User talk:Jasra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey Jasra! You know that to get Democratic Belarus you've got to find a Leader, have you got one?

P.S. J. T. Don't take seriously.

P.P.S. Forgot to sign. Ilyak 12:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't you know (have article link) on who've they choose?

Anyway, people would not vote for someone unknow (only if as "vote against"). So they would have to make him popular somehow. Ющенко was an ex-prime minister, for sure: He had his publicity and also had pro-himself media.

My cousin (двоюродный брат) lived in Belarus for a while and he've said he have not met much pro-opposition people, and ones he met wasn't really taken seriously by anyone.

I've noted your interest in ex-USSR political life. Have you visited ex-USSR? If yes, where?

Ilyak 15:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I don't really understand people who care for Belarusian authoriarity, but not about, say, things happening in Turkmenistan. That's strange. Or you have no interests in outside Europe?

Hi!

As far as profession is concerned - physicist.

Oh, physicist. As far as I remember, belarussian politican who took part in "ussr break" treaty (в Беловежской Пуще), was a physicist too. Moreover, the great Soviet/Ukrainian science fiction writer Савченко describes him as "the only fair person of them tree" (i.e. Ельцын(rf), Шушкевич(bel) и Кравчук(ukr)). So maybe another physicist have chances. Ex-mayor is good too, we'll see if he would be able to get popularity.

As far as I understand, Lukashenko, while being somewhat tyrannic, still is not "for sale, sold" as many and many political leaders in post-soviets are. Neither do he act like a colonial government. People aren't sure anyone new will share same positive traits. New president may: 1) get popularity. 2) piss off Russia. 3) say a few promising words about joining EU. 4) lose popularity. And the country is disrupted - main russian markets (furniture, heavy- and preciese- device manufacturing) are lost during piss out, european markets are closed to them, and EU will not, to be honest, taking belarus in for nearest 10 years regardless of what belarus do. That's exactly what other rainbowrevoluting states did so far. Consider Саакашвилли (new georgian president) has lost his popularity from 90% to 50% for now, and new ukrainian government is disrupted - main orange engine Тимошенко was expelled and now she is in opposition, expect more. But Ukraine was not dependant on Russia - it exports steel worldwide, while their steel production was still hurt by revolution, - for Belarus that standard "pissing off Russia" may mean serious economic troubles. EU will not make markets for them, EU always have its own industry and Chinese are cheaper anyway.

About Turkmenistan - in Europe we can sometimes forget that, but there are places where democracy isn't just the priority. First example is Turkmenistan. Their beloved President (permanent president, as it tends to be in such countries - not very democratic, eh?) has closed all the hospitals outside capital. He said that they lack of capable medics, and if someone will become ill he can always travel to capital. Nice, eh? And, for sure, they don't have medics because he had also cut length of university study to one year. From, as you might guess, sovietic 5.5 years. In short, he's ruining his country. What's strange is that this info is not on Turkmenistan, while Belarus have quite a few phrases about human right violations. If you can read russian language I can give you a few links about it, consider yourself.

By the way, what's your positions on other indepence/separatist movements, like in Transnistria in Moldova or Abkhasia in Georgia? They might be less mass-shouted-at, but there are still people dying.

I must admit I do not know much about the situation in the countries you mentioned.

(sigh) And this is how that 'human rights' thing works. You know precisely that in distant Chechnya things are very bad, because you've seen it numerous times on TV, and was told about that. Moreover, you know that, say, elections xxx (for exapmle, referendum on Belarussian flag) was reported unjust by some cryptious ogranization that is surely paid by someone and for a reason. Meanwhile, you don't really know that same thing happens in something like 500 km from you (Moldova, that's between Ukraine and Romaina). That's because noone likes to sharpen it on things that should be under control but in meantime they aren't. Moreover, article for Chechnya does say words about human violations and Ichkeria one does not say such words; from which you might assume that Ichkeria was a much more hospitable place than Chechnya is. But, in fact, Ichkeria was a bandit-in-law country, with ethnical confrontations (my uncle lived in Grozny in early 9x and was forced to leave, so assume I know it) and slavery. Chechnya is a bad place for now - it's unsafe, different nationality people don't like one another and that - but at least there is a portion of law here for now.

I'm not defending a bunch of Russian and Chechen bastards, which made every effort to make this war happen, but from a personal view it looks like that.

On other hand, every man will tell you that if you had to recount votes for 10 times to actually get 'correct' result, there's something wrong with your election system. But that's USA, and no obscure organizations even allowed to say something about it.

All the questions of separatism should be solved by talks, not by force.

