Revision as of 17:38, 15 October 2009 editJacurek (talk | contribs)9,609 edits →Can you please stop reverting the London Victory Parade article?← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:04, 15 October 2009 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,204 edits →Concerns about your editing: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
:: You agreed to a 1RR four days ago and now you have reverted this article twice in one day. Why?] (]) 17:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC) | :: You agreed to a 1RR four days ago and now you have reverted this article twice in one day. Why?] (]) 17:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::I DID NOT REVERT TWICE AND '''YOU KNOW IT.''' '''YOU''' ARE THE ONE WHO IS EDIT WARRING THERE]. DO NOT FOLLOW ME AROUND AS YOU DO FROM THE BEGINNING. DO NOT LEAVE ME ANY MORE THREATENING MESSAGES. '''LEAVE ME ALONE'''. I FEEL HARASSED BY YOU.--] (]) 17:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC) | :::I DID NOT REVERT TWICE AND '''YOU KNOW IT.''' '''YOU''' ARE THE ONE WHO IS EDIT WARRING THERE]. DO NOT FOLLOW ME AROUND AS YOU DO FROM THE BEGINNING. DO NOT LEAVE ME ANY MORE THREATENING MESSAGES. '''LEAVE ME ALONE'''. I FEEL HARASSED BY YOU.--] (]) 17:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
== Concerns about your editing == | |||
A brand-new user who is ] might become the subject of scrutiny. Jacurek has been making special efforts to stay out of trouble, so bothering him might be viewed unfavorably by admins. If you could somehow manage to stay away from articles frequented by Jacurek for one week, you might be on safer ground. As you might have heard, admins can use ] on this kind of issue, and brand-new users with your type of behavior could be among the candidates for these sanctions. ] (]) 21:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:04, 15 October 2009
Welcome !
|
Reproaches
Against you, and me, at User_talk:Sandstein#I_noticed_that_Matthead_could_be_a_sockpuppeteer. -- Matthead Discuß 12:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything I can do about that? I can't post on his talkpage because it is semi-protected and I'm a new user.Varsovian (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, User_talk:Sandstein is currently protected "". But User talk:Sky Attacker is not, and it was Sky Attacker anyway who brought this up at the talk of Sandstein who filed a Sockpuppetry case against me in regard to another new user. Seems Sky Attacker figured since you and Jacurek are at odds at that London Parade article, and Jacurek is at odds with me everywhere, we two must be linked, notifying Sandstein. It does not help that Sky Attacker made some remarks at my talk, too, exposing, among other things, a lack of knowledge towards German history, and in capital letters, too. Well, you can choose to ignore the matter (Do not feed the trolls), or ask Sky Attacker about his reasoning. Or lack thereof. -- Matthead Discuß 14:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
yes "Varsovian", you are a new user. right. just an advise next time you try the new user thing try to behave like one, you might look more convincing. Loosmark (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Are there any "new user" courses around which teach "new" Wikipiedians to be so experienced as you are Varsovian? :)--Jacurek (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I note that you make no attempt to in anyway discuss the topic of the article and instead both assume (and publicly state) that I am editing in bad faith and adopt uncivil language towards me. Is there any reason why I should not file a Request for Comment on user conduct with regard to your behaviour?Varsovian (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- How do you know about the Request for Comment thing? Loosmark (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- You appear to want to have a dispute with me and about this article, so I checked Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. You can find it by looking near the top of this page and clicking on Misplaced Pages:List of policies. Has anybody ever filed such a request about you?Varsovian (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh I see, you deleted tons of sourced material from the article, and then you felt I want to have a dispute with you and from the tons of links on the page you clicked the right one. Makes sense. Now just another question, how did you, the new user, know of Scurinae existance? Where have you clicked for that one? Loosmark (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- "you deleted tons of sourced material from the article" Could you perhaps go into detail as to those tons? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=London_Victory_Parade_of_1946&action=historysubmit&diff=316679556&oldid=281897176 shows very clearly that the only info I deleted is: "The parade is also notable for the exclusion of all Polish servicemen" and even you agree that that claim is false; "The 303 squadron was the only Polish unit invited" which I removed because it is an unsourced statement which is directly contradicted by the available sources; "Poles were expected to attend the Moscow Victory Parade of 1945" where I have made it clear that Poles actually did attend such; "since the Western Allies did not want to antagonize Stalin" because firstly it is given to support a statement which even you agree is false and secondly because it is erroneous to say that the Western Allies other than Britain had any say over who was invited and thirdly because the claim flies in the face of reliable sources from the time.
