Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:16, 16 September 2008

Arthur Cherep-Spiridovich

Your cleanups are too drastic! Donald Duck. --Ludvikus 12:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Seemingly, I have mixed two different persons. So I have moved everything about Alexander to Alexander Spiridovich and left everything about Arthur in Arthur Cherep-Spiridovich.DonaldDuck 13:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC) First is more or less known - some of his books were republished recently. Second, conspiracy theorist, is completely obscure. I have a great doubts that he was a count and a general. I'm not sure if he is a real person or pen name.DonaldDuck 13:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I know Arthur. It's Alexander who is unknown. Please read the talk page before you do anything else. Best, --Ludvikus 14:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I double checked. These are two different people (Alexander Spiridovich). --Ludvikus 14:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Catherine Radziwill

Are you ignoring her? --Ludvikus 12:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't understand your question. What do you mean by "ignoring her"?DonaldDuck 12:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policies

I have to comment this your edit: . The term "putinism" in this article was defined as in 15+ reliable sources. You provided an alternative (different) definition of this term supported by zero sources/references. The insertion of unreferenced personal opinions in WP is explicitly forbidden per WP:NOR policy. At the same time, you deleted referenced views, which is also unacceptable per WP:NPOV policy. If you provide any English language sources of using "putinism" term in your sense, that would qualify as "alternative use" of the term and could be described as such. So, could you please follow core WP policies? Please also take a look at WP:Source - we are looking here for "verifiability, not truth", and the sources are not required to be available online.Biophys 14:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links and quotes and not a tool for promotion of some political agenda. And it is not a tool for promotion of hatred and conspiracy theories, like "all Russians are working for KGB". As for alternative meaning, please look into ru:ПутинизмDonaldDuck 15:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply at talk page of Putinism. There are no sources claiming this to be a conspiracy theory. What "hatred" are you talking about and what "political agenda"? If you think there are too many quotes, this is something to discuss at talk page of the corresponding article. If you think that some materials are not about "Putinism", you should also discuss this first, rather than delete everything you do not like. This article represented views by different experts on the "Putinism" subject. Each view was clearly attributed. If you think some views were not represented, please include them with references per WP:Source.Biophys 15:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, you do not unerstand WP:NOR policy based on this your comment and edit . "Original research" is something that is NOT supported by reliable sources per WP:Source (as text inserted by you). The previous text (deleted by you) has been supported by multiple reliable sources. Hence it was not OR. It does not mean that views you deleted are "truth". The article did not tell they are "truth". Please note that all views have been clearly attributed to their sources in this article.Biophys 16:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Many of your supporting sources are questionable and not in any way reliable, like quotes of different ex-KGB and ex-Securitate people. Moreover, sources must be relevant to the topic of the article. There are separate articles describing history of Soviet security services. In the article on Putinism we should describe all the usage of this term and put it into the proper context.DonaldDuck 04:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:Sources. All sources in the article satisfy WP reliability criteria. Some of them are publications in scientific journals. Almost all views belong to notable experts described in WP. So far you provided no arguments that any source is unreliable. You can do so at the talk page of the article(s), separately for each source that you want to challenge.Biophys 15:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A question

Is that you who edits under IP address "217.117.80.2"? If this is you, could you please edit only as user DonaldDuck? Doing otherwise is contrary to WP policies. Sorry if that is not you. Thank you. Biophys 16:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

RR warring

You appear to be involved in RR warring in article Putinism . Please be advised about WP:3RR rule.Biophys 16:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Please do not unilaterally delete Misplaced Pages articles as you just did . This may be interpreted as vandalism. Please use AfD instead. See WP:Deletion policy.Biophys 15:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not deleted anything, but merged the text of 2 articles on the same topic.DonaldDuck 10:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read wiki guideline on content forking before creating multiple articles.DonaldDuck 10:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Content forking is about content overlap. These articles have no content overlap. They described different meanings of the same word. If you disagree, please use AfD procedure or/and mark articles for merging and wait for opinions of other users.Biophys 13:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Second vandalism warning

We have two different articles with zero content overlap, which describe two different uses of the same word (one of them is plural). This is common situation in WP. Main meaning of this word (Putinism) is widely used in English sources (more than 15 reliable references). Another meaning (putinisms, plural), which you insist to include, was defined in one reliable (I assume) Russian source. You have done the following: (1) You deleted article Putinisms and replaced it by a redirect ; (2) you deleted the entire content of article Putinism to cut and paste the content of another article, Putinisms there . This way, you unilaterally deleted article Putinism. Please do not do it again, or I would have to report this to administrators. This has nothing to do with merging, because articles have no content overlap. But if you think they should be merged, please mark both articles for merging and wait opinion of other users.Biophys 13:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:POVFORK Articles should not be split into multiple articles so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. Please get consensus before splitting the article.DonaldDuck 03:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