That is a very good opinion, and, as you might see, it was respected in some cases. USSR willingly gave some authonomy to developed and economically parts of country populated by a nation, that's how SSRs was formed. That was a point in lenin's doctrine. And when USSR collapsed it did it by the borders of SSRs. Now, quite a few SSRs have integrity problems - Russia, Georgia, Moldova among them. In two of these 3 there was a war. That's sad, but that shows you two things: 1) If part of country have a separate government, it might, under circumstances, go independent. That's beacuse their leaders prefer to be first among 10 than 10th among 1000. And leaders can easily provoke a tide of nacionalism and separatism to do so. 2) This part of country should be not interdependent economically with rest of country. It should be able to live on its own. Its authonomy should be accepted by the whole country to some extent.

If first condition is met, and second is not, we'll get another Chechnya, Kosovo, or Abkhasia. This might be evil or not, this might be just or not, but this, as I believe, is how things work.

First - election in the US - the problem that Bush and Gore got very similar number of votes is different. There was a question whether a machine counting is a proper way to count, but this way of counting was accepted before election started and it could not favor any of the candidates.

As far as I know, problem was not only in machine counting votes. I have got a long technical article about these elections and about which real weirnesses happened during them, if you can read Russian fine, I will point you to that article. One of the points of it that republicans influence main voting machine maker, Diebold, and that in areas with machine voting results, for some reason, seriously differ from earlier years' always in favor of Republicans. But, another point, they don't have obscure organizations like OBSE which always say then did not like some elections if they elected something they don't like, and never say a word about elections whose result they did like.

On the other hand the access of people not sharing Lukashenko's views to the media looks limited. Correct me if I'm wrong (i.e. prove that opposition to Lukashenko has the same or comparable access to media). When the access to media is limited, even if the referendum or elections are fair the government can get a "proper" result.

When you have to choose a banner, I don't think you need to see a lot of POWs, consider them, and choose carefully. It is just a matter of personal taste.

But anyway, how does it work in, say, USA? Each party have a lot of supporting indistries and corporations. They favor 'their' party (Republicans - real sector, Democratians - IT and financial). They invest money in publicity and stuff.

On other hand, in most post-USSR countries we don't still have such system. Understand that, in russia as of 2000, if Oil companies wished to push some candidate, they could summon a LOT of publicity for him. Buying out half papers, a few TV channels and so on. But they did not do that. Same in Belarus. Opposition candidates just have not got money to finance publicity, and noone who have wants to give that money. Or you expect government to finance candidates? That would not work. See, in Ukraine, a real lot of people did not wanted Янукович to be elected. They loathed him. And not just ordinary people, but governments of a few big cities including capital, and a lot of commercial organizations. First gave areas, second gave money, and suddently Ющенко have got quite a lot of publicity. Лукашенко, i beleive, really suppresses opposition, but he does all right in other areas. And people care about that except for some marginal percent, say, 10%. Assume you can somehow overthrow Лукашенко and elect someone else. That 10% might become happy, but the rest? I doubt new randomly chosed leader will do all right. I double doubt he will do all right if he'll be pushed by europe. Europe, having put money into him, will ask him to work out these money. That's what we call "Colonial government" - when leader of country have to work for another country. Noone wants that, believe me.

As far as Chechnya is concerned - I know many Chechens who fled their country to Poland or Western Europe. They admitted that there was chaos after the first war, but they blame the Russians for creating such situation.

First war, maybe. I don't myself know much about what happened there, I was too young. But, in the meantime before first war my uncle's family was forced to leave Grozny. There was tension between russians and chechens growing, and I happely reflect first war as a reaction on violences against ethnical russians in chechnya. That's like Kosovo war - what do you think of Kosovo. Of course, there was bastards involved from both sides. From Chechnya side ruling bastards made situation hot by encouraging nationalism and violence, from Russian - bastards who actually started this war. I guess this war would better NOT happened, and AT THAT POINT chechnya released as an independent country.

Chechnya was informally blocked economically.

That might have happened. But sorry, newly-independent and inadvanced country is a best place for narcotrafic, banditism and other such things. I would've think now we should have expelled Chechnya, built a high wall around it, and passed people only unidirectional - Chcchens in, Russians out. And that way they have to do whatever in their box. And I'm not alone in this position.

The lack of recognition did not allow establishing normal relationships with other countries.

Which ones? They really needed relationship with Russia, but that could not happen after their suddent independence, and with other Caucasian republics, noone prevented them from that. What else do they need? Taiwan, in fact, does not suffer from such problem :)

Can you say that the war in Chechnya ended?

In can say that, currently, there is no war in Chechnya. More, it seems that Chechnya is slowly calming. But that may change to worse, I hope it will not.

Do you believe the hostilities can ever end?

I do. Remember Great Britain? First there were Celts, then there Romans, conquered island. There was a lot of resistance for centuries. Then there came Anglo Saxons, conquered island again, few hungred years more of brutality and resistances. Now, could you differ Celt from Anglo Saxon? Have you herad about any 'hostilities'?

