Abstracts on entomology

documents of the Higher Attestation Commission are entered by orders of the Ministry of Education and Science, which are approved and registered by the Ministry of Justice. Probably, if a person sends a review himself, knowing the requirements of the Higher Attestation Commission and the fact that the review will be posted online, then such posting on the site cannot be considered a violation of the PD law.

Possible (possible) - this is a violation of the Law "On Personal Data "(152-FZ)

Dear forumchane!
The opinion of entomologists on the doctoral dissertation of V. A. Simonenkova on the topic "Forest ecosystems of the Southern Urals and ecology of dendrophagous insects on the zonal ecotone of the forest and steppe" is interesting.

http://www.ievbras.ru/dissertation_sovet/Simonenkova.html

text of the dissertation, video of the pre-defense.

The dissertation is just terrible, publications in ... completely non-core publications. Colleagues, look at the abstract and write reviews, otherwise you will blame someone else later...

Dear forumchane!
The opinion of entomologists on the doctoral dissertation of V. A. Simonenkova on the topic "Forest ecosystems of the Southern Urals and ecology of dendrophagous insects on the zonal ecotone of the forest and steppe" is interesting.

The dissertation is just terrible, publications in ... completely non-core publications. Colleagues, look at the abstract and write reviews, otherwise you will blame someone else later...

Yes, the work gives the impression of a set of platitudes, to which numerous references to "ecotone" and "anthropogenic impact" are added to create the appearance of relevance. I wrote two negative reviews this month, I would like to find time for the third

This is not the first attempt of V. A. Simonenkova to get a doctorate in biology. On the website of the Higher Attestation Commission there is her last attempt, which she made in NGAU on March 25, 2015 on the topic "Ecological features of phyllophagous insects in forest ecosystems of the Southern Urals"

http://vak.ed.gov.ru/dis-details?xPARAM=18...ak%2Fidc2%2F%26

File/s:



 Simonenkova_2015.pdf

size: 696.05 k
number of downloads: 764

yes, and since then, almost nothing has changed in the work, the comments made in 2015 were practically not taken into account, and the adopted ones partially worsened the situation, as they led to falsification...

This is not the first attempt of V. A. Simonenkova to get a doctorate in biology. On the website of the Higher Attestation Commission there is her last attempt, which she made in NGAU on March 25, 2015 on the topic "Ecological features of phyllophagous insects in forest ecosystems of the Southern Urals"

http://vak.ed.gov.ru/dis-details?xPARAM=18...ak%2Fidc2%2F%26

Dear colleagues! Thank you very much for carefully reading the work of V. A. Simonenkova. You have confirmed our doubts. V. A. has presented her work to the dissertation Council several times and its content has always caused confusion among environmentalists. And the fact that the work was previously unsuccessfully submitted for defense is a real discovery for many. Thank you also for your determination to express your expert opinion in the reviews, but this will not affect the protection of the work. First of all, paper reviews will simply not have time to reach you, and secondly, there is a real political will for the applicant to successfully defend herself. The scientific supervisor is a member of the dissertation council, where the work is presented, and the chairman of the Dissertation Council (corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences) will promote it at the highest level. If only we'd realized earlier... Thank you, colleagues, for your responsiveness!

Interesting movie!

What do you mean by "paper reviews just won't reach you in time"? It's more than a month before the defense! According to the current situation. The DS is obliged to post EVERYTHING that came before the DAY of protection. This is where the monthly review won't come from? From Somalia? Everything will be in time. And, colleagues, if you sent a review and a scan to the secretary of the Department of Internal Affairs, but did not post it, send it immediately to the Expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission with a cover letter. This will greatly help the review of work in the Higher Attestation Commission, because in any case, all doctoral works are considered by the expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission, and this is not an empty procedure for a tick. And so that there are no such divorces, I suggest posting reviews here. It won't be superfluous.

And what does "there is a real political will for the applicant to successfully defend herself" mean? What kind of games are we playing? And does this volya understand what kind of blow it puts the dissovet under? Have you closed a lot of environmental issues in recent years? So let's check if everything is rotten or not yet.

So don't start saying "thank you, colleagues, for your responsiveness!"to anyone.

Colleagues, do not fall for the provocation!

