Talk:Boris Stomakhin/Archive 2

message: Biophys, I've read the articles of Novodvorskaya and nowhere in them Stomakhin was described as "peaceful political dissident".
http://grani.ru/Politics/Russia/FSB/m.114531.html
http://grani.ru/opinion/novodvorskaya/m.114765.html
The same is true for Gannushkina for in your source there is no description of Stomakhin by Gannushkina as "peaceful political dissident"
http://www.grani.ru/Society/Law/m.114655.html
As for both of them in their opinions they do not talk at all about free speech -- they talk about definition of hate speech and about whether the articles of Stomakhin could incite real actions.
Your passage on opinion of Novodvorskaya and Ganuushkina is a product of your original research which is forbidden in biographies. You should either rewrite it according to the sources, or delete it. I will delete it, in case you wouldn't rewrite it according to the sources.
I think you should read the sources before putting them in Encyclopedia article. Vlad fedorov 11:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stomakhin as a dissident - Opinions of Novodvorskaya and Gannushkina

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Stomakhin
I would like to note, that although Boris Stomakhin is not dissedent for he called for violent change of constitutional regime and called to exterminate Russian people as ethnicity, Biophys intentionally and maliciously described in categories Stomakhin as dissident. The definition of dissident is wrong even according to Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissident.
I would like to note, that Boris Stomakhin is not political prisoner, as Wikipedia states political prisoner "is someone held in prison or otherwise detained, perhaps under house arrest, because their ideas or image are deemed by a government to either challenge or threaten the authority of the state. However, it also happens that political prisoners are arrested and tried with a veneer of legality, where false criminal charges, manufactured evidence, and unfair trials are used to disguise the fact that an individual is a political prisoner.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_prisoner.
Boris Stomakhin was convicted not by the initiative of the government, but by the initiative of the abused ordinary people, which could be clearly seen from the official convictions and court sentence. No trial abuse, no false criminal charges, no manufacured evidence ever existed or were proved in fair trial. The  Biophys published false information in his article "Human rights in Russia" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Russia which was created , and contributed by him personally, and systematically tries to find ways to make false information to seem true. With this goal he describes Stomakhin as dissident(peaceful politician trying to change regime in non-violent ways) and political prisoner. The reason for these actions is that in his article "Human rights in Russia" he wrote that Stomakhin is a political prisoner.
Biophys systematically tries to advance his own opinion and through summary making process tries to remove substantial facts about Boris Stomakhin in his article. Although administrator Alex Bacharev resolved one dispute arised between us, he tried to remove the consensus version of Stomakhin's citations which proved his own opinion wrong and which is sourced according to Wikipedia standards.
Biophys also creates articles about institutions where he presents them from only one biased sides in order to support his underlying article "Human rights in Russia".Vlad fedorov 05:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Stomakind did nothing violent, he is a peaceful dissident and political prisoner according to Wikipedia definitions. What is the difference between him and Andrei Sinyavsky? They wrote very different things, but they both were prosectuted for their writings and defamed by court as criminals. Even Maksim Sokolov regognizes that Stomakind was prosecuted (and rightly so! - according to Sokolov) for his writings. Threfore, they both are dissidents and political prisoners.Biophys 05:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I again cite "Political dissidents use non-violent means of political dissent". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissident Calls for extermination of all Russians as ethnic group is not a criteria of dissident. Stomakhin called to commit terrorist attacks on civilians, Stomakhin called to change violently the constitutional regime. Vlad fedorov 05:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He did not do anything violent.  If he is a russophob or a facist  but I am a russophil or anti-facist - this is only a difference of opinions, as long as we are only talking with each other.  I should not put him to the prison even if he tels me: "you deserve to be bombed and die". But if he assaults me on the street, then yes, he belongs to prison. Biophys 05:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was reported in press, that during terrorist hostage taking drama in Nord-West, terrorists "contacted with activists of Revolutionary Contact Association" and they "may be involved in supplying terrorists with amunition and its storing at Moscow" http://ytro.ru/articles/20021028012028108125.shtml Press article Baraev's group was assisted by someone from Moscow. Dissidents and Political Prisoners do not use calls for extermination of a nation, neither call to make an atomic explosion. And you definitely nor Russophil, neither anti-fascist. Vlad fedorov 07:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated Vandalism and Violations of Wikipedia policy

message: Stomakhin is not a dissident. "A dissident, broadly defined, is a person who actively opposes an established opinion, policy, or structure". See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissident.
There is no established opinion, policy, or structure on the Chechnya in Russian Federation and Mr. Stomakhin himself is the best living evidence of this fact. If I has disagreements with you, am I also a dissident and victim of political your prosecution?
Stomakhin is the political opponent of the ruling party. Do not victimize him and do not make any parallels with "soviet dissidents" such as academic Sakharov. 
Second, "the term was introduced to describe intellectual opposition to non-capitalist regimes, conducted without plans or capability for a regime change, coup, or uprising". See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissident.
Mr. Stomakhin never represented the opinion of intellectual opposition and his views were never shared by the democratic parties in Russian Federation. The ruling party in Russian Federation does support capitalism. Mr. Stomkhin called not for peacefull and legal change of the constitutional regime, but for violent and unlawful change of it. He also was gathering funds for financing these activities.
Considering that all the criteria of the term dissident which are covered  in the related article of Wikipedia for this term are not met, I changed   his description for "opposition figure". He certainly can't be called "opposition leader" since his RCA counted only 5 members.
Vlad fedorov 20:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a legal expert either. I only cited the source - the article by Abarinov. If you have other good sources (not blogs or extremist web cites) that claim the opposite - you can cite them. Biophys 20:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Wikipedia writes that Kavkaz Center is not extremist website, then Stomakhin's site rko.marsho.net is definitely not extremist.Vlad fedorov 13:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition

