User talk:Samian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Samian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Just H 23:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Makka daddy5.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Makka daddy5.jpeg. 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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Mak-sagp.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mak-sagp.jpeg. 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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:1173.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:1173.jpeg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Makka-sagaipova16.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Makka-sagaipova16.jpeg. 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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Makkaramzan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Makkaramzan.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:RamzanKadyrov.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RamzanKadyrov.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright for Makka Sagaipova's photos

You indicated that Makka Sagaipova's photos you have uploaded are sourced to the http://www.amina.com website and that they are {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. I have spent some time looking through the amina.com site and could not find any references that their pictures are released under the creative commons license. By default the copyright belongs to the Amina website and we cannot have these pictures. Can you point me out to their creative commons statement?

Alternatively, if you are the copyright holder of these pictures, can you remove the annoying Amina's watermark (and maybe provided higher-resolution pictures?) Thanks.

Regarding your dispute with Kuban kazak, I see a full can of worm over who held Grozny in 1987. I doubt we can attribute the place to non-existent at that time independent Ichkeria. Maybe just remove the flag and mentioning of both Ichkeria and Russia. Lets just say Grozny or Grozny, Soviet Union. She is not a freedom fighter or something and I guess she happily uses Russian passport. Thus, she would not probably object Alex Bakharev 04:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In any case WP:POINT what the hell are you after? If you want to write propaganda that glorifies terrorists and murderers than you might as well go to KavkazCenter straight. Wikipedia is a neutral and international encyclopedia. Internationally Russian territorial integrity is recognised! I personally took part in venging the genocide that these "freedom fighters" unleashed upon my Terek Cossack brothers in 1990-1994 (250 thousand people, the whole Russian minority of Chechen-Ingush ASSR!) So why don't you follow WP:NPOV and stop the "fascism"...btw WP:NPA...--Kuban Cossack 11:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Now then do you want to engage in a civilised discussion or in a trade of insults? I personally do not want the latter. However one must follow wikipolicies of neturality and civility, and if you do not want to be blocked I strongly advise you to stop. Lastly there is no such thing as "the sole author" In fact wrt yout comment, it clearly says:If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it At the very bottom of your edit window...--Kuban Cossack 11:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
NO my freind that is not how its going to work. There is a detailed list of mediations and RFcs in case of content dispute, but that is not what you are doing, you are edit warring and Trolling. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine, and if you intend to use it as such then you might as well leave, because I will notify the admin. Good contributions are always welcome but you must stay neutral. Neutral means what respected sources say not filthy mouths like KavkazCenter. Does Reuters or BBC ever call Chechen insurgents "Freedom fighters" or "liberation fighters"? No it calls them insurgents! And to those like Basayev - Terrorists, because that is what they are. My final word of advice, have an overthink of why are you on wikipedia. Are you here to transform it into a political rant or are you to write good and neutral articles. So there is no talk of accepting your re-edits. Because they are not edits, they are reverts of Vandalism, Original Research and POV.
Lastly there is a WP:SOAP so please don't start with this I cannot think of a single Chechen that would agree to the occupation of their homeland by Russian imperialism, there are thousands of public forums on the net where you can discuss these dreams and fairy tales, but not on wikipedia. BTW for your information in the 2004 Presidential Election Putin recieved how many votes from Chechnya? That's right 91%! ;)--Kuban Cossack 23:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Have it your way, I have contacted the admin...--Kuban Cossack 12:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doku Umarov

