User talk:70.114.136.31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Its all very well talking about how people accusing someone of being a sockpuppet is just about jealousy, but it does sound hypocritical when you are a sockpuppet yourself. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)


Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Why are you vandalizing my talk page? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text, deliberate misinformation, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

As long as you are indefinitely blocked under your User:LevKamensky account, you're also in effect blocked from editing under any other username or IP address. So by policy, I reverted the article and blocked this IP address. Nothing personal.

If you're interested in returning to edit Wikipedia, well, perhaps you could post here about it and users could try to understand your intentions. However, many of the principles you stated on your user page contradict the basic principles of Wikipedia (neutral point of view; articles don't "belong" to the original contributor or creator, but can be edited by anyone; and so forth).

You could consider reading some of the articles linked in the standard "welcome" message, which I will cut and paste and add below:

Welcome!

Hello 70.114.136.31, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

-- Curps 01:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Your assumption is wrong, LevKamensky is a friend of mine, not even a close friend, we share the same IP address.

Definitely his views contradict the current principles of Wikipedia. I don't think his intention is to comply with them. If no one expresses dissatisfaction and advocates change, there would be no improvement.

On the other hand there are users who are abusing the system covertly, like user Zoe and user Mikkalai. User Zoe is using Wikipedia to torture people by artificially finding fault in people's contributions. If she is not sufering from Sadistic Personality Disorder, why doesn't she make contributions herself? What's there in it for her?

User Mikkalai's point of view is not neutral. User Mikkalai from Belarussia (an area notorious for right wing tendencies) who is behind the current edition of the Intelligentsia article seems to have a political has reconstructionist, zarist, and nationalistic bias and his edits distort the truth through omission, taking things out of context, and other tools of propoganda. For some reason he stops on pre-revolution Russia, as if there was no further developments after that? Is that neutral?

The important role intelligentsia played during the Soviet epoch (70 years of history) is understated if not absent from the article. There is no explanation of the role Jewish intelligents played in the revolution, and why many Jewish intelligents joined the revolution (pogroms and cherta osedlosti) is not mentioned. He is quoting Lenin as calling Intelligents "the shit of the nation", while he does not mention that Lenin and Trotsky were intelligents themselves.

The attribute of a cosmopolitan is not mentioned either, obviously because it is associated with Jews.

He listed for deletion about Abram Kamensky, under the pretext of not being notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Abram Kamensky was mentioned in Russian Jewish Encyclopedia, which is a printed encyclopedia compiled by international experts. How is it that this person is not notable enough to be mentioned in an online encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone? This person was mentioned in a Solzhenitsin's novel, he was a deputy minister of the ministry of national affairs, one of the first people to join the bolshevik party, as mentioned in the debate involved in the founding of the short-lived Donetsko-Krivorogian Soviet Republic, father of a well-known russian art critic. This is enough to make him notable. The reason he was demoted to a lower post was because he was briefly a member of the Trostkyst opposition, which Stalin didn't forgive him for. At any rate, the argument that he was somewhat obscure by the time of his death does not hold water, because many people who were famous died in obscurity.

The point is, user Mikkalai from Belorussia does not possess a thorough enough knowledge of Soviet history to make that judgement. The reason he listed the article for deletion was personal and political bias.

I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was so people could add research and facts to someone's start-up. Not to list every start-up that is perhaps not well researched enough for deletion.

User Mikkalai even listed Aleksander Kamensky article for deletion for reason of non-notability -- one of the most well known art crtitics in later twentieth century Russia, and an internationally recognized expert on Marc Chagall, whose book Marc Chagall, The Russian Years was an international best-seller, and was postthamously reprinted and presented at the Tretiakov gallery with Marc Chagall's granddaughters in attendance. What do you think, this guy knows what he is talking about?

He has vandalized Aleksander Kamensky article. He took out Kamensky's definition of the stern style that was one of the three quotes from one of his books, translated personally by LevKamensky for the article. While in the articles discussion page he requested stern style to be defined. This shows that he deleted it without even reading it. If that is not vandalism, than what is? This is a wolf in sheeps clothing. I suggest reverting the article to LevKamensky's last edition and blocking it from further editing.

