Talk:Artyom Borovik

message: What was the reason for deleting/reverting my perfectly sourced text? Please explain.Biophys (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's yourself who has some explaining to do. You have hidden information in the references, you have totally misconstrued proper aviation terminologies (and hence their meaning) (my name is Russavia for a reason Biophys), and your introduced sources on not needing de-icing fluids is not absolutely correct, as the requirements for such things is not only defined by the "apparent weather". You have provided 2 vehemently anti-Putin sources (in an attempt to WP:SOAPBOX against Putin....surprise, surprise), yet I have provided Interstate Aviation Committee, MAA, Aviation-Safety.net, and can provide a heap more sources from aviation professionals, not from journalists who couldn't tell a wing from flaps, flaps from ailerons, etc. But of course, for this information to be displayed as prominently as your fringe paranoid theories, is impossible, because you seem to insist on hiding it. I am here to help build an encyclopaedia in a NPOV way, you however, as evident by your edits to this article are here to WP:SOAPBOX and present only fringe, tin foil hat theories in your drive to demonise whoever and whatever. Enough is enough. I will be seeking further comment on this from uninvolved editors....of course, I expect you to call them web brigade members as you do me. Perhaps you need to step back a bit and look at your edits from others points of view. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, tell me, what happens if an aircraft is travelling at 165km/h, has flaps at 11° instead of 20° (20° being necessary to create the necessary amount of lift on the Yak-40 at the correct speed) and the pilots take off too early because they have not taken into account the incorrect flaps settings? I'll tell you what is the most likely result...the aircraft will stall, and due to not having enough speed, lift and altitude, it will crash into the ground. It's all covered in the reports. But you are inconveniently removing that information. We are to present information and let readers decide for themselves. You however, are making that decision for them. That's called soapboxing. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the changes made to the article in order to include ALL theories. This is the only way to balance out POV. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 12:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at the text. All your materials have been included in the text: 11° instead of 20°, and so on. In addition, they have been also included in footnotes.Biophys (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not how things are done Biophys, and you know it. What is in the article is YOUR POV, with everyone else thrown in the footnotes; let's face it, a lot of people will only read the text in the article proper and not even look at footnotes; so what people don't see is that he was an unplanned addition to the flight; which somewhat farts on the conspiracy theory that you have presented. What you are doing is a great disservice to this article, especially as only fringe conspiracy theories are allowed to shine thru. I'm not getting into an edit war with you on this, I will ask other members of the web brigade editors for their opinion. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry man, but instead of discussing this article subject, you accuse me personally of something that I never did. This is not the way to go. On the other hand, asking 3rd opinions is a good idea.Biophys (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We are discussing the article content, and the article content is not acceptable because it is yourself you who poisoning NPOV by presenting prominently only your POV. Unfortunately, we can't discuss the article content without discussing your actions, and your motives behind them. Whilst I know what your motives are, they are bordering on WP:OWN. Information presented into the article does not belong in the footnotes, it belongs in the article proper. That is one of the BIG problems with this article. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 01:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A question

message: I separated facts of his death and speculations about his death to separate sections. All information was kept. What's wrong with it? Please explain.Biophys (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is WP:NEU. Speculations only (with consequent speculations on third persons like yeh Puten) do not deserve a separate section. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

text: For example, "According to publication, Putin lived in Georgia between the ages of three and nine." (!!!) Very informative passage in the AB article. And more... Hence, WP:NEU and WP:NPOV Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Biophys, the best way for you to end the conflict is to make self-revert. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. I removed this as separate section and placed the remotely relevant segment to a footnote.Biophys (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the problem?

message: The results of official commission were controversial. Please see this: "Эту точку зрения разделяют не все члены комиссии. Один из членов комиссии приложил к окончательному отчёту особое мнение.
Государственный центр "Безопасность полётов на воздушном транспорте" (ГЦ БП ВТ) в научно-техническом отчёте по результатам исследования динамики взлёта самолёта Як-40Д RA-88170 отметил, что учитывая сходимость характеристик самолёта Як-40Д RA-88170, полученных в аварийном полёте, с характеристиками самолёта Як-40Д RA-98114, на котором проводились специальные лётные испытания, можно сделать вывод о том, что взлёт самолёта Як-40Д RA-88170 выполнялся при отсутствии льда на поверхности крыла." 
Most important, we should not do our own analysis of primary sources, such as original Russian documents by aviation commissions. Please use reliable secondary sources.Biophys (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Stating that the results of the official commission is controversial, in the article, without a source saying so, is original research. Additionally, a reliable secondary source is already being used in the article, that being  from the Aviation Safety Network. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 06:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I will bring a secondary source (a book) later. You probably did not see recent documentary about Borovik at Russian TV. Most of the people involved in the case agree that the crash was actually an assassination, but the opinions differed on the matter who was actually targeted (Borovik or Bazhaev) and who was behind the assassination.Biophys (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming that investigation results are contraversial just because official investigation contains dissenting opinion from one man who opines that crash was due to engine malfunction is nonsense. All US Supreme Court decision were also contraversial if they have dissenting opinions? Both main opinion and dissenting opinion do not confirm that crash was provoked or organized. You have distorted original source meaning by stating it was contraversial and injected Original research about de-icing. Sorry, but such wording cannot stand by any WP standarts. Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The crash