Dear colleagues! Thank you very much for carefully reading the work of V. A. Simonenkova. You have confirmed our doubts. V. A. has presented her work to the dissertation Council several times and its content has always caused confusion among environmentalists. And the fact that the work was previously unsuccessfully submitted for defense is a real discovery for many. Thank you also for your determination to express your expert opinion in the reviews, but this will not affect the protection of the work. First of all, paper reviews will simply not have time to reach you, and secondly, there is a real political will for the applicant to successfully defend herself. The scientific supervisor is a member of the dissertation council, where the work is presented, and the chairman of the Dissertation Council (corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences) will promote it at the highest level. If only we'd realized earlier... Thank you, colleagues, for your responsiveness!

This post was edited by Musolin - 29.04.2017 20: 18

Sorry, aspiro, do you have anything to do with this DS?

How can it be that the protection of Kislitsina M. N. and Khabirova L. M. are on 31.05.2017, and on the site http://www.ievbras.ru/dissertation_sovet/obyavleniya.html nothing was posted except 1 pdf file of the ad ? No dissertation, no information about opponents...

Update: Everything is clear. There on the site just messed up: for other applicants from ADS, links go to CERTIFICATION CASES, and for these two applicants-for some reason only to the PDF of ads.

Dear colleagues!

This post was edited by Musolin - 29.04.2017 20: 48

I am not a member of the dissertation council, but I listened carefully to this work and I got the feeling that this is not a doctoral level at all. Two ecologists-members of the council who were present at the review of the work-had the same feeling. Since neither I nor the members of the Dissertation Council have ever been entomologists, I asked them to comment on the work of specialized specialists. At the forum, I asked professional entomologists to give an OBJECTIVE assessment of the work and I got it. If you think that I intend to sow a campaign to discredit the applicant, you are mistaken, it is beneath my dignity. Based on the reviews, I proceeded from the experience of past defenses in the IEMB, when previously sent reviews did not arrive at the time of protection. Considering that it takes time to prepare a review and taking into account the May holidays, I do not rule out the possibility of such an outcome. Sorry for confusing you with my message.

I'm sorry if I sounded aggressive.

Since 2016, reviews should be accepted not for 10 days, but before the day of protection (which, by the way, is incorrectly indicated on the DS website).

And the DS should think about its reputation, which such protection calls into question.

I'm sorry again if I offended you.

I am not a member of the dissertation council, but I listened carefully to this work and I got the feeling that this is not a doctoral level at all. Two ecologists-members of the council who were present at the review of the work-had the same feeling. Since neither I nor the members of the Dissertation Council have ever been entomologists, I asked them to comment on the work of specialized specialists. At the forum, I asked professional entomologists to give an OBJECTIVE assessment of the work and I got it. If you think that I intend to sow a campaign to discredit the applicant, you are mistaken, it is beneath my dignity. Based on the reviews, I proceeded from the experience of past defenses in the IEMB, when previously sent reviews did not arrive at the time of protection. Considering that it takes time to prepare a review and taking into account the May holidays, I do not rule out the possibility of such an outcome. I'm sorry that I embarrassed you with my message.

Based on the reviews, I proceeded from the experience of past defenses in the IEMB, when previously sent reviews did not arrive at the time of protection. Considering that it takes time to prepare a review and taking into account the May holidays, I do not rule out the possibility of such an outcome.

A scan of the review should be sent by e-mail, followed by regular mail. Actually, Musolin told you about this above.

Feedback from official opponents and the leading organization should be sent to the DS within 10 days.

Currently, mail arrives on average in 5 days. All you need to do is send it to registered mailers with a notification and track its passage through post offices. Then they won't get away with it.
Dear Musolin, you are 100% right, but take off your rose-colored glasses. Dissenters, the Higher Attestation Commission - all this is one gang of corrupt officials. And you have seen a lot of doctoral dissertations that are completely unprofessional (which is clear even to people who are not close to entomology), plagiarized, received a lot of negative reviews, but nevertheless accepted by a corrupt dissertation council,and then not approved by the Higher Attestation Commission? If the dissertation council accepts, then we probably need a kick from the president so that the Higher Attestation Commission sinks it. Even the minister has no influence on the Higher Attestation Commission, which has a number of proofs. Therefore, it is necessary to drown not only individual applicants, but also the entire corrupt network of dissenters ' councils. Up to the landing of their leaders.

a registered letter with a notification is a hassle for the office and the dissertation Council, because a registered letter addressed to the secretary of the DS will not be sent in the mail (they should not) to the representative of the organization, but the secretary of the DS will have to go to the post office, which he will be happy about. But yes, there will be a document on hand.... Maybe you should.