Wikipidia articles are always on the first page when you make a search on Google, or another search engine. This makes Wikipidia a very influential tool in swaying public opinion. Many people complain that Americans are dumb, and they don’t know basic facts, or that they are shallow. Well now with the internet, they are becoming more aware, but don’t leave them in the hands of half-illiterate graduate students, or right wing fanatics.

Why was the Russian Intelligentsia category deleted, that LevKamensky created, that contained some three dozen brightest minds in Russian culture of the XX century? Why does the Russian social groups category contain cosacs and peasants but not intellectuals? We think this is more political than neutral.

So stop using Wikipedia as a political soapbox. At least LevKamensky is open about his opinions, he is not manipulative like these charachters.

70.114.136.31 01:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want your point of view heard and seen, please behave in a civilized manner, i.e., abide to the rules of the society you are tring to join. Start from learning of the russian proverb: "v chuzhoy monastyr so svoim ustavom ne hodyat" ("Don't come into a foreign monastery with your own statute.")
This is not your monastery. You don't run things here though you may fancy that you do. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and every user has a say in how it should be run. Bing in the majority does not make you right.
I will not waste my time in answering to your personal attacks.
There wre no personal attacks, only observations. It's not my fault your agenda is so thinly veiled it's obvious to any logical person.
As for "stern style", you ignored my question at Talk:Aleksandr Kamensky. Please see there again, for more questions. Yes, the huge section titled "Quotes" was deleted without reading.
ill intent
Only famous quotes and quotes in support of the article are allowed, but not the quotes that replace the article; the latter will certainly bring an issue with copyright, (may be not legal, if kamensky book was published before 1972, but definitely moral).
A quote that demonstrates the subject's point of view does not replace the article. It is widely accepted in literature and journalism.
The reason of why the category "Russian intelligentsia" was deleted was presented during the vote for deletion, an I repeat the main idea for you here: unlike "painter" or "physician", "intelligentsia" is not a well profession, and there are millions of people that may call themselves intelligentsia. A category is not for "most prominent" it is for "all" So this category in the best case would be list of subcategpries "russian artists", "russian painters", "russian lawyers", "rissian writers", and all other people of intellectual work.
I disagree, Intelligentsia is a group of people who hold certain attitudes towards erudition, education, and morals. It is not for the most prominent, I started by including model representatives of the category, which could be expanded later. You also added a person to that category, so don't be a hypocrite. That was vandalism, and once I get the hang of it, I am going to post templates on your page for vandalism. It's just a matter of time.
Abram Kamensky issue: you persist in ignoring the basic rules wikipedia:Verifiability and wikipedia:no original research. Cursory remarks in various books and articles (yes, thank you, I can use google myself) are not a sufficient base for an article.
Says who? There are plenty of such articles on Wikipedia, stop inventing rules.70.114.136.31 01:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

- I also would like to know your reason for listing Aleksander Kamensky article for deletion (as you admitted on "User LevKamensky's talk page), having written afterwards "If I thought Aleksander Kamensky was nonnotable, we would be voting on it long time ago." "here" Why would anyone listen to a single word you say after that!? Why!?

Believe it or not, it was a mistake during the google search when I was typing the name in Russian. But I double-checked an hour later and removed the nomination. mikka (t) 01:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

- Also I don't understand why you changed Russian intelligent to Soviet intelligent. The subject considered himself a Russian art critic. He never identified himself with the Soviet regime especially since you claim in intelligentsia article that the Soviets had an unflattering attitude towards intelligentsia (which is a very very half truth by the way). As if Russia ceased to exist during the Soviet regime. It was still called Russia. And Aleksander Kamensky lived in Russia, not Belarus or Ukarine. My only conclusion is that your motive is anti-semetism.