message: I made a few minor changes. Now this article seems to be fair enough except one thing: citation in the end.  I believe this citation violates Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons for two reasons. Biophys 19:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please note that you can't do original research, I have cited Stomakhin's words and have identified reliable sources of them. I don't have to prove anything. These words are widely cited by Izvestia newspaper. As you have cited Human Rights article about the intention of prosecution to render Stomakhin mentally ill, then I could cite the words of Stomakhin to make readers judge themselves. You shouldn't worry yourself with the explanation of Stomakhin's citations, as you are not a collective reader or Wikipedia. Vlad fedorov 19:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Marsho.net is not a blog, but hosting for radical organizations websites where Revolutionary Contact Association of Stomakhin is hosted. Please, prove the opposite with the evidence. His website contains the whole archive of "Radikalnaya Politika", the programms of RCA and their official statements that are cited by lenta.ru, utro.ru - all the news portals, all the articles are signed by Stomakhin personally. This website address is given in some numbers of "Radikalnyja Politika" as an address of RCA. I have also cited specific source for these specific citations - newspaper Izvestia. You don't know what is the source of Izvestia journalist, and therefore you couldn't be judging reliability of his source. You have no any sound arguments. "Probably" is not an argument. The source saying that Stomakhin was convicted for an article he actually did not write -- contradicts to the official court sentence. You may cite it, but you can't prohibit me to point to the other sources which are as reliable as yours. Vlad fedorov 19:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  You could also report your own biased use of categories, biased summaries of Stomakhin's views, citations of opinions of only Stomakhin supporters and your own history of contribution to Wikipedia - from which your political orientation is quite clear. Vlad fedorov 19:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, I am going to delete this again. Note that "three strikes rule" do not apply to defamation of living persons. Biophys 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Citation of the words said personally by individual in his biography is not defamation. These same citations are contained in Russian version of Wikipedia and sources there are found verifiable. You have intentionally named Stomakhin dissident, you have intentionally posted a passage which vindicates prosecution of trying to render Stomakhin incapable - which is defamation actually and a crime according to the Laws of Russian Federation. Vlad fedorov 05:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  O'K, I am trying to find some reasonable compromise here. I still do not think this article satisfy Wikipedia requirements for biographies of living persons - as it is right now. But I could be wrong.  So, I left a message at the notice board and asked some outside people to review this article. If they decide it is O'K (although I do not think so), I have no objections.  Biophys 14:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are not trying to find compromise. You censor constantly what I write trying to delete passages (Stomakhin citations) which show his real opinion as to Russian ethnic group. These passages were already edited by Alex Bachrinov - admnistrator of Wikipedia - and present a review from independent person. Vlad fedorov 15:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons

message: I think some of our differences can be resolved by simply following Wikipedia guidelines.  They say: 
"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."
They also say:
"Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. See self-published sources for exceptions."
"A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication.  Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field."
We do not even know if this RCO web site is a "self-published" (I mean published by Stomakhin) source. So we must agree that we do not cite tis site. Of course, one can cite Maksim Sokolov and say that he cited a statement "allegedly made by Stomakhih". Aleks Bakharev and others, is that correct?Biophys 16:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Are you a censor here? Human rights activist Biophys? You have to present evidence that rko.marsho.net is bulletin board, usenet or blog and was self-published. It's clearly identified as REVOLUTIONARY CONTACT ASSOCIATION web-site and not Stomakhin's website. And is published by marsho.net - which is hoster of extremist organizations websites.Vlad fedorov 08:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So, this is not a self-published source, you say. I tend to agree with you on that.  Thus, the Wikipedia "exceptions" do not apply. But this is obviously a host without any "editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking"! This site is run by several people with extreme political views  ("revolutionaries") who are obviously doing their propaganda. I would not trust anything there. This is certainly not a reliable source. Biophys 00:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to resolve our differences

message: Please see the official court sentence in which collegues of Stomakhin tell that he never organized himself the demonstrations, but participated in ones organized by other political organizations and parties. Instead, he organized illegal pickets, with participants from his RCA. On the official Revolutionary Contact Association website there are photos of their pickets which show that these are really not demonstrations with 5 to 7 participants wearing hand-made logos and slogans. I deleted the word demonstrations from the article. If someone wants to insert it, please cite the source according to which Stomakhin organized demonstrations and write that it is according to that specific source. Illegal demonstrations are subject to criminal liability. Vlad fedorov 09:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stomakhin never organized demonstrations

message: It is claimed by Biophys that Stomakhin's spine and legs were broken, but the links provided by Biophys link to the article which states that Stomakhin suffered a broken ankle and back injuries. http://www.cpj.org/attacks06/pages06/imprison_06.html#russia There is no official medical statement of his health condition available. Biophys, please cite according to which source you have found this false infromation about 'broken spin'.Vlad fedorov 09:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical condition of Stomakhin after second escape

message: By the edit (cur) (last)  23:24, 23 December 2006 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→External links) 
inserted the following external link
*A different version of this sentence (Russian)
This link refers the blog http://stomakhin.livejournal.com/ where not the court sentence as stated in the link, but Prosecution conviction is published. The whole document is entitled
ОБВИНИТЕЛЬНОЕ ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ Стомахина Бориса Владимировича
which translates as Conviction conclusion of Boris Vladimirovich Stomakhin. There are also pictures of original document which is signed by the official prosecutor Voroshilin. It is clear that this official document is not a court sentence and therefore user Biophys maliciously stated that there are two court sentences which differ. I draw attention to the fact that blogs couldn't be cited according to Wikipedia policies as reliable sources in living person biographies. Vlad fedorov 03:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated Falsification of Information by user Biophys

