. We're probably going to add a "builder" field for "Who actually built the aircraft if different from the design organisation". We may add a separate field for "design organisation" for "Company or bureau who designed or holds the design rights to the aircraft", or we may use the existing field. If interested, you can add your input.
We're going to need data from reliable sources on the builders/constuctors of Soviet/Russian aircraft, and if you have any sources you can add for this to the articles, that would be very helpful, even if you choose not to participate in the discussions. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 17:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
An example of some of the pics are:
Any ideas on how to get all hands on deck? -- Russavia Let's dialogue 12:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I've added a 'background' paragraph of the team to the plane crash article. It's pared down from what was proposed, to be relevant. I put it first after the lead, but maybe it belongs in another location in the article. I am adding cites, and there are several already. ʘ alaney2k ʘ ( talk) 20:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Please be aware of WP:EW with regard to the Occupation of Balitc States article. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Russavia I really like the fact that a change has been made to Template:Foreign relations of Russia but I am very dissapointed that the flagicon is removed from the template. Why did this happen twice. I always liked it very much and I feel very sad that I can't edit that template to put the flag of Russia there. I want the flag back. I want you to put the Flag back as soon as possible. Please put the flagicon back in Template:Foreign relations of Russia. Please do it. All of the other foreign relations templates at Wikipedia have flagicons on their templates as well as the Coat of arms. Please put the flagicon back on.
RohilPCS ( talk) 10:37 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Russavia - Please be advised that this issue has been discussed previously at CFD. There is a clear concensus that diplomats (including ambassadors) are not -- I repeat NOT -- to be categorized as "Expatriates". (Have a look thru the other 200 categories if you would like confirmation of this point.) I hope I can count on you not to revert my forthcoming edits in this regard.
As for Russian/Soviet categories, there doesn't appear to be a clear pattern in that area, so I will leave those as-is. Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 13:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I translated your request into Hungarian. I hope some people will start uploading those photos. Misibacsi ( talk) 18:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
That's just a small selection of what is available. Eastern not too sure about as yet...
They can all be uploaded to Commons - just use the templates as described on my Commons user page. And of course, pass the word around to other editors.
If you see a photo on there, and need the photographer to be contacted, drop me a line, as it is possible I have already contacted them - I have an excel spreadsheet of 250+ photographers already contacted, and some I have already heard from, others i am waiting to hear from, etc.
any other questions, fire away. -- Russavia Let's dialogue 19:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Air Jamaiaca 727s
-- Russavia Let's dialogue 19:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to see you go, although I do understand that at some point the stress simply becomes intolerable. You had to put up with years of harassment by the EEML. And now, suddenly, many editors have joined them in attacking you.
I think your main problem was that you really cared about NPOV (I don't know anyone who has such a perceptive eye for NPOV violations). This put you into conflict with editors who wish to insert their nationalistic bias and conspiracy theories everywhere. The admins and arbitrators were too blind, ignorant or even biased; mostly they could not comprehend what you had to endure due to the constant harassment. And when they did understand, they only offered useless solutions that did not solve the problem. And yes, the EEML has always been very effective in lobbying the admins and getting them to do what the EEML wants.
You were one of the best editors in Wikipedia. But you were a fool, because you did not understand that everyone who tries to fix NPOV violations by certain editors gets attacked, sanctioned and eventually psychologically destroyed. Nanobear ( talk) 19:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll be honest that you sometimes irritated me by your lack of response to messages on certain things but I always thought you were an excellent editor. As Ezhiki said, when it there not anything which is disappointing on wikipedia.The fucktards exist, you should know this by now. Don't let them get the better of you and return and do what you do best.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 24 September 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the articles Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
GreyHood Talk 22:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Please change your mind and come back. Laissez faire, it doesn't matter. Do get involved again.
P.S.: I started to upload the images you suggested to Commons, and also started to include them in a number of articles.
