Talk:Seda Pumpyanskaya

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 June 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 May 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Russia: Politics and law / Mass media Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the mass media in Russia task force.

This article is the subject of a request emailed to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT).

Issues identified are: issue=please give a specific explanation like this: {{VRT talk|what needs to be done}}
The VRTS ticket number is id=please insert VRTS ticket number here .

Please discuss these issues here, being mindful of the policies on biographies of living persons.

Unsourced claims[edit]

Odd that so much should be claimed for somebody with so little evidence. How about a CV? Is it possible that the claims to be a Harvard Graduate and Global leader were fabricated? Did anybody every meet here at MGIMO? Did anybody ever see her at the BBC? Minthumbug (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even odder that so many nameless individuals would write and continuously add to a page about Ms. Pumpyanskaya with so many unsubstantiated claims. User Minthumbug even adds mysterious references to the Lithuanian Jews as if he were a personal geneological expert on her heritage. Where is the personal wiki-biography of Minthumbug which can changed at the whim of biased individuals with an axe to grind? It seems as if Minthumbug and various other editors of this page are very clever wiki-vandals. The question to Minthumbug is what is your motivation? PaulRaunette (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion[edit]

Probably a good idea. From what I understand the page was set up to politically smear a mid-level bureaucrat who has no real need of a separate wikipedia page of her own. PaulRaunette (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Biowulf Edits[edit]

5 albert square did a poor job at reverting the accurate work by Biowulf. Previously placed information about her studies at MGIMO are complete lies. She studied at Moscow State University which is confirmed by a friend that knows her well and studied with her. In fact all the current edits by Biowulf were 100% accurate as opposed to the previous article with only 50% or less accuracy.

If Off2riorob chooses to retain inaccuracies, then it is a complete disservice to the Wiki community. You may as well delete the article completely. Compared to all other contributors to this article Biowulf is the most accurate and should be commended for fine work. Stating that the "Edit was detrimental to the article" is farcical and shows a lack of respect for authenticity. PaulRaunette (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the way you are editing the article is detrimental to the article, you are adding inline citations and removing the formatted citations. If you are understanding of that and willing to discuss then we have a good option, if not, then I will not allow you to edit the article detrimentally. If you have issues with the article then you need to start discussing . I am here almost every day and am ready to discuss any issues anyone may have with the content. Off2riorob (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way I edited the article was to revert it to the previously correct version. I did nothing else. Please do not say that was detrimental or make incorrect accusations. That is very unprofessional.PaulRaunette (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul

I will come on to defend my edits :)

When I reverted the article all I could see was that information had been removed. From memory the information included references, external links, that type of thing that are normally not inaccurate. There was nothing to state why the information was removed so that's why I reverted the article, for unexplained removal/blanking of content. Unfortunately I've never heard of this person until today, have no idea what they do, I do not have the ability to mind read (!) so unless somebody tells me why they are removing information, I have no way of knowing why!

However, I have apologised to the user on their talk page and given them helpful hints about using the edit summary as that may have helped. --5 albert square (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your revert was a little hasty and it would have been better served to combine the two to save the citations? It isn't rocket science to see the difference between blatant vandalism and corrections even if the subject isn't commonly known.PaulRaunette (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will make corrections to education. I also suggest that the Biowulf corrections be added in to the current article with proper Wiki formatting as you see fit. I am not familiar enough with proper Wiki formatting to take this task so perhaps the editors more familiar with proper syntax can make these corrections?PaulRaunette (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is the way to go, if details are wrong we all want to correct them. Off2riorob (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a cite style to use.add the details and cut and copy to the article

<ref>{{cite web|url=add http address here|title=add title here|publisher=add publisher here|date=add date the article was published here|accessdate=add date you accessed the article here}}</ref> - date format is eg .. November 12, 2010

Can I just make a point here that the formatting of the citations is a trivial matter of concern only to us, whereas the accuracy of the article is of paramount importance, as mandated by WP:BLP, and preferring a correctly formatted but incorrect version over an incorrectly formatted but correct version is wrong in every important respect. I hope that's not what has been happening. Biowulf is, as far as I can make out, an employee of the Council of Europe, who has been asked by the Secretariat to assist the subject in correcting persistent inaccuracies which themselves originate within the Council. It is clear to me that this article is being abused for the pursuit of a vendetta of some kind. Anyone with OTRS access can check Ticket:2010120410014632. I cannot believe that we actually allowed shit like this: [1] to remain in the article. It's appalling. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

citations[edit]

Here some of the cites add in this version for looking at.. I am not getting access to some of them... A couple of them have downloads. Off2riorob (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]