message: User Biophys inserted in section Arrest and Trial information that Boris Stomakhin was pushed from fourth flour. This statement was supported by the link to the statement of UCSJ http://www.fsumonitor.com/stories/110906PR.shtml.
This statement is false because Stomakhin jumped himself voluntarily from the fourth flour in an attempt to escape the arrest. The fact of voluntary jump by Stomakhin is confirmed by:
1)numerous news articles in news agencies and reports of NGO's
 http://www.prima-news.ru/news/news/2006/3/29/35420.html
 http://www.newsru.com/russia/03oct2006/stomaxin.html
 http://lenta.ru/articles/2006/11/20/court/
 http://www.regnum.ru/news/739771.html
 http://www.grani.ru/Society/Xenophobia/m.114646.html
 http://www.svobodanews.ru/articlete.aspx?exactdate=20061128140042880
 http://www.russianlife.nl/boris_stomakhin.htm
 http://arrests.cjes.ru/?id=282
2)Stomakhin's lawyer, Alexey Golubev, who in an interview to RIA Novosti, http://rian.ru/defense_safety/investigations/20061005/54549461.html and http://rian.ru/society/20061124/55959089.html, and to BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/russia/newsid_6152000/6152608.stm acknowledged the fact, that Stomakhin jumped himself from the window. Here is the citation:
"Когда Стомахина задерживали, он выпрыгнул с четвертого этажа своей квартиры, в результате чего получил двойной перелом позвоночника и перелом ноги", - сообщил ранее журналистам адвокат подсудимого Алексей Голубев. 
Therefore statement by Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union is false, as probably all other statements of this organization including its Director Micah H. Naftalin.
I would like to stress that this false information was deliberately inserted and cited in the article by user Biophys.Vlad fedorov 10:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attention.Statement of Union of Councils for Soviet Jews is false.

message: Despite explanation for my removal, the user Biophys repeatedly inserts in this article the material taken from blog. 
Bt the following edit, (cur) (last)  22:57, 26 December 2006 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→External links) 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Stomakhin&oldid=96625062
user Biophys has inserted the following text
"*Another text claimed to be a version of this sentence (Russian)" which leads to Livejournal entry.
By the second edit (cur) (last)  23:08, 26 December 2006 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Arrest and Trial)  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Stomakhin&oldid=96626967, user Biophys has inserted the following link "".
I would like to bring attention of all users of Wikipedia and its administrators that the user Biophys himself was falsely accusing me of publishing links to what he identified as blogs. He cited to me the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. It says that the information in blog may be cited only when it is written by subject himself. But the citation and material at blog http://stomakhin.livejournal.com were written on November 22nd, 2006 which is clearly shown in the blog. And there is absolutely true information that Boris Stomakhin was at this time in jail under arrest and therefore he couldn't have written this blog entry.
I have published the links to the Revolutionary Contact Association website - http://rko.marsho.net - which really not a blog.Vlad fedorov 05:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated violation by user Biophys of Wikipedia guidelines on Reliable sources

message: User Biophys inserted the following passage in the article
Micah H. Naftalin, Director of Union of Councils for Soviet Jews said: "Bogus charges aimed at stifling dissent, cruel police tactics, ethnic bias, and blatant disregard for criminal procedural statutes are all on open display. We hope that others will join us in condemning this travesty of justice"  UCSJ Calls For Fair Trial of Russian Jewish Activist, statement of UCSJ November 9, 2006) . 
He explained: "This sentence exposes the underlying hypocrisy of the Russian government's half-hearted struggle against extremist groups and hate speech. This month alone, the FSB refused to investigate the distribution of a neo-Nazi hit list containing the names and addresses of human rights activists whom the authors 'sentenced to death,' a publisher of a newspaper in Ulyanovsk who publicly called for the murder of Jews got a suspended sentence, and three youths who broke the jaw and fractured the skull of the Minister of Culture of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic while screaming racist slogans were sentenced to just six months to a year in prison. You don't have to agree with Mr. Stomakhin's radical, though non-violent, views on Chechnya to see that his sentence was disproportionate and unjust."  Jewish Activist Convicted in Russia, statement of UCSJ November 20, 2006  No one Jewish NGO in Russian Federation supported his view though.
I agree personally that the statement of Mr. Naftalin concerning the trial of Boris Stomakhin is relevant to the article. But as for his explanations, I would like to stress that they describe not Boris Stomakhin trial, and not the personality of Boris Stomakhin. They may be included in the article dedicated to this organization as it presents their opinion on the political events in Russia or in article dedicated to Politics in Russian Federation.
I completely disagree with user Biophys who deletes the notion of Union of Councils for Soviet Jews as a foreign NGO. The article dedicated to this organization in Wikipedia states that it is based in Washington, DC (and is therefore a foreign NGO) and has office in Russia, apart from offices worldwide. Therefore, the fact of having office in Russia doesn't make it national NGO, for there are tremendous number of organizations like Amnesty International having offices in Russia. But Amnesty International is British NGO, not russian.
Moreover, Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, falsely stated that Boris Stomakhin was probably pushed from the window during the arrest, which I have proved to be false, above. Therefore, their statements couldn't be verified and couldn't be relied upon as truthful.
Therefore, I have deleted the explanations of Mr. Naftalin, because they are irrelevant, not verified, nor reliable.Vlad fedorov 16:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning! Statement of Union of Councils for Soviet Jews contains false facts