With warmest regards -- Jetstreamer ( talk) 10:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Good to have you back Russavia!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Re [1]: interesting. Collect has made similar implausible claims of uninvolvement elsewhere [2] William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Like you just did at RfArb/A: It's impolite, combative, and in the long run of things, fairly useless to the Arbitrators. See this discussion thread on more Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Statement_by_uninvolved.... Thanks. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I left you a message [3]. No need to discuss anything. This is simply my suggestion. Biophys ( talk) 00:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I submitted it here. Thanks, Biophys ( talk) 16:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice find! Since we do have an article for the Avicopter AC313, I'ved moved the photo there from the Aérospatiale Super Frelon/Z-8 page. - BilCat ( talk) 10:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
G'day and yeah, I suppose I really should get myself a Commons identity as well. Cheers YSSYguy ( talk) 22:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi buddy. Would you be so kind as to give your opinion on the Lizzie Phelan entry as a member of the Russian Mass Media task force? Cheers GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 15:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I would be grateful for some support at Ukrainians. Some discussion-ignoring vandals want me to break the 3RR rule. Thank you! -- Voyevoda ( talk) 15:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Livivske. Also, we must write from ukrainian point of view because there is to many different ponit of views, including russian one. To include everyone's opinion, sometimes it would no longer make sense, it is essential that we stick to facts and sources, primary Ukrainian sources because page is about Ukrainiansand their tragedy . There is no POV here, I believe Voyevoda understands that. Thanks!
That to me is the sign that you may have a problem on your hands, in that WP:ADVOCACY is going on in the article. That is most definitely not allowed -- ALL views have to be afforded equal consideration.
I also do support your comments on removing qualifiers from Holodomor -- there is no need to describe it as genocide, when only a small portion of the world recognises it as such -- the term itself is already heavily laden with POV, there is no need to destroy any notion of WP:NPOV any further.
You might be better off requesting an WP:RFC for assistance from uninvolved, third-parties if you still have any concerns. I'm sorry that this is probably not the answer you were hoping for; I have no desire to get involved with yet more editors with rabid nationalistic tendencies as is apparent from that talk page. Keep plodding along and try to find a solution amongst yourselves is all I can say. Russavia Let's dialogue 16:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Sp33dyphil has given you some
caramel and a
candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun
Halloween treats, and promote
WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!
If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{ subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message! |
![]() |
I'm happy to open my doors to you, while some people aren't willing to do so. Nevertheless, have a good one! -- Sp33dyphil © • © 06:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
User_talk:Galassi#AE. GreyHood Talk 11:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I was checking my gmail account just now (gmail of course standing for ghost mail), and there was this:
Re: Payment Notification:
We are writhing to know if it's true that you are DEAD? Because we received a notification from one MR. Bob Chantler of USA stating that you are DEAD and that you have giving him the right to claim your outstanding inheritance fund of, 5.5 million united state dollars. He stated you died on a CAR accident. He has been calling us regarding this issue, but we cannot proceed with him until we confirm this by not hearing from you after 2 days. Be advised that we have made all arrangements for you to receive and confirm your fund without anymore stress, and without any further delays.
All we need to confirm now is your been DEAD Or still Alive. Because this MAN'S message brought shock to our minds. And we just can't proceed with him until we Reconfirm if this is a reality OR not But if it happened that we did not hear from you after 2 days, then we say: MAY YOUR SOUL REST IN PERFECT PEACE"
YOUR JOY AND SUCCESS REMAINS OUR GOAL.
May the peace of the Lord be with you wherever you may be now.
Your Faithfully,
Mrs.Farida Waziri.
It is nice to know that me being dead really must be true. And at least now I know how I died. But f' it, this isn't going to make my ghost stop haunting those who need to be haunted. Russavia Let's dialogue 15:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
To anyone who is interested, the photos above have been called "crappy" over at Wikipedia Review by a bitchipedian ( Archived link). To them, I say, who the f' cares what you think? Or is it that you simply have nothing better to do than denigrate everything I do on this project. Or perhaps you are just threatened by the very presence of myself on this project. But, hey, if you really think that way, why is it that you don't have the balls to say so onwiki, instead you have to rant about myself on a non-WP website? I guess it's just a sign of utter immaturity and insecurity about oneself.
But what makes it even worse, is that you are publicly denigrating the work of some of the 130+ aviation photographers whom I have contacted, and who have kindly made available their photos for use on the project. Such comments are reprehensible, and make me question what is trying to be achieved by that editor. Unbeknownst to them, I am trying to "recruit" new editors from amongst these photographers, and aviation enthusiasts, and the last thing we need is for totally moronic and denigrating comments like that being made in a public forum. The comments don't denigrate me, but denigrate other contributors to this project.
So please, stop and give yourself a big pat on the back. <begin sarcasm> You are an absolute legend, and we should be holding you up as a shining light of what we look for in editors on this project.</end sarcasm>
Perhaps WR should rename itself to Bitchipedia, after all that's all the site is good for. Russavia Let's dialogue 05:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Talking about dishonesty. I have been informed that Radek is now trying to excuse his behaviour with this, claiming:
Yeah, ok, I just said that to see if my off-Wiki activities were being stalked, which they apparently are. Some of those pictures are pretty neat-o.?