I'm going to block you and Kuban Kazak for 3RR if you persist in your revert war. Work it out on the talk page.—Perceval 03:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Samian perhaps you would like to take your time to explain your issues. First of all with respect to WP:NPOV why do you insist on labelling present Chechen politicians are pro-Kremlin and pro-Russian whilst removing separatist from separatists' articles? I should stress that Chechnya is de jure part of Russia, and not only de facto, but INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED by the UN and other bodies as part of Russia, at the same time NOBODY recognised and recognises the government of Ichkeria.
Second point, wrt WP:POINT what is your problem with the term insurgent and militant and why do you insist on replacing them with rebel and fighter? First of all fighter is a very abstract term, a sportsman is called a fighter (e.g. box, karate etc). Rebel is from the word Rebellion. Is there are rebellion in Chechnya when every year the fighting becomes less and less sporadic. Now you whether or not those boyeviki (I'll just use the Russian term to avoid confusion) have or do not have popular support from ordinary Chechens is unknown and irrelevant. So far there have been no opinion polls so really anything we come up with is WP:NOR. I do know that every week thousands of boyeviks surrender and under amnesty return to normal life... I also know from my recent visit there that ALL of the people I have seen there are tired of war, tired of politics, and the only thing on their mind is to rebuild their lives and feed themselves and their children. Now that is an opinion, but the fact that every year more and more Chechens are dropping arms and aiding the reconstruction of their republic is a concrete fact. So the term rebel is unsuitable because the key point for being a rebel is to have sympathy from those who you represent. Now it is true that there are still people who back the boyeviki, but it is also true that there are people who fight against them. So Kadyrovtsy, are also rebels against the Ichkerian separatists... Therefore the term Chechen rebels is now misleading and also increasingly archaic. Last is the scale of warfare, a rebellion would have to be something that is noticeable and visible, for example the Viet Cong or South Osetia. Insurgency on the other hand is exactly what the present boyeviki are. They have no visible base, they operate as individual groups rather than a full army, and they also mount terrorist raids. Do you see the term Iraqi Rebels wrt the present situation in Iraq, no they are insurgents. Do you ever hear of Irish rebels or Kashmiri rebels or the present Afghan rebels? Even the controversial Ukrainian Insurgent Army was never referred to as rebels. My advice is you drop the double standards from Chechnya. --Kuban Cossack 16:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Kuban kazak. First of all, let me say that as a newspaper editor, I have some idea as to the objectivity in an article. Sometimes, I base my citations off of international news sources, and if you want, I will be happy to add sources for basically any of the claims I make on Wikipedia as well.
Now, with that said, let me address the term "separatist" --- let me say that I am in agreement that the term "separatist" is appropriate for the Chechen rebels. However, I would not agree with the statement that the term "rebel" has become archaic or irrelevant: in fact, ABC News, which most would agree is a relatively-objective international news source, uses the term "separatist rebels" in this article [1], which was published only last week. Even FOX News, with its perceived right-wing bias here in the U.S., has used the term "separatist rebels" [2].
As for the term "insurgent", I have tried multiple variations of the search terms "Chechen"+"insurgent" and "Chechnya"+"insurgent" on news websites such as CBSNews.com, english.aljazeera.net, and washingtonpost.com, and I got no results. However, if you were to type in something like "Chechnya rebels", you would get plenty of results on any of these sites. So it seems that the usage of the term "rebel" far exceeds the term "insurgent" in the mainstream media, even to this day. Undoubtedly, we have very different opinions on the scale and nature of the fighting in Chechnya, which is perfectly acceptable with me, but I base my selection of words partly on that of the mainstream media, and I do not see why the term "rebel" would be inaccurate.
You are correct in saying that the people fighting in Iraq are called "insurgents" and "militants" by the mainstream media, and rightfully so. You might have known this already, but there is debate even today of the meaning of the term 'insurgent' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgent). Nevertheless, I will use the historical definition of "insurgent" given on that page, as "an internal struggle against a standing, established government". So would you then consider both Kadyrovs and the Kadyrovsky insurgents against the Government of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria? Anyways, despite what you may think, I have always defined Basayev, Khattab, and the folks responsible for the Beslan School Siege/Moscow Theater Siege to be all terrorists - I doubt you can give me one instance where I have denied that these folks are terrorists, and they have defined themselves as such. As for Umarov and the separatist rebels who are responsible for the deaths of Russian troops, Kadyrovsky, and other pro-Russian security forces, I would not label them as terrorists since they are obviously shooting at armed men and not innocent civilians. Now I know that the Echo TV of the Russian media has gone out and called many different people "terrorists", including exiled tycoon Platon Elenin (a.k.a. Boris Berezovsky), which I find highly dubious.
Finally, as to the status of Chechnya today. You said "I do know that every week thousands of boyeviks surrender and under amnesty return to normal life", whereas even the Russian authorities have said themselves that 546 people have surrendered through the amnesty altogether, so I think the figures that you are claiming are a bit inflated. I'd have to disagree with your opinion as to the feelings of the Chechen people: Chechens are now the largest group seeking asylum in Europe, and in Poland alone 91% of asylum-seekers are Chechens, most of whom have fled to Eastern Europe over the past 2 years. The conditions under Kadyrov could hardly be called rosy [3], and the sole reason why many of the rebels who have surrendered have done so because their family members were held hostage by Kadyrovsky. The only reason why Kadyrovsky ranks are relatively full are because there quite simply are no other jobs in Chechnya other than security services. None of the Chechens I've spoken to said the situation was truly better in Chechnya currently.
Anyways, I hope I've clarified some things with you, and I hope you have a nice day. =)

--Samian 13:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Samian one thing is what you write in newspappers, another thing is what qualifies as an encyclopedic language. Encyclopedias have to be neutral and take into account all arguments, otherwise they lose their credibility. At this point, I suggest we agree on what we disagree on, and then I propose a mediation, because and RfC or third opinion is not going to get anywhere, although its also worth a try. Lets not speculate more than necessary. In the mean time, I am removing all refrences to "pro-Kremlin" and such per your comment. Lastly, for consistency on the talk, I have moved your comment here, I do not like discussions stringing on several pages, so please answer here...
Just in case you wanted to speculate, I go to Chechnya every year, as part of our Cossack host exercises. I speak to thousands of people there. Yes the situation is not better...but the last thing that people want is more conflict and suffering. Also wrt Kadyrovtsy, I think you will perfectly know that Chechnya is a clanal society...and what blood vengence means for those people...And I do agree that is THE stumbling block on why the rate of rebuilding is this slow...--Kuban Cossack 13:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Kuban kazak, I think your proposal is quite reasonable, and a mediation is fine with me. If you remove the "pro-Kremlin" references I will not oppose it. As I have mentioned previously, I don't have a fault with the term "separatist", but I think the term "separatist rebel" is best. I would prefer if we used either "separatist" or "rebel" to the term "insurgent", since the first two terms seem to be in far greater usage than the latter. No news source is perfectly objective, I agree, but the most-respected ones are relatively so. This one Wikipedia article, Magomet Yevloyev, I've had to change from "Chechnian" to "Chechen", since I really don't know any source that has ever used the word "Chechnian".