message: User Biophys inserted citation of Boris Timoshenko from Glastonst Defence Foundation published at Jewish Russian Telegraph http://www.jrtelegraph.com/2006/12/russia_5_years_.html. From the homepage of this website it is clear that it is a blog. It is made on the WordPress engine, has explicit Headers 'Blogroll', 'Recent Posts', 'Recent Comments'. It has explicit statement that it has been nominated to Jewish and Israeli Blog Award. 
User Biophys also had written the following:
Committee to Protect Journalists condemned the court’s ruling and expressed hope that it would be overturned and also gave a link to the the same post in the same blog - http://www.jrtelegraph.com/2006/12/russia_5_years_.html.
According to the official Wikipedia policy on Biographies of living persons:
Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources
Therefore user Biophys intentionally and repeatedly violated the official Wikipedia policy.
I would like to bring the attention of administrators that it is not the first, nor the only violation by user Biophys.Vlad fedorov 07:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: <b>Attention!</b> Statement of Committee to Protect Journalists and Boris Timoshenko are taken from Blog

message: Some interesting links related to Stmakhin story:
*Opinion of Aleksander Litvineko (Russian)
*Letter by Sannikova and Bonner 
*For what reason Stomakhin tried to escape during his arrest 
*Boris Stomakhin against nuclear terrorism Biophys 04:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1 link to Chechen terrorists website. My attention has caught especially this phrase of Stomakhin which Litvinenko shares and supports and which makes them not dissidents:
"Не пацифистские стенания «правозащитников», не уговоры и «переговоры» с палачами и садистами — а только вооруженный удар!" translation "Not pacifist wails of 'human rights activists', not agreements and 'negotiations' with executioners and sadists - but only an armed strike!". If you would cite this phrase, you have to agree that Stomakhin wasn't dissident and politically prosecuted person, he is a criminal who calls for violent change of constitutional regime. And so is Litvinenko who supports Stomakhin claims according to this article. What is more laughable is that Litvinenko citing the above phrase of Stomakhin calls him "political dissident" while calling for violence.
2 links to zaborisa.narod.ru. Narod.ru is the domain for personal pages of users of yandex.ru portal. Here we definitly know that there is no editorial review, unlike at the Revolutionary Contact Association website where Stomakhin - journalist according to your assertions - published his articles and which is not personal page of search engine users.Vlad fedorov 05:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some links

message: I could not find any links to the alleged Stomakhin publications today. That is exactly what can happen with unreliable sources. Right now, this is a completely different site and address. Now they posted only three articles allegedly written by Stomakhin: , , and 
. Author of last article (maybe indeed Stomakhin - who knows?) says: "Chechens have every right to bomb anything in Russia" (as in the court sentence) but claims that the bombing in Moscow metro were actually organized by FSB.  Biophys 05:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please click the following link, for they are working rught now http://rko.marsho.net/ and http://rko.marsho.net/articl/tushino.htm for they are working properly.Vlad fedorov 05:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see.  Here it is: . Biophys 05:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please note that there is another website which is a mirror actually http://rko.front.ru/articl/articl.htm. Vlad fedorov 07:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All articles by Boris Stomakhin disappeared from RKO web site?

message: Someone have deleted my arguments from this talk page. I would like to repeat one of them.  In my opinion, Stomakhin is only a normal "liberal" who likes strong statements - by US standards. He is not even a real "anarchist". I have seen many people in US whose political views were more extreme than views of Stomakhin. All these people are free and promte their views relentlessly. How about Ann Coulter who said about Muslim countries: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." (but others say something like that about US). Ann Coulter is a famous women, not a prisoner. This is freedom of speech. Biophys 00:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your point? This kind of opinion is quite prominently presented in the article.  `'mikka 08:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained my point above. The texts of citation of alleged Stomakhin paper "Death to Russia" by Sokolov and extremist RKO web site are clearly inconsistent with each other (two first phrases in the continuous citation by Sokolov can not be found in the "complete" text of RKO site). Therefore, I believe both sources are unreliable and this 'citation should be excluded from the text of this article, although the reference to "alleged" Stomakhin witings can remain.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biophys (talk • contribs) 15:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Lies, lies, lies. If you will compare texts written at rko.marsho.net and zaborisa.narod.ru, zaborisa.marsho.net of course you will find discrepancies. Since the latter two sites were created when Stomakhin was arrested and it's clearly not Stomakhin who wrote (or edited) the articles on them. But articles at rko.marsho.net are his articles. I again reiterate my point - you have no any reliable evidence sitting in US that the these websites are blogs, that they are run by extremists. By the way, you cite Bonner and Litvinenko and Bukovsky from these same sites and you seem pretty well contented with the source.Vlad fedorov 04:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, you confirm: these sources are unreliable (but I talked also about article by Sokolov). I made this citation only to show that one could find any garbage in RKO site (but probably not in zaborisa.narod.ru site which is different from RKO) and put it in Wikipedia. I would not mind eliminating all Russian language sources together (including Bonner, Litvinenko and Bukovsky) and use only English language sources, as I proposed in the living person notice bord - to find a compromise.Biophys 14:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would like all readers to read the message of Biophys once more and compare with my previous message in which I prove that zaborisa.narod.ru site is a site which actually different from the official RCA site and was created while Stomakhin was put under arrest. Therefore it couldn't be Stomakhin who wrote articles on zaborisa.narod.ru.Vlad fedorov 12:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you give me an example of me citing THAT in Wikipedia? The reason I cited one citation of Stomakhin is that the citation we discuss had become widely cited, e.g. Izvestia and others. And you cannot tell me RKO is not appropriate cite. You cite Bonner, Litvinenko, Bukovsky from site created in support of Stomakhin when he was arrested. So what's your problem, again? Isn't it strange that you attempted to claim that even article in Izvestia was "falsification"? You already been told on Putin's talk page that your allegations that Putin was involved in killing of Kennedy and Ceasar are not appropriate for Wikipedia. You have to live with your bad taste. Do not await that everyone will tolerate you garbage about conspiracy theories. Looking at your contributions I have to suppose that you have some kind of mania on Russia. Being russian and writing only negative things about your sweet home is kinda bad education. Could you wrote just one good thing about human rights in modern Russia? I think no and this is patalogy.Vlad fedorov 04:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably you have to look at archive page, pal before accusations. Isn't that why you delete my whole translation of following Stomakhin citation Supporting fighting Chechnya, uniting publicly with Basaev, openly joining the side of Movsar Baraev at the days of Nord-Ost -- we have crossed the border, behind which any connections break and vanish with the past, with the environment, with people among which you have been born and have been growing-up and lived, trustingly considering yourself a part of this, until on the foreign "enemy" website have read and have seen with own eyes terrifying details of deeds made by these people in neighboring, tiny mountain country. So the Rubicon is crossed, the choice is made, and there is nowhere to retreat - now there is no for us any other family, except for oppressed by our "Empire" peoples, except fighting for liberation from yoke partisans, famous field commanders like Basaev, political parties which put forward demands for monetary compensation of occupation and return of taken away territories by replacing it with yours edited and taken out of the conext citation *"We do not have any other family in the World except all oppressed nations of "our" Empire, except those who fight for liberation from this Empire as Shamil Basayev." Vlad fedorov 04:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone deleted my arguments from this talk page

