Ilgiz

Wikipediägä räxim itegez! --Untifler 22:27, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ilgiz,

just for future reference, the verb sentire can mean either "feel" or "hear"; in this case it means "hear". The idiom (or maybe just slightly unusual grammatical construction) sentire parlare di means "to hear (someone else) speak of". --Trovatore 19:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

For this edit. [1] I hope to see you continue to follow my steps around here. 172 | Talk 18:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ilgiz, could you please take a look at Three Whales Corruption Scandal? Colchicum 16:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have filed a request concerning Vlad Fedorov's conduct. You might be interested in taking part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vlad fedorov, as you have been involved in some of the disputes. Colchicum 14:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:450_ap_statement_061124.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Vityaz_48_167.jpeg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 17:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for uploading Image:29small.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. OsamaK (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Как можно с Вами связаться? Напишите мне через Вики-почту пустое письмо пж-ста.--Barnaul (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete the Berezovsky information and reinsert the original research "Chronology of events" under the guise of "The editorial generalization of the references as if they "describe" the FSB plot arguments as a "conspiracy theory" is single-sided. We have a break-down of these references in the same section."?--Miyokan (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I believe Wikipedia editors' interpretation of the sources should remain as close to the secondary (analytic articles and books) and primary sources (published facts) as possible. I thought that explaining the particular aspects against the theory of FSB involvement is more accurate than putting all the references under a single sentence. This single sentence may break the neutrality (i.e. may bring own editorial conjectures that were not implied by the authors of the sources).

The same goes about the chronology. Interpreting is left to the reader. If you see that the chronology omits certain key events, please add these events. Events such as an FSB officer signing a Ryazan training exercise plan without communicating it with the Ryazan regional department or publishing medical records on death of Yuri Schekochihin would be of special value.ilgiz (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok that's fine but I added other relevant information but pro-FSB theory users Pietervhuis and Biophys have been censoring/vandalizing it.--Miyokan (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, please stop making unexplained reverts without adding to the conversation in discussion. You've already broken the Three revert rule, so I'll be forced to report you if you continue. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have tagged Image:Mironov_Visits_Vityaz.pdf as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. MER-C 12:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

We are currently discussing this. Perhaps you would like to join us, as you have suggested an interest before. Mariya - x -Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edit, what's the basis for this change? It sounds pretty POVish, like you're trying to prove a point that only Russian government workers agree on this statement, which isn't true. The article cites GOLOS, the SCO monitoring group and PACE as agreeing with this statement, among others (countries official responses etc.. "Germany and France made clear the vote did not meet their criteria for a democratic election, but alongside Britain and the European Union they congratulated Medvedev on a victory they said appeared to reflect the will of the Russian people.).

You can find statements by PACE in the RIA article cited[2], "Andreas Gross, head of the group from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), said Sunday's vote was a "reflection of the will of the electorate whose democratic potential unfortunately has not been tapped." Here's a western source with the same thing [3].

In the same article, the CIS monitoring group said: "The CIS observer mission states that the election is a major factor in the further democratization of public life in the Russian Federation, and recognizes it as free, open and transparent,"

So why did you make the changes that you did, changing "most" to "The Kremlin and its controlled media", when the sources and the rest of the article clearly support the original wording? Sbw01f (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Moved the discussion to the article's talk page.[4] --ilgiz (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you mean the external link i removed, it obviously does not belong to the VCIOM article as these are now separate entities. Although i think a "See also" link should be there now as the organisations are historically closely linked.Muscovite99 (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on File:Mironov Visits Vityaz.pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:File:Mironov Visits Vityaz.pdf|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Russavia ^Dialogue 14:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I saw the fair use rationale, so you can use it if you've got a good rationale. But I deleted it because it's in pdf format, can't be used as an image. You can upload it in another format if you have the rationale and everything to comply with WP:FU. Let me know on my talk page if you need help or have anything to discuss. Peace, delldot ∇. 16:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed that you've made many constructive edits on the article, without taking part in the edit war. Do you have an opinion on the latest argument about the "attempted bombings" and the "second introduction," or maybe about the article on the whole? In any case, I think you've done a good job with your edits. Offliner (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Let me keep my opinion to myself because the editorials should remain neutral. --ilgiz (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I didn't mean to ask your opinion on the subject, but on the article, i.e. what should be done and what not. Offliner (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am concerned with the integrity, formatting of the references and their proper summaries. --ilgiz (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Igor Ponomarev, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unnecessary disambiguation page. Only one article with the name "Igor Ponomaryov".