As for Chechnya, I can hardly imagine any people who would want conflict and bloodshed. Although I am obviously pro-Chechen independence, I see it as an unfortunate fact that conflict has now spread through the entire North Caucasus. Fighting happens daily in Ingushetia and Dagestan, which I believe should remain in Russia since their respective peoples have wanted to remain in the Federation, and as you go to Chechnya every year you know very well that the region is far more "radicalized" now than even a decade ago. So I believe that Russian forces re-entering Chechnya was a mistake in that roots are being planted for even greater violence throughout the North Caucasus, perhaps in the next generation. Nevertheless, I am sure that neither of us is as naive to believe that violence and separatism will be entirely gone. And I see Ramzan Kadyrov as part of the problem, not the solution. --Samian 11:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok here are some alternatives that I have no problems with the terms: "separtist militant", "guerilla" whilst Kardyrov's men would be paramilitaries...
A mistake? I left university to volunteer and fight in 1999. We Cossacks also have our pride and dignity. I fought to avenge what the Chechens did to thousands of Russians in 1990-94. Yes it was before the first Chechen War... Quarter of a million people were forced out of their homes Mind you, most of them living there since the 17th century- descendants of the once proud and glorious Terek Cossack host... And for those that stayed behind, how many were forced into slavery? How many tortured, raped and shot... True people like Gaidar, Grachyov, and Yeltsin are equally responsible as is Dudayev for the suffering of my fellow Russians, but in the end they were only catalysts, whilst this Chechen nationalism that oddly enough is not new, and tends to rise and fall anti-parrallel to how Russia is doing economically and politically, was what ultimately fueled it. I have no regrets whatsoever that I fought, that I killed. I am proud of LIBERATING our land from the vermin. True, Kadyrov is not my favourite person and is not a rolemodel for my children, but so far the Chechens are fighting themselves now, whilst we are slowly every year helping to return the Russian refugees to their homes and rebuild the Terek Cossack Host. As for ordinary Chechens then the choice is theirs. Many chose to leave the republic to Russia proper and for those that spent their time not engaged in seizing Russian markets and fighting with rival Azeris and Dagestanis over who controls this stand, but working hard and honestly...many have been very succesful...I wonder if the Ichkerian regime provided free world class higher education...--Kuban Cossack 02:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Your alternative suggestions sound fine to me.

I have a lot of respect for the Cossack heritage, so you shouldn't get me wrong. As for slavery during the wars and such, at least from the sources I've read, such as Politkovskaya's, the numbers were only a handful, consisting mostly of those kidnapped and held for ransom. It is indeed unfortunate what has happened to the Cossacks, no doubt, but I think that "avenging" these tragedies by torturing, raping, and kidnapping Chechens is hardly an honorable deed, as such violence will only beget more violence. Your Cossack ancestors, as I understand, were wrongly betrayed by the Allies at Lienz and displaced from their homes in Europe, even though many weren't even born in USSR, yet today they have been rehabilitated by Putin in Russian society. Has Russia apologized even once for rounding up Chechens into cattle cars at gunpoint and shipping them off to Kazakhstan? And how can Putin call himself the "liberator" of Chechnya when he bombs Groznyy to the ground? True, Mashkadov was an incompetent President who should have locked up that terrorist Basayev after Khasav-yurt and acted without impunity against the criminals; otherwise, we wouldn't be seeing Chechnya re-occupied by Moscow. In many respects, I would agree with you that the Ichkerian government has failed their people, but I believe that the only people who can be responsible for Chechnya's destiny are the Chechens and not the Russians. I do not see why Russia would want Chechnya so badly - if Puerto Rico were to vote for independence, we would not bomb them to the ground. Furthermore, you wouldn't say that the Ingushkis have the right to avenge their displaced against the Ossetians, would you?

You say "Russia for Russians" like the other Russkies, and I say, so be it. Chechnya for Chechens, then. You Russians have the largest nation on Earth, yet you will not permit others to live in a tiny republic? As for the Chechens in Russia proper, I agree with you - the choice is theirs. But if the Kremlin will remain complacent while racists forment violence in places like Kondopoga, and continue to marginalize Chechens by arbitrary arrests and "security checks", then that will be the path for further instability in Russia. --Samian 21:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Makka-sagaipova645.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Makka-sagaipova645.jpeg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Makka-sagaipova39.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Makka-sagaipova39.jpeg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:ZamiraDzhabrailova.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ZamiraDzhabrailova.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/m/User_talk%7ESamian_a25c.html"