message: Hello Mikka. You see that Biophys is persistent in his attempts to distort repeatedly this article. He is considering that in 5 days, weeks, months he will revert the article again to satisfy his opinion and tastes. Please consider locking the article or baning Biophys from editing it. Just look at his (Biophys) contributions - I think everything is clear from them. He inserts only sources which defame everything which is Russian, but that's no problem. The problem is that he couldn't understand and is not willing to understand opinion of other people. He's just harassing articles about Russian politics by making reverts, deleting sourced statements like it was in Politkovskaya article, by inserting conspiracy theories in Putin's article, where you could read answers of non-russian users to Biophys on talk page (it's worth reading definitely). Just look at the article on FSB which, thanks to Biophys,contains more than half of the article dedicated to conspiracy theoris, hearsays, convictions and unsupported statements about (on) FSB and just compare with article on CIA. Have you ever seen in this article (CIA article) consipracy theory that CIA was behind September 11th? Serbsky Institute... Litvinenko... This guy is weird.Vlad fedorov 04:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please lock the article or ban Biophys from editing it 

message: There are a few statements in the article like "No Jewish organization in Russia supported..." "No human rights organization presented ..." etc. These are very strong statements. Do you really know in details all the decision of Jewish (or HR) Organizations? There are many of them; it is quite possible that the Jews of some Vasyuki town decided to support Stomakhin but we just do not know about it. On another levels these statements that something has not happened are intended to be arguments supporting a point of view. As such they should be attributed to somebody (or go to the talk if it is our invention). Please either provide sources or remove the statements Alex Bakharev 12:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR 

message: It is very clear (see my arguments above) that Sokolov's citation of Stomakhin and the "articles" from RKO web site do not satisfy formal Wikipedia criteria of reliable sources. So, I am going to follow exactly Wikipedia rules and revert any versions where this citation would appear (or any other versions with clear violations of Wikipedia LP policies). 3RR rule does not apply. Please understand. I do not like Stomakhin.  If I only knew about such infighting and waist of time, I would have never created this article about him. But since this article has been already created by me, I feel responsible for having such version that does not defame a living person by using controversial and contradictory sources.Biophys 17:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh.. So you call me 'FSB brigade' working in Wikipedia, Biophys? It's a personal attack, and attempt to abuse me, that will be remembered by me and in appropriate event used. +1 score to me. BTW, I could also site your special interest in Putin, 'Phallus' article for example. And your love for conspiracy theories which is disgusted by every Wiki user.Vlad fedorov 19:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So is it OK to Wikipedia standards to make deals and bargains with administrators to violate Wikipedia policies? Your suggestion that you 'really do not want to write about any controversial topics', after inserting Putin's abuse in the 'Phallus' article are especially ridiculous. It's not the first time you vow and claim that you never be writing on controversial topics, but the fact is that you always do it. Anyway I have posted first official warnings for you.Vlad fedorov 16:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not clear. It's clear from my arguments that Stoamkhin article "Death to Russia" is an authentic text written by the subject. And you are right, the article 'doesn't defame', you shouldn't feel responsible for that, really.Vlad fedorov 05:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further actions

message: 1. User:Biophys removed Stomakhin in his articles advocated terrorist attacks on Russian civilians, called to overthrow violently current government of Russian Federation, called to exterminate all Russians
*Stomakhin advocated terrorist attacks on Russian civilians.
This is supported by the numerous press reports (see below), by the citation which is already present in the article and the text of court sentence: "Bombing in Moscow subway was justified, natural and legal... The Chechens have full moral right to blow up anything they want in Russia after what Russia and Russians did to them, none objections on humanism and philanthropy could be accepted."[2] Moreover this is reported by RIAN news agency at  and by REGNUM news agency  Речь идет о публикациях в информационном бюллетене "Радикальная политика" и на сайтах чеченских сепаратистов в 2000 - 2004 гг. публицистических материалов, которые, по оценке следствия, носили антиконституционный характер, содержали призывы к осуществлению экстремистской деятельности, одобрение действий чеченских террористов, включая Шамиля Басаева, Мовсара Бараева, Салмана Радуева и др., а также позволял себе в отношении России как государства, руководства страны, российских политиков и российских военнослужащих, а также Русской православной церкви и русских как нации "отрицательные эмоциональные оценки", "унизительные характеристики" и "негативные установки на уничтожение".
*Stomakhin called to overthrow violently current government of Russian Federation.
This is supported again by the citation from the court sentence that is already present in the article: "We, 'Revolutionary Contact Association' and 'Radical Politics' are united with the Committee and are ready to cooperate with it. It is understood that we [are] a lot more radical than it. We are for not waiting until 2008 and we shouldn't bother ourselves particularly with Constitution, but we are for calling people to overthrow and liquidate Putin's regime as soon as possible. And we at all do not see possibility of preserving of present Russian Federation as a single state. But we are for common front with all our allies, even more moderate".[2] Citation from the court sentence which clearly supports the above phrase: Таким образом Стомахин Б.В. являясь членом РКО, осознанно действуя в интересах данного объединения, планировал и призывал совершать действия, запрещенные Федеральным Законом № 114-ФЗ от 25.07.2002 года "О противодействии экстремистской деятельности" и являющиеся экстремистскими, а именно: насильственное изменение основ конституционного строя и нарушения целостности Российской Федерации;
*Stomakhin called to exterminate all Russians.
This is supported by the court sentence again  Таким образом Стомахин Б.В. являясь членом РКО, осознанно действуя в интересах данного объединения, планировал и призывал совершать действия, запрещенные Федеральным Законом № 114-ФЗ от 25.07.2002 года "О противодействии экстремистской деятельности" и являющиеся экстремистскими... обращался к гражданам и организациям лично и через издаваемый им бюллетень "Радикальная политика", обладающий в соответствии с Законом всеми признаками экстремистских материалов, как документы и иная информация на иных носителях, предназначенные для обнародования и призывающие к осуществлению экстремисткой деятельности, обосновывающие и оправдывающие необходимость осуществления такой деятельности, обосновывающие и оправдывающие национальное и (или) расовое превосходство и оправдывающие практику совершения военных и иных преступлений, направленных на полное или частичное уничтожение какой-либо этнической, социальной, расовой, национальной или религиозной группы (статья 1 Закона). Also it is supported by citation from Stomakhin itself Kill, Kill, Kill! To flood all Russia with blood, to not give a quarter to anyone, to try to make at least one atomic explosion on the territory of Russian Federation -- this is like the program of radical Resistance should be, and Russian's, and Chechen's, and anyone's! Let the Russians, according to their deserts, reap as they has sown . Russians should be killed, and only killed, for there is no one among them who is normal, intelligent, or who can be talked with and for understanding of whom we could rely. Harsh collective responsibility of all Russians should be introduced, of all loyal Russian citizens for the actions of the government elected by them -- for the genocide, executions, ordeals, trade with corpses... From that moment there should be no division of killers on combatant and non-combatant, wilful or forced.
Moreover, we should add from the court sentence that Stomakhin Стомахин Б.В., в своем информационном бюллетене "Радикальная политика" №1 (27) за январь 2003 года и № 9 (35) за 2003 года указал на неполноценность православного народа, передав изложенными им словесными оборотами о православии оскорбительные характеристики и отрицательные эмоциональные оценки верующих, выражения дискриминационного отношения к православию, как религии, отмечая о необходимости ликвидации таковой веры, исповедуемой русским народом, унижая, тем самым национальное достоинство граждан, исповедующих данную веру. Since it is also supported by Regnum news agency Автор также призывал не признавать православие.
2. User:Biophys removed of extremist political group "Revolutionary Contact
The court sentence itself says "Таким образом Стомахин Б.В. являясь членом РКО, осознанно действуя в интересах данного объединения, планировал и призывал совершать действия, запрещенные Федеральным Законом № 114-ФЗ от 25.07.2002 года "О противодействии экстремистской деятельности" и являющиеся экстремистскими. The court sentence qualifies his activities as extremist. Whta do we need else in order to call him extremist?
3. User:Biophys removed despite Stomakhin's claims that he is politically prosecuted in Russian Federation.
This is sourced by News agencies , Grani.ru , Prima New Agency .
: If you insist, we can include that. Biophys
4. User:Biophys removed (Stomakhin's lawyer Alexei Golubev RIAN News Agency investigation RIAN News Agency news article stated that Stomakhin jumped out of the window voluntarily.)
No need to argue that this sourced material should be kept in the article, since some sources give suspicions that Stomakhin 'was pushed from the window' which could give birth to suspicions of readers.
: This is already supported in the previous phrase by several references. Biophys 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, Itis not supported. You have deleted both citations and both sentences that show Jewish Union statement contained fasle facts.Vlad fedorov 06:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: O'K, we can include that. Biophys 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: See objection by Alex Bakharev.Biophys 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no conclusion in statement of Bakharev. There is only mentioning it's a strong phrase. This is not the reason for deletion.Vlad fedorov 06:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is taken from the same court sentence. It says: "Так, в публикации "Невменяемость" Буданова — залог победы Басаева...". So that was about Budanov. But we have to explain that Budanov is the man who raped Elza Kungaeva. Biophys 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is already said in the previous sentence.Biophys 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nothing is said. The court sentence contains these facts, and I will make a link to the court sentence and will include it in the article.Vlad fedorov 06:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nothing was "forged" there. The citation is currently included. No source tells about prisoner of conscience, as was argued before. Biophys 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look in the dictionary what 'forged' means. You have deleted undisputed text without any reason. Explain why you have deleted sourced mention that 'Valeria Novodvorskaya agrees that Stomakhin is not a "prisoner of conscience"'!Vlad fedorov 06:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is actually included. Biophys 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my opinion, any dated materials on the Russian-language site  (but not on RKO site!) can be used (unless this is a secondary reference to a poor source, such as blogs and wikis). The court sentence was taken from there, and there are other materials.   Many of your qquestions have been already disscused and explained (so we are not going to repeat). It is important that the court sentence and proceedings were disputed by Stomakhin's lawyer and human rights organizations. Therefore, we should refer to the court's accuations only as court accusations (as we did in the part about the court). The political views of Stomakhin (he compared Putin with Saddam Hussein, etc.) should be described exactly as in non-controversial journal publications, but not as in the court sentence (the court accusations and conviction are described below and separately as such). If you find anything clearly and directly stated in the good journal publications about political views of Stomakhin, that would be appropriate to include in the beginning of the article. Please tell, what of this kind is missing.Biophys 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  illegally removed material from the article by Biophys 