Do you think giving independence and recognizing Chechnya internationally would end the hostilities?

That would do the trick in 1991, except from that they'll drive out and/or kill something like 200 000 Russians from their newly-independent state. As this happened in other 'independent overnight' countries, FYI. For some reason these 'newly independent' countries develop nacionalistic movement that cause a lot of violence even if they are already independent. They can't do without it, and, for that sole reason, I don't think independence should be provided to anyone who ask. Some areas can become countries without becoming blood bath, some just can not. I, as you may assume, don't like Russians being killed.

Now, how would you inagine Chechnya independence? Russia suddently drops government there and moves army out? Oh, bandits will come down from mountains, kill everyone who was associated with Russian government, kick out and/or kill rest of russian population, again wreak chaos over the whole country. Moreover, they'll continue to terrorise russian southwest near chechnya. After another one Beslan or Nord-Ost we'll have to do third chechen war, excatly because noone will tolerate such things happening near his borders.

Nation which fights its independence by killing children* and innocents clearly does not deserve this freedom. No respectable countries I know took this barbaric route to fight their independence, if you know one, I listen.

  • In Beslan, in fact, there was mostly Ossetian children killed. Chechnyans** don't just hate Russians, they just don't care about any lifes in general, be them whatever nationality, even if their own (see their terrorism against other Chechnyans now).
    • There I say only about Chechen bandits and otherwise armed fighters, not Chechens as nationality.

Ilyak 09:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Melchor Rodríguez García

Sługa uniżony :) Halibutt 03:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

A tak przy okazji - z polskiej wiki wygoniono mnie już dawno, więc zamiast próbować się ze mną kontaktować tam, lepiej będzie tu :) Halibutt
Może to i dobrze że Cię polemiki omijają ;)
Co do artykułu - niewiele tam ze mnie, po prostu przetłumaczyłem dość luźno tekst hiszpański. W oryginale autor hiszpańskiego artykułu wymienia powody częstych samosądów w punktach. Dosłownie fragment ten brzmiałby tak:

Najczęstszymi przyczynami tego stanu rzeczy były:

  • dostarczenie broni u zarania konfliktu różnym stronnictwom politycznym, często niezdolnym do dyscypliny
  • walki między grupami politycznymi (dosł. "zaostrzanie rywalizacji politycznej"), widoczne już w latach poprzedzających wojnę, a nasilające się w sposób znaczący podczas częstych bombardowań obiektów cywilnych
  • Świadomość że rebelianci także mordują ludzi bez sądów w strefie przez nich kontrolowanej
  • Słabość rządu republiki w pierwszych miesiącach wojny, która sprawiła, że tego typu akty nieczęsto były karane.
Pozdrawiam - i jestem do dyspozycji :) Halibutt 21:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santiago Carrillo

Hello Diego, I have just looked at the discussion about Carrillo. You say that his responsibility for the massacre in Paracuellos del Jarama was not proved. However, from the text I have read it looks that at least his moral responsibility can be proved. The main arguments is the following: - his successor at the post (Melchor Rodriguez Garcia) had no problem with finding out what was going on and preventing killing of prisoners. Rodriguez acted in exactly the same conditions. It is impossible that one of the two could know about crimes and the other one could not. If Carrillo is not guilty of ordering the massacre staight forward, he is guilty of doing nothing to prevent it.

BTW. I am interested in the topic of the Spanish Civil War. This issue has been presented in a very biassed way many times. Either it is idealization of the Republic or of general Franco. ~

Regards, Jasra 23:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jasra. It's nice having some foreign people caring of our war, as it's sometimes difficult for Spanish people to remain objective. According to article at Spanish Wikipedia es:Víctimas de la Guerra Civil Española, precisely Melchor Rodríguez García was delegated by Carrillo in order to stop the killings as soon as these were noticed. You have to take into account that there wasn't a strong government in Madrid at that time (the Republic government had flewn to Valencia) and that the enemy forces were besieging the city, so the situation was doubtlessly chaotic; there's a reason for these facts to remain controversial.
I can see you're linking to sources strongly related to francoist ideologists (spainherald.com, from LibertadDigital). You'll have to check sources from both fronts in order to get a balanced view (the main historian of the Republican side being Ian Gibson). So far, I haven't seen convincing evidence (other than some gossip by a russian officer) that people in the Junta de Defensa had notice of these killings while they were taking place. Maybe you can dive into the sources and provide some better references of these facts? Diego Moya 01:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war on Erika Steinbach

As the article is on my watchlist, I've seen your comment, of course. I did not just revert by the way but picked what is good and left out the usual Molobonian partisan bias. Of course Molobo and Space Cadet will go on fighting, they always do. But strictness is not the reason. It is because too many people think by just trying to mix the pretty neutral and Molobo's partisan version, a conflict could be avoided. Appeasing him through concessions is to shift the POV in his direction, which is what he wants, which sows the seed of the next revert war. Sciurinæ 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific peer review