- As for your other statements: where else would I look for WP's policy on dispute resolution than in Misplaced Pages:List of policies? As for Scurinae, I was wondering why you and Jacurek are so incivil to me and why you both used the word 'troll' in connection with me, so I did a search for Jacurek. Found some interesting reading. I must admit that I don't know who Kurfust is or what the complaint was but I'll be sure to check it out, thanks for the tip.Varsovian (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- You did a "search for Jacurek". How? Loosmark (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- By using the cunning plan of typing his username into the search box and clicking on "Go"! On the next page it says "Did you mean: javůrek" but there's a button marked "Everything" Click that and you get 330 hits. Try it for yourself.Varsovian (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- You did a "search for Jacurek". How? Loosmark (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh I see, you deleted tons of sourced material from the article, and then you felt I want to have a dispute with you and from the tons of links on the page you clicked the right one. Makes sense. Now just another question, how did you, the new user, know of Scurinae existance? Where have you clicked for that one? Loosmark (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- You appear to want to have a dispute with me and about this article, so I checked Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. You can find it by looking near the top of this page and clicking on Misplaced Pages:List of policies. Has anybody ever filed such a request about you?Varsovian (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- How do you know about the Request for Comment thing? Loosmark (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I note that you make no attempt to in anyway discuss the topic of the article and instead both assume (and publicly state) that I am editing in bad faith and adopt uncivil language towards me. Is there any reason why I should not file a Request for Comment on user conduct with regard to your behaviour?Varsovian (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Are there any "new user" courses around which teach "new" Wikipiedians to be so experienced as you are Varsovian? :)--Jacurek (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Stop
Could you please stop leaving me messages on my talk page? You already noticed that I do not wish to continue this conversation since in my opinion you are trying to provoke me. Thank you and good luck.--Jacurek (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am attempting to engage you in discussion. According to Misplaced Pages:List of policies "The first step to resolving any dispute is to talk to those who disagree with you." Is there any reason that you do not wish to discuss the article and wish solely to make edits which reflect neither the facts of the matter nor the statements in the the sources which you quote?Varsovian (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to contribute and make changes, just leave me alone and please do not post anymore messages on my talk page. I do not wish to continue this conversation. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Do you not wish to discuss this dispute? I would much prefer that we talked about it and resolved it rather than you simply constantly editing the article to include unsourced claims.Varsovian (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to contribute and make changes, just leave me alone and please do not post anymore messages on my talk page. I do not wish to continue this conversation. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you please stop reverting the London Victory Parade article?
Can you please stop reverting] the London Victory Parade article??--Jacurek (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- YOU AGREED] THAT YOU WILL LEAVE ME ALONE AND THAT YOU WILL STOP HARRASING ME BY LEAVING ME PROVOCATIVE MESSAGES ON MY TALK PAGE--Jacurek (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- You agreed to a 1RR four days ago and now you have reverted this article twice in one day. Why?Varsovian (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I DID NOT REVERT TWICE AND YOU KNOW IT. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS EDIT WARRING THERE]. DO NOT FOLLOW ME AROUND AS YOU DO FROM THE BEGINNING. DO NOT LEAVE ME ANY MORE THREATENING MESSAGES. LEAVE ME ALONE. I FEEL HARASSED BY YOU.--Jacurek (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- You agreed to a 1RR four days ago and now you have reverted this article twice in one day. Why?Varsovian (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Concerns about your editing
A brand-new user who is bothering Jacurek might become the subject of scrutiny. Jacurek has been making special efforts to stay out of trouble, so bothering him might be viewed unfavorably by admins. If you could somehow manage to stay away from articles frequented by Jacurek for one week, you might be on safer ground. As you might have heard, admins can use discretionary sanctions on this kind of issue, and brand-new users with your type of behavior could be among the candidates for these sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)