message: Alex, thank you for the intervention. But you almost restored the old version by Vlad. Everyone can compare and see it.  Yes, I am ready to find some kind of a compromise. For example, we can prominently represent the Sokolov's opinion. The only thing we can not compromise is defamation of a living person using controversial sources. So, I will do some editing of your version (probably today or tomorrow) to show what compromise is appropriate in my view. Biophys 16:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version says: "According to his court sentence Stomakhin in his articles advocated terrorist attacks on Russian civilians [1]...". But reference [1] and others is not court sentence. Biophys 18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Journalists have right not to disclose their sources, so you waist your time by censoring Izvestia articles. There is no requirement for the source to have a date in Wikipedia rules. There is no requirement for the journalists of respectful newspaper such as Izvestia to disclose their sources. Adminstrator Bakharev found the article "Death to Russia" to be reliable source, for it is he who reinserted this into the artcle. Adminstrator Mikka also found it to be reliable and was reinserting it after your edits. And I also found it to be reliable and to be in accord with the Wikipedia policies. You alone is a man who found it to be unreliable. Three versus one - guess what? Biophys, I beg you to stop this trolling. You know that your cited letters of Bukovsky and other statements in support of Stomakhin are also undated, moreover they just represent statement which is sighned by some people including Bukovsky and others. The real authors of these statements are unknown and therefore it is unappropriate to name them 'letter by Bonner' or 'statement of Bukovsky'. They are published at narod.ru - which is a place where all people could make their own personal websites - it is a project of yandex.ru Search portal. We couldn't trust to Google user pages and couldn't trust to every page at Geocities (which is project of Yahoo search protal). Your sources are shaky, but nevertheless I never raised any objections. Vlad fedorov 08:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also note that current version says three times (!) about his court conviction: (1) "According to his court sentence Stomakhin in his articles advocated terrorist attacks on Russian civilians..."; (2) "Stomakhin was accused of the extremist activities, calls to violent change of Constitutional regime, calls to violate territorial integrity of Russian Federation,..."; (3) "He was sentenced to five years of prison for inciting religious and ethnic hatred, promoting violent change of constitutional regime". Obviously, this suppose to be said only in the part about his conviction. Well, may be two times if you so insist, but three times?. This is not a major point though. Biophys 18:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: See this paragraph:
"According to his court sentence Stomakhin in his articles advocated terrorist attacks on Russian civilians[1], called to overthrow violently current government of Russian Federation[1], called to exterminate all Russians[1], Stomakhin claimed that modern Russia is Evil empire and therefore must be destroyed, called Russians a "nation of occupiers", and compared President Vladimir Putin to Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic.[2] Stomakhin considered terrorists Shamil Basaev and Salman Raduev as heroes of Chechen resistance and claimed that terrorist acts committed by them are legitimate [3]. On the other hand, opposition and some human rights activists like Valeria Novodvorskaya and Yakov Krotov interpreted his writings as a graphic description of the possible feelings of Chechen people rather than the actual advocating of the terrorist activities [4]"
First, the opinions of Valeria Novodvorskaya and Yakov Krotov are completely irrelevant here. We have a separate chapter about "opinions". Second, court sentence is also irrelevant; we have a separate chaper about the court. One should put it there (but it is already there! However, this is not a major point, so we can leave it there, and just make a little bit shorter. Reference [3] is also court decision. Third, court sentence does not say all things covered by reference [1] which is not court decision. What we have here is only reference [2] (could be more of course, but not "Death to Russia", which can be mentioned with regard to Maksim Sokolov opinion (if you insist that he had in mind this alleged and  not named article, although actually he cited something else!). Biophys 19:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Opinions of Novodvorskaya and Krotov here refer and concern the views of Stomakhin and not his trial - it is evident just from reading it. That perfectly justifies their citations. Biophys, the court sentence gives an estimate of Stomakhin views. We no longer need to site some special sources. The court sentence is a valid source according to Wikipedia rules. And, Oh I forgot, it is also dated as specifically required by you.Vlad fedorov 05:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So I made first edit. Others will follow.Biophys 19:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you again refused to acknowledge that your arguments are wrong, and do contradict to Wikipedia policy.Vlad fedorov 05:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alex attempt to find a compromise