Frankly, it's rubbish. I was alerted to his initial thread by another Bitchipedia reader. Radek/Volunteer Marek claims that he wants me to stay the hell away from him; one would then assume that he would stay away from me as well. He obviously has been following my edits on Wikipedia, because he has referenced my edits on WR. He could also have referenced those edits that he is seeing from not stalking me, in a more appropriate tone, without denigrating the work of myself on the project, and without denigrating the contributions of other non-editors. Unfortunately, Radek/VM has a long history of denigrating other editors and their work, and often in the most incivil way. Refer to this, where he engages in some heinous personal attacks on User:Estlandia (formerly Miacek), calling him an asshole. Or refer to this ( Archived) where he accuses myself of "cheating" at DYK. Such nice behaviour from Radek isn't it?
Now bring this back to his recent stalking of me to Controversies and criticisms of RT. It is obvious from the above he has my talk page on his watchlist.
Here is the version of events:
However, the 62 minute time frame between Biophys coming to my talk page, and Marek's revert, is a pretty good indication of how he got to that article. Taken in with the fact that he is now bitching about me on WR, it is obvious that he is watching my talk page, and his first edit upon his return from a break was to stalk me to that article and engage in an outright revert -- given the nature of Biophys' stalking, which Marek would be aware of (I don't AGF in that these editors always plead ignorance -- only ignorant people will believe it continually), his revert was does knowingly to provoke myself, and given Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Russavia (where Marek was blocked), he was well aware he was breaching his interaction ban. He did this to provoke a reaction in a most disruptive way.
As to Marek claiming I am stalking him over at WR, as one can see, I've been way too busy uploading to Commons, and doing other bits and pieces to bother with stalking others to see what they are bitching about. One can only take his comments over there as another attempt to dig himself out of a hole. Don't let him get away with it yet again. Russavia Let's dialogue 14:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
In relation to where I am to post anything onwiki, can someone please advise me where this should be done?
Also, I would like to request the committee to consider that there are 3 distinct issues that need dealing with and/or clarifying here. As such, I would like the committee to deal with one at a time, and in doing so forbid the usual peanut galleries from both sides from commenting.
Issue #1 -- following of my edits by Biophys, his using of a one-way interaction ban as a weapon to lock me out of articles I am clearly editing at the time, and his following my edits in the obvious hope of finding something he can report me for. Only Biophys needs to comment in relation to this -- no other editor has anything of any use to add in relation to this, due to their uninvolvement. There is still an open request at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Russavia in which FPaS is looking at the placing of discretionary sanctions on Biophys forbidding him from interacting with myself. Whilst I thank FPaS, is this still able to be dealt with at the AE level? Or would the Committee prefer to do it?
Issue #2 -- following of my edits by Volunteer Marek, his claiming that he wants me to stay away from him, yet outright reverting of any of my edits, his overly combative attitude (not only directed towards myself, but other editors as well), and successful claim of ignorance of what interaction bans entail, and other information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Russavia#Bitchipedia - no-one else can add anything in relation to any of this due to uninvolvement, except perhaps with the exception of Miacek (now Estlandia), who I know has been attacked continually by Marek (as per the links on my talk page)
Issue #3 -- interaction bans between myself and Martintg aka Tammsalu aka Nug, and to a lesser extent Vecrumba. No-one else has anything of use in relation to this.
I am requesting the above because editors who are not involved directly in the issues above have unfortunately resorted to misrepresentation of issues, either possibly due to their not being involved, and in a couple of cases, due to long-stated desires that I should not be dealt with on a collaborative basis and trying to get me sanctioned for things that are based on pure hogwash.
Please advise, and I will post this on my talk page as well so that it is in the open. Russavia Let's dialogue 21:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I have been doing a bit of maintenance, adding infoboxes, among other things, and have found that the majority of articles in WPAviation requiring infoboxes are airline articles. As you seem to be active on the airline front how about adding a few info boxes at Petebutt ( talk) 14:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
notability guidelines for artists (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Saatchi Gallery, London, UK is 100% such resource not mentioning others in External links section.
Proposed deletion And also: Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again. It also has Old prod full tag for further editors
Please open Deletion discussions if you still consider it for deletion.
Lavd Let's dialogue 17:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Just come across this File:UA Express CRJ.jpg image from airliners.net taken by Alejandro Torres, do you have a list somewhere to check if he is one of your uploaders before it is tagged as a copyvio, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 09:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)