About glasses - well, don't... Due to some of my duties, I see how many orders are issued by the Higher Attestation Commission with the removal of diss., with the cancellation of decisions, and the deprivation of degrees. You go to the HAC website and see them? But I can see it. There are no guarantees, because the review is FOR vs. reviews AGAINST. Of course, it is easier for the EC of the Higher Attestation Commission to support the collective decision of the DS than to justify the refusal in detail or send the work for review. As a community, we can only write a few negative reviews right now.

Currently, mail arrives on average in 5 days. All you need to do is send it to registered mailers with a notification and track its passage through post offices. Then they won't get away with it.
Dear Musolin, you are 100% right, but take off your rose-colored glasses. Dissenters, the Higher Attestation Commission - all this is one gang of corrupt officials. And you have seen a lot of doctoral dissertations that are completely unprofessional (which is clear even to people who are not close to entomology), plagiarized, received a lot of negative reviews, but nevertheless accepted by a corrupt dissertation council,and then not approved by the Higher Attestation Commission? If the dissertation council accepts, then we probably need a kick from the president so that the Higher Attestation Commission sinks it. Even the minister has no influence on the Higher Attestation Commission, which has a number of proofs. Therefore, it is necessary to drown not only individual applicants, but also the entire corrupt network of dissenters ' councils. Up to the landing of their leaders.

In general, the three-hour interval between doctoral defenses is a bit surprising. This is how the council puts candidates. And doctorates are only one a day, because on average, from 3.5 to 5 hours of defense last. And at three o'clock, not all candidates ' questions fit in, even if the opponents only read out their comments.

yes, this is strange, but it does not contradict the rules of the Higher Attestation Commission, so this is their problem. Apparently, they think that everything is so good that it will pass on time...

In general, the three-hour interval between doctoral defenses is a bit surprising. This is how the council puts candidates. And doctorates are only one a day, because on average, from 3.5 to 5 hours of defense last. And at three o'clock, not all candidates ' papers fit in, even if the opponents only read out their comments.

yes, this is strange, but it does not contradict the rules of the Higher Attestation Commission, so this is their problem. Apparently, they think that everything is so good that it will pass on time...

When the applicant has already paid a certain amount and bought everything, really, you only need a formal appearance of "protection", and immediately go to the banquet.
And the fact that the Higher Attestation Commission began to close individual dissenters is no easier. First, they sacrifice those who are relaxed, have not paid tribute, or do not have a furry paw. Secondly, in place of the severed head grows 1 or 2 new ones.
We need an article in the Criminal Code on responsibility for scientific falsifications and the political will to really clean up all this late-Soviet dirt, with real prison terms for organizers and active participants, and with compensation for damage to the state. Then maybe the scientific environment will improve.

This post was edited by Nemov - 30.04.2017 18: 57

I haven't blushed so much in a long time. And for myself, and for the dissertation candidate, and for a number of colleagues.

http://www.bio.msu.ru/dissertations/view.php?ID=810

Finding time to watch the entire defense (4 hours) is probably not easy.
But I would recommend listening to Marina Yakovlevna's responses to reviews. This is approximately from the 2:08 mark. If you are not too lazy , you should also look at the reviews themselves, they are downloaded as a review of the second opponent

I'm really not in this field at all,but here it's quite cool - at best-Odessa separate.

I'm really not in this field at all,but here it's quite cool - at best-Odessa separate.

or can you rephrase it, because it's completely unclear what you wanted to say? thank you.

I haven't blushed so much in a long time. And for myself, and for the dissertation candidate, and for a number of colleagues.

http://www.bio.msu.ru/dissertations/view.php?ID=810

Finding time to watch the entire defense (4 hours) is probably not easy.
But I would recommend listening to Marina Yakovlevna's responses to reviews. This is approximately from the 2:08 mark. If you are not too lazy , you should also look at the reviews themselves, they are downloaded as a review of the second opponent

Yes, it looks creepy. It reminded me of Mowgli Raksha's defense. Apparently, all means are good. Ethics-p.

Here it is, the near-scientific mafia, at work.
How many surnames for me have passed from the category of "scientist" to the category of "contraceptive".

Interestingly, in the last few posts everything is so veiled, so many euphemisms... It seems that an opinion has been expressed, but it is not always possible to understand unequivocally "for" or "against".

I personally didn't like a lot of things both in the dissertation and in the abstract, especially in the design, something seemed a little raw and not honed (criteria, etc.), but in general, M. Ya. did a lot. If there was no hurry, it would be quite good to finish and arrange it.

I couldn't complete the entire recording, but she also responded to the comments in detail. That is, she defended the work as a whole. (maybe I missed something).

I think it's more "yes"than " no".

And the fact that positive reviews are of the same type, and negative ones are not, so Tolstoy also noted that all happy families are equally happy, and unhappy ones-each in its own way. So it is here. We skimmed through the abstract, we know the works, everything seemed normal, we wrote two or three paragraphs with mandatory words. And if something really hurt, then read carefully and write meticulously.

By the way, Simonenkova's work received a lot of reviews - among them 3 detailed negative ones - all from forest entomologists, and a lot of positive ones - from non-entomologists...

"It seems that an opinion has been expressed, but it is not always possible to understand unequivocally "for" or "against"."

Against, against. Arguments like :" he's just an old fool, if anyone didn't know, he couldn't even understand anything" or "his articles have a shorter citation index than mine" look ugly. It's nerve-racking, of course, but you can't do that.

Arguments like :" he's just an old fool, if anyone didn't know, he couldn't even understand anything" or "his articles have a shorter citation index than mine" look ugly. It's nerve-racking, of course, but you can't do that.

-- this applies primarily to the defense, not the dissertation, if I understand correctly.

Once, when I was still a student, a colleague of mine, a candidate of biological sciences, said: "Science ends with a PhD. Doctorates are politics."
I was not too lazy, I read the reviews diagonally. I can't fully evaluate it, because my specialty is different. Negative reviews seemed killer, and most importantly-principled, which is important. I thought: "I wonder how the applicant will get out of it?". I watched a video recording of the applicant's responses. This is something! First, a panegyric to all those who wrote positive reviews, so much so that the chairman of the Council was forced to stop M. Ya., then shitting (I can't find another word for it) all those who wrote negative ones. Like: "I'm retired, I don't work anywhere, I don't represent a scientific organization"; " my friend didn't understand anything..."; " What the hell are you making comments about, my work is recognized by reviewers of my publications..." After that, I somehow lost interest in the applicant, his work and defense.
In principle, following the logic of the applicant, it was possible not to defend the work, but to immediately award the doctor's degree. After all, the reviewers highly appreciated the speaker's contribution to science and did not find any inconsistencies.
For myself, I noted that this is not the worst doctoral program that I have ever seen. Recently, we gave one of them for review. There was really nothing to defend there. And yet... A pre-planned performance with a known ending is a successful defense. It's all very sad. The saddest thing is that incompetents later give birth to incompetents, with all the consequences that follow for science.

This post was edited by Evgenich - 05/21/2017 10: 08

Progress does not stand still. After the date of my defense became known, I received a letter from info@dslib.net :

Hello, Dmitry Leonidovich

Dissertation Library DsLib.net invites you to use the service "Reviews of the dissertation abstract from scientific reviewers"

The section of this service presents authors who have expressed a desire to write a review for an abstract, dissertation, monograph or article in accordance with the requirements of the Higher Attestation Commission.

List of authors who are ready to write a review: http://www.dslib.net/recenzii-otzyvy-na-av...issertacii.html

(Just for fun and to check, I asked if it was paid, and got an answer

This section works on the principle of a social network. The terms, price, and other conditions are negotiated directly with the registered author in a personal correspondence.
Go to the section "Reviews, reviews of the abstract from scientific reviewers" and contact directly a specialist in your industry by clicking on the relevant specialty
http://www.dslib.net/recenzii-otzyvy-na-av...issertacii.html
--

I don't know if the VAK can react in any way or if the Dissernet can.

I am happy with the gap in the specialty "Entomology" (03.02.05).
But in zoology (03.02.04) we expect to find the well-known Pushkin S. V.

-- this applies primarily to the defense, not the dissertation, if I understand correctly.

That's right. I just watched the proposed video, I didn't study the work. An opinion can be formed, however. The topic is interesting, there was a lot of work. The key question here is whether doctoral degrees are now awarded for this. Apparently, yes (as an observer, without any hidden sarcasm). I also didn't like something, however, nothing new that wasn't already noted by reviewers.
Most of all, I did not like the design of the system itself - when the last word a priori belongs to the dissertation candidate (this is how it looks), who can simply cheerfully kick off the arguments of the opponent without resorting to scientific discussion, just within the framework of demagogic polemics. And that's all - we don't return to the question again. Next.

Most of all, I did not like the design of the system itself - when the last word a priori belongs to the dissertation candidate (this is how it looks), who can simply cheerfully kick off the arguments of the opponent without resorting to scientific discussion, just within the framework of demagogic polemics. And that's all - we don't return to the question again. Next.

After the dissertator responds to the opponent, pres. The DS asks the opponent if he was satisfied with the answer. And only then does the next opponent or opponent speak. institution. Similarly, with the answers to questions from members of the DC and those present. With all due respect, I don't really understand. how can I find out if those who sent a review but didn't come themselves are satisfied with the response? Write them a letter and get ready for six months? Well, seriously! If the response to the sent review is weak and unworthy, it should be evaluated by the members of the DC who vote in secret. If the DS is non-authoritarian (in this case, at MSU), well, that's another question...

I agree that everything is bad, everything is rotten, everything is estimated and relative. Well, I don't know...

Interestingly, in the last few posts everything is so veiled, so many euphemisms... It seems that an opinion has been expressed, but it is not always possible to understand unequivocally "for" or "against".

Yes, indeed – not clearly expressed. I will write in more detail, although with a delay and therefore inevitably repeat part of what was said above.

So, the initial premise was "It's been a while since I blushed like this. And for myself, and for the dissertation candidate, and for a number of colleagues."

I'll start with myself. First, it was necessary to find a couple of hours and once again carefully read the review – to catch inaccuracies in the names and obvious errors. Among the latter is the mention of "excretory ducts" - where were my eyes?! M. Y. quite rightly objected to this. Secondly, it was necessary to force yourself to spend the evening-go to the defense. M. B., some of the "awkward moments" could be found out on the spot.

Now about the dissertation. The method of responding to comments based on the everyday principle of "the fool himself" seems to me completely incompatible with any scientific discussion, including the defense of a dissertation. The method is simple: first, all those who sent positive reviews are characterized as "leading specialists", and then the authors of negative reviews are designated as an amateur pensioner who does not work anywhere and a narrow specialist who does not understand the families under discussion ... After that, you can not give constructive answers to comments. Which is exactly what happened.

With regard to "a number of colleagues", of course, formally positive reviews were forced to blush. Especially-feedback from the leading organization, which not only could, but was obliged to analyze the essence of the work. And I analyzed it, finding such shortcomings: "Using special software, it would be possible to avoid conspicuous spaces in the text"; "Some tables are incorrectly designed", etc.

Today, the Institute's directorate held a conversation with some members of the Dissertation Council on the dissertation of V. A. Simonenkova. I can't disclose all the details, but it's almost a fait accompli that she will successfully defend herself. Respected entomologists, including those who have sent their professional comments, will have to accept this.

So it was known in advance - since DS accepted such a dissertation. Hope for the Expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission, which carefully reviews all theses that have at least one negative review.

Today, the Institute's directorate held a conversation with some members of the Dissertation Council on the dissertation of V. A. Simonenkova. I can't disclose all the details, but it's almost a fait accompli that she will successfully defend herself. Respected entomologists, including those who have sent their professional comments, will have to accept this.

aspiro, how was your defense?

Today, the Institute's directorate held a conversation with some members of the Dissertation Council on the dissertation of V. A. Simonenkova. I can't disclose all the details, but it's almost a fait accompli that she will successfully defend herself. Respected entomologists, including those who have sent their professional comments, will have to accept this.

Unanimously. On the eve of the defense, when it became clear that there would be negative reviews, the chairman of the dissertation Council decided to "drown" them with additional positive reviews. Heavy artillery was added in the form of loyal Prof. and corresponding members. The impact on the dissent council was unprecedented, and the administrative pressure was at its maximum. The work will be approved by the Higher Attestation Commission.