In wikipedia there is a rule about so-called "passport" categories: attribution is either by ethnicity fo by country. The name of the state was Soviet Union, hence he was a Soviet intelligent or a Jewish intelligent. I am pretty well aware of the special case of Jews in Russian culture, despite being Belarussian, but if you want to use "Russian intellectual" here, you must explain that the term refers to the Russian culture. mikka (t) 01:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
PS: Not "russian intelligent". To my poor knowledge, there is no English noun "intelligent", sorry again, but it is the policy of wikipedia: we do not introduce neologisms. Once again, despite being belarussian I know that there are wikipedia articles khutor, obshchina, etc. The reason is that there terms, while not being in the body of the english language, are still used in special literature. If you provide a significant reference of the usage "intelligent" as a noun in English articles about Russian intelligentsia, you are welcome to write the article Russian intelligent. mikka (t) 01:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

- You still haven't explained why you did not mention the history of intelligentsia during the Soviet epoch in intelligentsia article. The term was popularized in Soviet Russia, and the article is not balanced with main emphasis on Poland, a provincial obscure place like Belarus.70.114.136.31 01:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Laziness. I could have written something out of my head, but it would be original research. You are welcome to add, but the same rule applies: not your own impressions or memories of your family, but a summary from, say, historical books.
And btw, I did not do this, in part because I happen to agree that in Soviet times the term "intelligentnyj chelovek" indeed did not men that he is an intellectual; neither it was Polish "enlightenment man;" it was a person of a certain degree of overall culture. An this is yet another reason why this cannot be a category: it is way too subjective. mikka (t) 01:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

- And another thing... just wondering... do you have a life?

Oh, that's for sure. During a week I spend 6-8 hours playing volleyball and 12 hours in ballroom dancing. I also read science fiction and do many other things. On the other hand I do not watch TV nor movies; that's a huge time saver to "have a life". Also I have a wife, a small daughter, a big son, and another daughter who just married to a Turk.
So you should be a big fan of Nasreddin. Talking about notability. Turks are denying having slaughtered one million Armenians, they even got the Germans to cut that information from their schoolbooks. He will be a good partner for you in your project to erase history. Congratulations! So is your daughter converted to Islam now?
Tell me about life.... mikka (t) 01:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
"My lady dost protest too much" I tell you, every time I log into Wikipedia, you are there within seconds reverting my edits. I am new here, and you are three times older than I am, so you are lucky you have that advantage over me. But don't underestimate me... I start out slow, but I usually have things my way at the end.

Curps I don't understand why this nazi is out on the loose in wikipedia. 70.114.136.31 01:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, watch your tongue, my friend. I am not that nervous, but you may easily get yourself banned forever for hate speech by someone less tolerant. mikka (t) 01:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying you are not a nationalist socialist? Those who don't get accepted to work on printed enciclopedias go to experimental projects like this and try to pose as professionals, where the atmosphere is supposed to be casual. I think you should take the Monastery proverb and apply it to yourself.70.114.136.31 02:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


You claim not to be LevKamensky, but I believe there is very strong evidence that you are. Therefore, as I stated near the top, "As long as you are indefinitely blocked under your User:LevKamensky account, you're also in effect blocked from editing under any other username or IP address. So by policy, I reverted the article and blocked this IP address. Nothing personal."

You write: "his views contradict the current principles of Wikipedia. I don't think his intention is to comply with them." Well, if you completely ignore the fundamental principles of Wikipedia when making edits, those edits will be reverted. It's like if somebody wrote articles in the Russian wikipedia (ru.wikipedia.org) in Latin letters because they think the Latin alphabet is better than Cyrillic... their edits would get reverted and that's that.

Wikipedia is what it is. It's not a blog or a site for writing opinionated personal essays. Maybe http://www.wikinfo.org/ is what you want: see http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Wikinfo:About for a description of how wikinfo is different from Wikipedia. -- Curps 02:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't have any proof, only speculations. I did present speculative proof of Mikka's ill intent and bias, but it was completely ignored. The Aleksander Kamensky article will be always reverted. Wikipedia may be what it is, but we are what we are, and we are not going to place our needs in second place to yours and Wikipedia's. Thank you for the refernce. I am forwarding this article to all my friends [1].

Again, it's like football (soccer): the fundamental principle is, you can't touch the ball with your arms. You can change various less fundamental rules: three substitutions instead of two, maybe even 12 players instead of 11, but if you tried to change the fundamental rule, it would be a completely different game. If you don't follow the fundamental principles of the game, you can't play with others, you'd have to join some other game somewhere else that has different rules. -- Curps 20:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You can have the last word it it does not change anything.70.114.136.31

[edit] Semi-automated template substitution

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../7/0/2E/User_talk%7E70.114.136.31.html"