We have a lot of disambig. pages for cases like that (two different meanings of the same word).Biophys 04:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a case of a POV Fork. One article refers to a style of governing, the other to a series of quotes. Redirecting the page is not appropriate in this case. A better solution would be the creation of a disambiguation page as Biophys has mentioned. Arakunem 16:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it is a good solution to keep separate articles with names differing only by singular/plural form? For meaningful disambiguation they should at least be named like Putinism (political system) and Putinism (phrase).DonaldDuck 01:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You've already lost on the deletion. Making it into a redirect is not appropriate. If you want to merge the articles, start with proposing a merger, getting consensus (that means, actually telling people why the articles are the same, not just pointing to a guideline) and then do the merge. If there isn't consensus, let it go; consensus is against you at this time. Come back to it later (and no, a few days is not 'later') if things change. Do it again without discussion and you can be blocked; regardless of whether you technically violate 3RR, you are being disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Putin's quotes were initially in article Putinism. Biophys moved them to the Putinisms and created content fork without getting consensus.DonaldDuck 01:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Third Vandalism Warning

You have vandalized the article on Dmitry Galkovsky by removing extensively documented material: . Your next attempt will earn a formal inquiry. Larvatus (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Last Vandalism Warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages, you will be blocked from editing. This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did to Dmitry Galkovsky, you will be blocked from editing. Larvatus (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)larvatus

Please, follow Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons policy and don't disrupt the article by insertion of contentious material, your original research and spam links to your own blog.DonaldDuck (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reported your vandalism. Larvatus (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)larvatus

Your false report is already dismissed by administrator. Поправили негативщика. DonaldDuck (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation for Speedy Deletion

I've made a recommendation for speedy deletion to the category British occupations. Justin talk 09:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That was declined added to WP:CFD. Justin talk 10:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly urge you to consider providing a rationale for the inclusion of those articles, I can't see how it fits in with the supposed reasons for your categorisation. Justin talk 08:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think articles about British occupation zones, namely (Allied Occupation Zones in Germany and Bizone) perfectly fit into category created for British occupations.DonaldDuck (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree, they were transitory arrangements following the war and never intended to be permanent institutions, nor were they done with the intention of acquiring territory or resources. Neither were they a solely British military occupation, they were done in concert with allies and within an allied command structure not a solely British command structure. And really including a stub like the Chumbi valley together with a POV edit is not helping your case. I'm not going to edit war with you over this. Were to revert your own changes to the Soviet Army articles I might consider you were acting in good faith, until then it seems you are intent on a POV push and censorship of Misplaced Pages. Justin talk 08:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

While I'm busy, please remember WP:3RR. Justin talk 08:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Occupation for a short period of time is still occupation. It need not be permanent. Status of British forces in Germany changed over time but initially it was occupation forces, and this fact should be reflected by the suitable category. British military forces were stationed in Germany from 1945, while West Germany joined NATO only in 1955. This is whole lot of time. And British forces in British occupation zone were not within American, French or Soviet command structure, they only had liaison missions with allies.DonaldDuck (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As you may notice, I'm not doing any reverts in Falklands war article, which is really somewhat controversial.DonaldDuck (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Equally I have noticed that you haven't restored articles to the category Soviet Occupations. Justin talk 09:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, avoid personal attacks.DonaldDuck (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, there is no hint whatsoever of a personal attack. You're removing articles from one category and adding others that are only tendentiously related to another. That is clearly POV. Complaining of personal attacks is simply obfuscating the issue. Justin talk 09:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

DRV of Category:British occupations

As a participant in the discussion, you may be interested in the Deletion Review that has been listed regarding my closure of the discussion as "no consensus". Regards, Bencherlite 23:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!DonaldDuck (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

April 9 tragedy

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

--Kober 05:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Don't delete referenced text.05:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

93.177.151.101 has been blocked for 31 hours as well. Khoikhoi 06:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Your don't follow the WP guidelines as maximum block for 3RR is 24 hours.DonaldDuck (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:3RR#Enforcement: "Editors who violate the three-revert rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeated or aggravated violation." I count about 10 reverts at April 9 tragedy. Khoikhoi 07:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there were not much less reverts from 93.177.151.101DonaldDuck (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is why he was blocked as well longer than 24 hours. Khoikhoi 07:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, comments such as these are totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated. The next time you make a similar comment you will be re-blocked. Khoikhoi 06:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Are these comments ("idiotic remark demonstrates what a xenophobe and misanthrope you are") from 93.177.151.101 acceptable?DonaldDuck (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed those comments too (). Khoikhoi 07:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.DonaldDuck (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the April 9 tragedy article itself - probably my first edits of this article were poorly referenced, and this provoked reverts from anonymous editor, but since then I have added references to Sobchak's committee investigation and Igor Rodionov interview, and removing this referenced text without explanation is vandalism from anonymous editor and User:Biophys.DonaldDuck (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What you should have done was start to discuss with the anon from the start. Simply reverting over and over does not help, you might consider reading WP:1RR. A good way to go about resolving disputes is to revert once, and direct the other user towards the talk page so that these edits can be discussed. Please keep this in mind in the future. Khoikhoi 07:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, User:Biophys is also close to breaking 3RR rule, you should warn him.DonaldDuck (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning

No, no! fayssal / Wiki me up® 11:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)