Talk:Dmitry Kuzmin

Afd

This page was voted for deletion.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

THIS BULLSHIT PAGE SHOULD BE DELETED RIGHT AWAYDzoni 14:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Prod

Since this page was already survived vote for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitry Kuzmin it should not be deleted by Prod. Nominate it for the second AfD if you feel like this (I would probably vote "weak delete") Alex Bakharev 05:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the relevant content and links

I see that User:Badvibes101 used to delete some information from this article with kind of misleading comments: see this deletion (why the removed quotations are described as unencyclopaedic and doesn't add anything to the article??), then this one (isn't it against of WP:WEASEL guideline?), this one (described as wikifying though in fact it is un-wikifying) and finally this one. Possibly these edits reflect some attitude towards the person in question as far as this figure seems to be rather controversial in Russia, especially as a LGBT person. One can see that this article has been proposed for deletion twice (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitry Kuzmin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitry Kuzmin (2nd nomination)) and was succesfully kept but in the latter discussion there is the vote of User:Badvibes101 with Strong delete. I think it is not mere chance that the same user is cutting the article after it had been kept. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this an admission from Andrei Romanenko that he isn't not a "neutral figure"? In this case I have the right to question his motives. Also, I would like to remind him that the aim of Wikipedia articles is not promotion. Wikipedia is not a fan site, it is an encyclopaedia - it would help a lot if he remembered it while editing this article. --Badvibes101 (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked what was deleted: 1. puffery (as User:Badvibes101 described it, possible (self)promotion 2. An unsourced quote. My advice to Andrei Romanenko: please familiarise yourself with WP:BLP, so your edits can actually improve the article and not the other way around. Hope this helps. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is very interesting that two Irish wikipedians which used to contribute to almost the same articles (see [1] and [2] respectively) have almost the same view to this stuff. You were so much in a hurry that even reverted my correction of a dead link made by a separate edit. I guess we need a neutral figure to discuss the question. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

First edit: the last source should have been removed, but the other two shouldn't. Second edit: the change of "claimed" to "described as" is beneficial, the rest of edit isn't. Third edit: removing inline attribution is nearly always a good idea. Fourth edit: really damaging. Though I'm not very familiar with WP:BLP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I would disagree about third edit, the reason is that the mere fact of translation of smb.'s poetry into some language is more or less insignificant while the fact of publication of these translations in well-established periodicals means a lot. As for the last source from the first edit, I realize that any link to blogspot.com are suspicious. But in this case, as far as I understand, it is simply online publication of the interview from paper magazine Calque [3], and the interviewed author is more or less significant figure himself (see his bio at the site of Berlin International Literature Festival). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My rationale for that is that the proper attribution would come in references. Though, if the idea was that the media were notable, then the text would need to be somehow hinting that. In this case I would support restoring attribution. About blog: if the online version is identical to one in the journal, the journal should be cited and the online version should be linked to the publication's title. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP, a blog cannot be used for any contentions about a BLP. Attribution to the source doesn't make it acceptable.--Viticulturist99 (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Which doesn't prohibit using reprints of reliable sources with blogs acting as medium. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Especially if a citation from a blog can be traced to a source other than that blog.--Viticulturist99 (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• So, no further explanation would be provided from our Irish colleagues? I dream to know why, for instance, this report of Russian poetry festival placed at Electronic Poetry Center or these preliminary notes of American translator Peter Golub published in rather well-known Jacket magazine, are treated as '(self)promotional' 'unencyclopaedic' 'puffery'. So? Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Feedback

As a non-Russian speaker looking at the article, I'd say:

• the biography section needs more references
• there should be a university for the PhD thesis and a link to the theses in the university library catalog (or sound explanation why it's missing)
• many references are in Russian. it would be clearer if the references included an English-language note as to the nature of the reference.
• ISBNs and ISSNs would greatly support verification of published works
• there are no problems using the subjects' blog for material related to personal stance (i.e. their sexual orientation, current views, etc, etc)
• the subjects' blog cannot be used as evidence of notability; for what other parties do/say/think; any disputed past facts; or for independent awards
• the wording around http://vavilon.ru/ seems odd, if there is doubt about the number of authors we can go the he site and check, surely? Similar with http://www.litkarta.ru/ . I suggest someone does a careful count of the number of authors, include a date if new authors are being added.
• the first reference to him speaking the Slovenian language seems to be in the bibliography, it should be mentioned earlier.
• the article needs copy-editing for English.

Stuartyeates (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The counts (of the authors of two mentioned sites) were mine, anybody is welcome to check them, it is very simple task. As for PhD thesis in an university database, unfortunately it does not work this way in Russia (most of the universities simply don't have such a database). But there is the database of theses in Russian State Library, this thesis is registered: [4]. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dmitry Kuzmin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608075909/http://www.nsu.ru/classics/reset/participants/Nemtsev%20Dissertation.pdf to http://www.nsu.ru/classics/reset/participants/Nemtsev%20Dissertation.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721212559/http://www.apublicspace.org/back_issues/issue_2/toc/ to http://www.apublicspace.org/back_issues/issue_2/toc/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100126023317/http://habitusmag.com:80/issues/moscow/ to http://habitusmag.com/issues/moscow/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426051423/http://fulcrumpoetry.org/issues/7/ to http://fulcrumpoetry.org/issues/7/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120530143951/http://www.europe-revue.net/pages/recherche-par-titres/parutions-2005/formalistes-russes-r.pdf to http://www.europe-revue.net/pages/recherche-par-titres/parutions-2005/formalistes-russes-r.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005025313/http://www.vikerkaar.ee/index1.php?page=Arhiiv&a_act=content&a_number=240 to http://www.vikerkaar.ee/index1.php?page=Arhiiv&a_act=content&a_number=240

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)