Cześć. You might be interested in WP:SPR. Karol 19:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghirlandajo

Consider him reported to an administrator. I am that administrator, and I have reviewed the case. Ghirla was quite entitled to remove your commend from his talk page, and I'll thank you not to press the issue with him. You're quite welcome to take it up, as he suggested, with User:Jimbo Wales, although how Jimbo will feel about this offer I cannot say. Have a nice day. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'll answer them in points:
  1. Templates that are divisive or offensive can be speedy deleted at any time by any admin. However, what constitutes "divisive" is not entirely clear. I am probably not the best person to ask on userbox issues (I think they're silly), but I think I can say without fear of contradiction that a userbox like {{User independent Chechnya}} doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of surviving for long without being deleted by somebody.
  2. Templates can be deleted by any administrator, as I've said above. A non-admin user can tag an article that ought to be speedy deleted with a template, {{db|Your reason for thinking this article needs to be speedy deleted}}, and an admin will review the argument for deletion and either delete the page/article/template/whatever, or remove the template.
  3. We have a process called deletion review, where improper speedies and incorrect AfDs can be overturned. However, per WP:SNOW, I'd suggest you don't try it for this particular userbox.
  4. Well, your message wasn't the cleverest one I've ever seen on talkpage (talking about censorship and templates being the only way you can state our POV and so on), but that's not what I meant. Basically, with some exceptions (like block messages), users can remove messages from their talkpage: it's generally considered bad form, but a lot of users remove messages they don't like, or even just messages they've read, from their talkpage, and we don't really try to stop them. There's nothing actually wrong, normally, with removing messages from your talkpage. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a large anti-userboxes crusade on Wiki. Don't worry - there are solutions: 1) restore the userbox in your userspace as a template 2) restore it as a non-template for your userpage only (this is what I am going to do now for myself). As for Ghirla, don't expect much civility from him. He is a valuable contributor to Russia-related articles, unfortunataly his 'Greater Russia' POV is very strong - but so far he is acting mostly alone and receives little support from other Russian contribs (although he receives no discouragement, either). If he continies his behaviour, he will face an RfA (he already had an RfC). Feel free to copy the text form my personal Babel (Editing User:Piotrus/Babel).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Alternatively, if it really matters, he can write it down on his userpage rather than taking cookie-cutter text ... and he can do it all without resorting to paranoid "crusade!" nonsense. People tend to appear so much smarter when they don't cover their userpages in silly boxen ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

I don't think it would be a good idea. Of course, we should avoid double standards here, but that's how the life is. Firstly, two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that some hot-headed admin took part in a revert war and supported Great Russian patriots (I was asked not to call them nationalists) clearly against the rules of wikipedia does not mean that we should ask them to follow the same steps in the case of other userboxes. Also, not having one template and having all of the rest seems like a lesser evil to me.

Anyway, check my babel box to see how one could use the template anyway (I never used the original one, BTW). //Halibutt 14:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's his common procedure to delete comments he doesn't know how to respond to. He's been a trouble user for quite some time, and was even RfCed some time in the past, but he has his ups and downs. At times the guy simply astonishes me with his knowledge, and at times he's the most rude person I've ever met ([1], for instance). If I were you, I'd simply avoided the guy not to be called names.
As to userboxes, I'd leave it as it is. Let the Russian nationalists and Ghirlandajo (he's asked me not to include him in the list) have the userboxes deleted, it's not worth the effort to fight for them. As long as they stay out of articles it's ok with me. //Halibutt 15:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] calling names

please read WP:Vandalism and WP:NPOV

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. Cicceroa 20:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxen

G'day Jasra,

I'm afraid I haven't a clue about what you mean. Could you please point out (say, using the exact template name) the offensive userboxen? Thanks, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chechnya

Dear Pani Alexandra, Thanks for your support for Chechen cause. I'd like to co-operate with you in future and we can share many ideas concerning politics and history. I’m also interested in Poland and history of this beautiful country (i been there many times, my favourite is Krakow). Thanks again-Jinkue Barzo and all the best! Niech Zhivi Polsha :) Noxchi Borz 19:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Alexandra Hi, why was Chechnya symbol removed from commons? Noxchi Borz 02:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Georgia Portal

If you support to create Georgia Portal please vote here Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals . Thanks. Noxchi Borz 20:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] for you

The Special Barnstar
Thanks for explaining to me about the racial appearnace the Chechen people.Ironicly I learned more from what you told me than in the article.-Vmrgrsergr 06:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No prob. When i learn alot from someone I gotta give them credit where they deserve it.:-) Vmrgrsergr 01:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)