message: My position is not to include this material at all as unreliable (at best), plain and simple. You think it should be included.  Now, I will take for a minute your position and show what kind of trouble it is.  According to Vlad (see above), this article was published after the conviction, and therefore it has not been cited in the court sentence. Fine, maybe he is right, although we do not know for sure, since this text was not dated. So, Sokolov is trying to justify Stomakhin's conviction based on something that Stomakhin did already after this conviction?. This is nonsense. But maybe that was the reason why Sokolov did not indicated his source? I have no idea. This is mess. That is exactly why we should not use unreliable sources.  But most important, the text cited by Sokolov is different from the text on RKO site. So, we do not know what is that he had cited and even Sokolov himself did tell in his article what it that he is citing. Biophys 00:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, I simply noted that the source of the text was not identified by Sokolov (and in fact it is inconsistent with the text in alleged article "Death to Russia"), and I briefly summarized the essence of this article. Obviously, the most important thing is announcement of nuclear war to Russian Federation by author of this article.  I guess, the author of this article was actually Superman.   Biophys 01:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you wrote above is called censoring. How could speak about human rights in 'Human rights in Russia' article if you are censor, indeed. You claim Izvestia correspondent is lying? Are you claiming that Izvestia is non-reliable source? What you wrote above is also original research by you and guesses where journalist have taken the material.Vlad fedorov 08:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have explained many times that I do not challenge Izvestia as a source,   but only a particular contradictory, unsourced and ridiculous citation by Maksim Sokolov. Of course, Izvestia and Maksim Sokolov could be challenged, but I am not doing it. Biophys 05:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you challange Izvestia as you delete citations of Stomakhin where he calls to make terrorist attacks on Russian civilians. You have deleted this phrase which is supported by both court sentence and Sokolov's article in Izvestia. Therefore you challenge the information published there by making original research. You are now practically censoring the article, by claiming that particular sections must be sourced by materials coming only from press, or you name them defamatory which is strange, since you are not Stomkahin, who could sue anyone if he would feel he is defamed.Vlad fedorov 08:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I finished. Seems to be better. Biophys 01:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You again have deleted sourced and relevant information.Vlad fedorov 05:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now, I finally realized why did Sokolov inserted these two phrases! The text of alleged article "Death to Russia" was so increadibly stupid that author did not even tell who should attack Russia. So, Sokolov wrote himself these two phrases about Chechen Shakhids to explain that it were they who should destroy Russia using their nuclear arsenal (if they only had one and were waiting for an order from the author to use their nuclear weapons). But this is OR, of course.Biophys 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about good faith rule of Wikipedia? You violate this rule by stating things above.Vlad fedorov 06:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Original research by Biophys in action.Vlad fedorov 05:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made these changes because of unreliable sources as explained above, not due to OR. You can simply ignore my previous statement if you do not like it.Biophys 05:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a rule in Wikipedia, that before making any changes to the article, editor must discuss his suggested edit with other authors. You never discuss any your edits. You just write few sentences on a talk page and then edit without getting the opinion of others. You must be ashamed of your behavior. As we already seen, you are the only one here who think that some sources are 'unreliable'. Three other authors disagree with you. Despite your defeat you continue to troll the article by calling material you dislike or which doesn't conform to your POV 'defamatory' and 'unreliable', it is called trolling actually. Your POV is already present in the article. More than half of the article is dedicated to your POV. How about other POV?Vlad fedorov 08:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have asked you to provide the direct evidence that those sources are unreliable and relevant passage from Wikipedia policies. Journalists have right not to disclose their sources, so you waist your time by censoring Izvestia articles. There is no requirement for the source to have a date in Wikipedia rules. There is no requirement for the journalists of respectful newspaper such as Izvestia to disclose their sources. Adminstrator Bakharev found the article "Death to Russia" to be reliable source, for it is he who reinserted this into the artcle. Adminstrator Mikka also found it to be reliable and was reinserting it after your edits. And I also found it to be reliable and to be in accord with the Wikipedia policies. You alone is a man who found it to be unreliable. Three versus one - guess what? You may complain to whoever you wish, but you are wrong and decline to accept your defeat.Vlad fedorov 06:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Biophys, I beg you to stop this trolling. You know that your cited letters of Bukovsky and other statements in support of Stomakhin are also undated, moreover they just represent statement which is sighned by some people including Bukovsky and others. The real authors of these statements are unknown and therefore it is unappropriate to name them 'letter by Bonner' or 'statement of Bukovsky'. They are published at narod.ru - which is a place where all people could make their own personal websites - it is a project of yandex.ru Search portal. We couldn't trust to Google user pages and couldn't trust to every page at Geocities (which is project of Yahoo search protal). Your sources are shaky, but nevertheless I never raised any objections. Why you trolling specifically me? Boris Stomakhin is not a political prisoner and forget about labelling him with such words. Having this logic we should also call Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and many others as political prisoners! It is insane.Vlad fedorov 06:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Vlad, I have already spent enormous amount of time discussing this article with you. I have never had a trouble discussing anything with other users but you. Yes, we argued, but it was possible to find a common ground with everyone but you. This article is NPOV now. The political views of Stomakhin are very clear from the court sentence citations. But you want to paint him as a fascist using single unreliable citation. Why? Do you hate him so much? He is already sitting in prison. I think it would be very unfair and wrong to have a defamatory article in Wikipedia based on unreliable sources. Biophys 18:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am using as sources: 1)Official court sentence which found Stomakhin guilty of [[[Extremism]]; 2)articles from Izvestia, Komsomolskaya Pravda and Rossiyskaya Gazeta which have respective articles in English Wikipedia and are most respectable newspapers in Russia, and 3)materials written by Stomakhin personally. If these sources paint to your opinion Stomakhin as a fascist, then they may have good reason.Vlad fedorov 07:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged article "Death to Russia"

message: I did my best to make this article as NPOV as possible. Right now, nothing seems to be missing except unsupported defamatory statements. If something important and supported by good sources is missing, please tell what is it. Biophys 01:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to ask you not to fire 'defamatory' accusations on me or sources which are referenced by two or more reliable sources. After my edits, the article is sourced and referenced.Vlad fedorov 11:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last edits