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Jafeluv (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You can contest the decision at WP:DRV although the consensus seemed clear for a deletion. Unless you might want to merge some of the content of the deleted article (like the sourced ones) to other articles that might be related to it. I can send a copy of the deleted article into a userspace page of yours or via e-mail. JForget 01:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

See User:Ilgiz/Allegations of state terrorism by Russia for the userfied version. --JForget 17:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. --ilgiz (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Ilgiz, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Min Chen - a page you tagged - because: redirect works (also, place speedy requests at the top of a page please). Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 20:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Ilgiz. I've just looked at the early version of the article edited by you [5]. I just want to say respect to you. How easy is it, when nobody tries to prove that some group of people are bloody murderers (without proper -- or any -- evidence, of course). ellol (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edit, I've used {{Harvnb}} in several articles, and I could have sworn that the "jump to the full reference" capability did work, without a 'ref' field being inserted. Did something change in {{Cite book}} or {{Citation/core}} recently? Or is my memory fried? --RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I received an answer at Template talk:Cite book#Cite references which pointed me to Template talk:Citation/core#HTML id. People realized that cite[@id] attributes should be unique, and it should be up to the users of the citation templates to specify unique IDs. So they changed the default behaviour to no IDs at all. --ilgiz (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I saw that discussion shortly after I placed my message here. Not necessarily the decision I would have made, but I understand the reasons they had for doing it. So now there are a dozen articles that I put Harvard refs in that will need editing to add refids. Oh, well. Thanks for pointing this out. --RL0919 (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Year 2070 problem. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year 2070 problem. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for commenting at "bombings" pages. There is interesting article, [6] about the post-traumatic syndrome in Volgodonsk. That was an eye opener for me. I did not know that even dogs have it.Biophys (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2686.vid-0008-l-.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have reverted your recent edit to Shutter Island (film). "Explaining" needs to be done by references to third party sources, otherwise it fails the Wikipedia policy of no original research. Active Banana (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Did you use quotation marks in this comment and in the comment to the revert as means of paraphrasing or conveying the exact use of words? --ilgiz (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

It was definitely NOT my intention but a real life homie who also watches that page pointed out to me that I could have sounded more than a bit curt in our exchange via edit summaries on Shutter Island. Sometimes I have a hard time figuring out how to say a lot in a little bit of space. So if I seemed rude, I definitely didn't mean to and my apologies. Millahnna (mouse)talk 18:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks, no need to apologize. Every change may hurt feelings of other editors. I agreed with the shorter version you suggested. And thanks for re-using my findings in your last edit. --ilgiz (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Sergey Kozlov requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kumioko (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Template:Langi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Lfdder (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Ilgiz!

Please take a brief moment reviewing an edit to the Russian Apartment Bombings article. I should stress that it's a good edit made on clear assumptions. If you follow the link in the ref, you can see the quote by Lebed which ends with the footnote number "33" and the footnote itself on page 387: "33. Ibid.; Lebed interview in Le Figaro (February 17, 1997)".

Except that of course, the date is wrong. :-)

With Klebnikov's book in my hands, I can explain how everybody got confused. The reference is actually to the following passage on pp. 268-269 (Chapter 9, "Oligarchy"):

The winner of the Sibneft auction submitted a bid for $110 million, just $9 million more than the starting price. The winner of the 1995 auction and the organizer of the 1997 auction was NFK (Oil Finance Company). The winner of the 1997 auction was called FNK (Finance Oil Company). No one knew for sure who was behind FNK. In public Berezovsky strenuously denied any connection to the outfit. He was already known to be linked with the organizer of the auction, NFK; to admit to being the man behind the winner of the auction, FNK, would have revealed a conflict of interest. Moreover, Berezovsky was a government official and hence prohibited from engaging in commercial activity. The public was told that the owners of FNK were two subsidiaries of Aleksandr Smolensky's SBS-Agro Bank (as Stolichny Bank was now known). But there could be little doubt that the real owner of both NFK and FNK was the same man: Boris Berezovsky. [32] "This was a comedy and it remains a comedy," snorts Alfred Kokh. In fact, the actions of Berezovsky in acquiring Sibneft were so thinly disguised that the quote that comes to mind is Lebed's: "Berezovsky... is not satisfied with stealing—he wants everybody to see that he is stealing with impunity." [33]

There's another footnote with the same number (33) on page 389, which lists several sources including "Lebed interview with Le Figaro (September 29, 1999)".

Document hippo (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect UNICE: Universal Network of Intelligent Conscious Energy. Since you had some involvement with the UNICE: Universal Network of Intelligent Conscious Energy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. WMSR (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

You reverted my edit on Same-origin policy. I have edited again to take your criticism into account. Feel free to look it over.

Incidentally, I would have found it more helpful to edit out the part of my edit you disagreed with, rather than completely reverting it, since you only objected to part of it. Maybe you can consider this in the future - as explained on Help:Reverting, improving an edit is generally preferred to reverting it, unless it is clearly pointless. Thanks! Sebastian (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ah sorry I was reading too fast. The phrase "In earlier browsers, web pages could freely load resources (such as images) from different origins" looked like intending to contrast with modern browsers but now I understand it was aiming at explaining why SOP became necessary with the advent of Javascript. --ilgiz (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply