Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:58, 23 August 2010

This user has a zero tolerance policy towards trolls on Misplaced Pages.

Just a few of the people I happen to collaborate with more frequently:

• Sander Säde (talk · contribs)
• Termer (talk · contribs)
• Martintg (talk · contribs)
• Colchicum (talk · contribs)
• Russavia (talk · contribs)
• Checco (talk · contribs)
• Gabagool (talk · contribs)
• Vecrumba (talk · contribs)

Bosnian

Sorry, I thought you were the one deleting the info! I didn't look closely enough. — kwami (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I see; no problem, the ex-Yugoslavia topic is one of those where the interests of various nationalist POVs collide, so there's persistent small-scale daily edit warring there. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Miacek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I recently reported a user who kept stalking me and broke the 3 RR at Peter Sichrovsky. All my changes to that article were correct, so apart from not exceeding 3 reverts - having reverted 3 times - I was more of a victim of that user who stalked me. (He had similarly stalked and reverted my edit to Viktor Suvorov today - I can't see why, since the category I removed is not supported by the article) - Category:Historical revisionism (negationism) there contravenes WP:BLP (there is no information that Suvorov denies any great crimes like Holocaust. As such, the category is libellous).
As I explained, there was absolutely nothing wrong with my changes to Peter Sichrovsky article, the other person just kept mechanically reverting me and broke the rule, unlike me. As to the the other article linked in my block log, I merely reverted 2 times (Dodo19 reverting thrice), tried to explain my changes at talk, then gave up and turned to another user for assistance and comments. Dodo19 has been edit warring there since 2009, adding fringe sources.

I see no reason why a generally productive and constructive user like me should be blocked for 36 h. The user was plainly stalking me in a mission of reverting all my changes. I just reverted a few times, whereas my opponent falsely accused me of racism, vandalism and eventually broke the 3 RR. I agree that one needn't always exceed 3 reverts to qualify for a block for edit warring - yes! But I was acting constructively in the sense of expanding the article on Peter Sichrovsky whereas my opponent just mechanically reverted me 4 times with no valid reason.
Hence I ask for unblock, and I promise to keep away from the article Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt since we need third opinions before proceeding there. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, it seems pretty clear that you and Dodo19 were involved in an edit war spanning multiple articles - and I note that Dodo19 was blocked as well for the same offense. While breaching 3RR is a really quick way to get blocked, not breaching 3RR doesn't mean that it isn't an edit war, and I note that you weren't blocked for breaching 3RR, but for edit warring. Taking a step back from some of these articles wouldn't be a bad idea for both of you, at least in the short term. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

3RR

Your recent editing history at Viktor Suvorov shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Dodo19 (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Your POV-pushing has already been reverted by another user. If you don't cease with patently disruptive actions, you may end up being a permabanned user sooner, than you expect. As, btw, your admirer Molobo can tell you based on his own experiences. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 18:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Governorates

Would you support Estonian Governorate and Livonian Governorate? Then also Lithuanian Governorate should be moved. For me this is fine. It is more consistent than the current situation. Schwyz (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't really made up my mind yet on that, at the moment I'd still prefer G of Estonia. I'm waiting for more comments by hitherto uninvolved users. I would like to hear Ezhiki's opinion on that, too.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. At least for Estland there are now Ezhiki, Petri Krohn and me, supporting Estland Governorate. For Livonia(n) / Livland I still see no consensus coming. Schwyz (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Made a listing at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baltic_governorates&action=historysubmit&diff=378240236&oldid=360339552#Listing Schwyz (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Preview

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Regarding your edits to Party for Freedom, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. 78.53.47.215 (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't add messages and warnings , meant for newbies to an editor who has been here for almost two years with around 7,000 edits. It is considered rude, in addition, it will very much undermine your own cause, once I report you. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Effects of World War II . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not revert him anymore (Effects of World War II ), in fact, others can re-add the titles at any time, this is not that important.
Funny, how you reject long term POV pushing issues in certain articles on living persons. In my report, I detailed how this guy has been pushing his propaganda since 2009. I'm just his newest victime, as he started to stalk my edits after I disputed his additions at Talk:Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt.
And now come and block me for 'edit warring' by having added the valid name of the German guy an oak in Prussia/ present day Poland was named after. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 18:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You, Todd, are not really a neutral arbiter here, right? Thanx to 'self-less efforts' of some people - you hopefully excluded ? - some vandals can go on, and on, and on. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 18:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

NPA

Please retract (as in "remove") the personal attacks you made here: .radek (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've rephrased my comments in order to be more matter-of-fact. Considering your editing history, however, I do not think that I made any personal assaults, as it is easily verifiable, how things go with the POV agenda of your team. It's clear to anyone, what is the real problem that you have with German authors and some German-speaking users here.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 21:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no "team". I have no "POV agenda". I only have problems with German authors who represent extremist views - both right AND left, btw. I only have a problem with authors, German or otherwise, who engage in historical revisionism and Holocaust denial. And I only have problems with German speaking users "here" who violate Misplaced Pages rules on NPOV, OR, NPA, TE etc. You are continuing with the personal attacks.radek (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)