Unanimously. On the eve of the defense, when it became clear that there would be negative reviews, the chairman of the dissertation Council decided to "drown" them with additional positive reviews. Heavy artillery was added in the form of loyal Prof. and corresponding members. The impact on the dissent council was unprecedented, and the administrative pressure was at its maximum. The work will be approved by the Higher Attestation Commission.

The defense was disgusting - both from the dissertation student and from the dissertation council. Such advice, of course, should be closed... And why such pressure? What kind of star is this that people are ready to go to any shame?

She's not a star. Just a scientific consultant - a member of the council and a close friend of G. S. Rosenberg, the chairman of the dissertation Council. It was their personal interest to protect her. Here they were guided by the principle "You will help me, then I will help you".
The meeting was completely ugly, in violation of the rules of procedure and in the absence of a quorum. The quorum is 17 people, but council members Zinchenko, Popchenko and Seleznev are absent from the list. Even in the video, they are not present, and they never appear. They also did not approach the ballot box. Although their names appear in the minutes of the council meeting.
The accounting commission got out of it as best it could. Members of the commission Kavelenova and Prokhorova, in addition to their votes, even had to throw additional ballots into the ballot box (on the video 03:11:37, 03:12:06, 03:12:56). The video clearly shows that a total of 12 ballots were dropped into the ballot box, and it turned out to be 17 when counting. If you look closely, you can see that the chairman of the Dissertation Council G. S. Rosenberg omits 2 ballots (03: 12: 04).
Such is the protection. Shydobishcha.

Shydobishcha.

wow...

She's not a star. Just a scientific consultant - a member of the council and a close friend of G. S. Rosenberg, the chairman of the dissertation Council. It was their personal interest to protect her. Here they were guided by the principle "You will help me, then I will help you".
The meeting was completely ugly, in violation of the rules of procedure and in the absence of a quorum. The quorum is 17 people, but council members Zinchenko, Popchenko and Seleznev are absent from the list. Even in the video, they are not present, and they never appear. They also did not approach the ballot box. Although their names appear in the minutes of the council meeting.
The accounting commission got out of it as best it could. Members of the commission Kavelenova and Prokhorova, in addition to their votes, even had to throw additional ballots into the ballot box (on the video 03:11:37, 03:12:06, 03:12:56). The video clearly shows that a total of 12 ballots were dropped into the ballot box, and it turned out to be 17 when counting. If you look closely, you can see that the chairman of the Dissertation Council G. S. Rosenberg omits 2 ballots (03: 12: 04).
Such is the protection. Shydobishcha.

It's not a shame. This is a criminal offense - official forgery. Today I will write a statement to the prosecutor's office, and they should already stir up the Higher Attestation Commission and other responsible structures. The video is very good, it's proof.

It's not a shame. This is a criminal offense - official forgery. Today I will write a statement to the prosecutor's office, and they should already stir up the Higher Attestation Commission and other responsible structures. The video is very good, it's proof.

-- about forgery and the prosecutor's office - I don't know what article and what mechanism, but through the Higher Attestation Commission the mechanism is like this:

prepare and send 2 documents:

1) statement on the groundlessness of awarding a degree by the Dissent Council-ground - paragraphs 42 and 43 of the Order of awarding degrees (see the file Appeal and Application of the Higher Attestation Commission - Regulations on Degrees 842.doc)

2) appeal under the procedure-ground - paragraphs 54-56 of the same Order of awarding degrees (see the file Appeal and Application of the Higher Attestation Commission - Regulations on Degrees 842.doc 31-33 of the Regulation on the Council (see the file Protection Procedure - Regulation on the DC), and the simple protection procedure itself is spelled out in paragraphs 31-33 of the Regulation on the Council (see the file Protection Procedure-Regulation on the DC 2014.doc).

Please note: p. 56. "The appeal is submitted to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation with attached evidence of sending a copy of the appeal to the organization on the basis of which the dissertation council was created, the decision of which was appealed"- i.e. first by registered mail to the dissertation Council, then a copy of the receipt + a copy of the letter to the Ministry of Education in paper (plus you can send a scan).

If someone else is willing to write (there may be several applications and appeals, of course), it would be great!

File/s:



 _________________________________________________842.doc

size: 51.5 k
number of downloads: 199









 __________________________________2014.doc

size: 31.5 k
number of downloads: 195