Talk:Pavel Tsatsouline

message: I removed this line from the above section since it obviously belongs on the talk page: I don't think a post on someones blog should be considered as 'attributable to reliable source' for a fraud allegation. This entry should be deleted. Johnatx 23:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored the section on fraud (the section, not the comment above) with an edit note to not remove it until it's resolved here. I don't have any solid references to back up his Master of Sports, nor do I have an opinion on the worthiness of including the accusations -- just that the section shouldn't be removed without discussion here. Please inform me on my page of any resolution or further issues. --Auto(talk / contribs) 19:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me make the case for keeping this paragraph.  True, forum entries aren't always the most reliable source of information, but considering that one of the forum entries referenced was written by Pavel himself, I think that holds some merit.  Also, the allegations weren't made by some random person on the internet.  They were made by Steve Cotter, a highly respected former Sr. RKC.  This was no small deal and it rocked the kettlebell community in the US, so it's certainly noteworthy for Wikipedia.  When I wrote the paragraph, I tried to show as much respect as possible to all parties involved.  It doesn't actually say "Pavel is a fraud".  It just says that a reputable person accused Pavel of fraud and Pavel admitted to some of the accusations (specifically the official status of his Master of Sports degree) and he denied others.  Those are simply the facts of the situation, and I can't think of a more neutral way to put it.  If someone can, by all means, please do so. Darkdogtx 03:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just updated this section to conform to WP:ATT and WP:BLP.  I took out references to Steve Cotter (where the allegations originated) because blog entries are not allowed unless written by the subject of the article.  As far as I can tell, everything else checks out so if I missed something, my bad.Darkdogtx 17:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fraud allegations

message: I'm more concerned about Dragon Door. Any chance you could merge?
:Dragon Door concerns people other than Pavel, so probably not. I have a separate article on the Warrior diet and if I ever learn anything about the guy, one on Ori Hofmekler would work. Tyciol 02:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you could merge Ori Hofmekler, Warrior Diet and Dragon Door into one article, either Ori Hofmekler or Warrior Diet? --kingboyk 02:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't merge Dragon Door into either Ori or Pavel, as they're individual authors, that's just the company which they (and many others) write through. Warrior diet is an individual concept, which has it's own because it is a dieting article. Ori has his own because he's not solely a dieting author, he's also a previous author for Penthouse magazine. Tyciol 04:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dragon door merges

message: I'm not sure why anyone would propose to delete it... usually such things are put in the talk section first. .Tyciol 19:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can assure you that they're not usually put in the talk section first.  But that doesn't mean it would hurt to do that. Good luck on the expansion. NickelShoe 19:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, most deletion nominations are emphatically not discussed first. I don't know why (time, maybe, as most are janitorial actions) - perhaps they should be - but generally they aren't. --kingboyk 19:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk section before deletion?

message: Someone on another talk page suggested you add the ISBN's for the books. I looked up the ISBNs myself, but I was too lazy to sort the books by date.  I'll feel bad about that later and do it myself if no one else does. NickelShoe 19:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work NickelShoe! If one or two of those have any sort of Amazon rank to them showing significant sales, this article is now a slam dunk keep. Happy editing! (not by me! Exercise??? what the heck is THAT! LOL.) ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank you as well, ISBNs and technical details have never been my forte... such things are probably listed on the sales pages though I guess. Tyciol 02:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ISBNs

message: This particular "What's Hot" in Rolling Stone Magazine appeared on page 95 of the August 30, 2001 issue.  He was listed as a "Hot Trainer."  --Graywolf 70 06:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding "Citation Needed" for Tsatsouline in Rolling Stone Mag

message: I have been a kettlebell instructor, and I know Pavel deserves some credit, but he is now one of many experts. If anyone feels that he deserves special status, by all means punch this article up to something that reflects it. Otherwise it is nothing but another backlink for Google pagerank. Maybe you want to give John a call and have him do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.113.88.152 (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If other experts have been cited in as many magazines as Pavel then they can get an article too. The idea here is to describe notable people. How many of these 'many experts' you refer to have been certified by Pavel's training? Tyciol (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Typed In His Name Just For Fun

message: I recently encountered this article while performing either New Page Patrol, Recent changes patrol, or Counter-Vandalism Unit activities, and in my opinion as a Wikipedia editor, it either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the notability criteria for , or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it reads like blatant Vanispmcruftisment. 
Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of Notability … without them, an article is just original research, which is prohibited by official policy. Even though the lack of reliable source attribution in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only links to unreliable ones like MySpace, Google, and Amazon.com) raises a flag for some editors that such attributable sources may not, in fact, exist.
The point is that I plan to tag this article with either a  that explains my reasons why I believe that it should be deleted, or else a  tag for speedy deletion (CSD A7).
I have created this initial entry on the article's Discussion page in the hope that Administrators and other editors, including the author, , will also comment on their opinions and actions here ... please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.
:Other experienced editors: Please see the Draft protocol to minimize friction from hasty deletions, and try to keep the proposed and speedy deletion processes from occurring Too Quickly, like when a WikiNewbie creates a "work in progress" stub instead of using their own sandbox first. The important thing to remember about this new paradigm is 
::Flag it, then tag it, THEN frag it!
:In other words, announce your intention to tag (flag the author and Discussion pages first), then have a "time-out" before proceeding with the tag ... and if the tag is removed, either proceed to the next step in the protocol, or else MOVE ON.
:OTOH, if you do not believe that  qualifies for a speedy deletion, but it nonetheless lacks any attribution whatsoever, then consider either (a) replacing the CSD tag with a , or (b) listing it on Articles for Deletion; either alternative gives the author an opportunity to add reliable sources for verifying their assertion(s) of notability, and if no improvements have been made in the five days provided by the proposed deletion tag, then no further consensus is needed for deletion.
::Administrators: If you do speedy delete this article, then in the spirit of WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, consider leaving a note on the Talk page for this article's author,  ... explain that you concur with the reasons for the speedy deletion, and have exercised your authority as one of the Administrators to delete it ... this should shorten the time it takes for the author to appeal for restoration of the article because it was just an unfinished "work in progress," or they neglected to tag it as a stub article.
::It would certainly require a little extra time and effort for you, but it may keep Some Other Editor from being blocked for reverting the deletion of tags after an article has been recreated, all because there was no paper trail ... after all, I took the time to start a message thread about this article on their Talk page, so all you have to do is append your own "stencil" message ... this is for that Very Small percentage of cases where a mistake has been made by being Too Hasty in our collective judgment of this article's unworthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia as presented for the first time. :-)
I think we can all agree that Haste is the Dark Side of the proposed and speedy deletion processes, and these draft protocols are designed to "soften the blows" of the "iron fist in the velvet glove" ... for all of the parties involved. Happy Editing! — 00:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning: This article lacks [[WP:A]] to establish [[WP:N]]

message: The deletion talk 4 months ago didn't seem to go anywhere, so if it's not getting deleted, should we remove the stub tag now?  There's doesn't seem to be much more to say about him at this point.  --Karuna8 (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Still a stub?

message: We should probably add this to the bibliography, one of his more recent publications, which is a compilation of various articles he has submitted to various magazines. This would be easier (and cheaper) to obtain for many people than buying each magazine. Tyciol (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Beyond Bodybuilding

message: Not an experienced wikipedia editor...at all. Reference 3 appears to be identical content to reference 1; ref. 1 is the source, I think, ref. 3 is a (partial) copy.
Lone Shepherd (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Where does the 1969 birth date come from? He can't have been a Spetznatz trainer in his teens. Heepman1997 (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  1969