Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:27, 16 October 2010

Template:ExamsDIRlong

Operation Pike DYK nom

Thanks for replying to my point about the Operation Pike DYK nomination. It's a fascinating topic! My grandfather was at RAF Habbaniyah at around this time. I've added an extra comment and a proposed ALT hook here http://en.wikipedia.org/Template_talk:Did_you_know#Operation_Pike --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Pike

On 2 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Pike, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Martintg. Offliner (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Blind revert:Your tendentious rewrite

I'd just give you one reason (there are more) for my blind revert. You replaced this paragraph in the lede

The official position of Russia is that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were annexed by Soviet Union in 1940, and, with its dissolution, these countries became newly created entities in 1991. According to this position, all previous treaties, such as Treaty of Tartu, are invalidated, and all possible claims by Baltic states for monetary compensation have no legal basis.

which admittedly needed some sources, with this

The official position of Russia (legal successor of the USSR) is that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were legally annexed by Soviet Union in 1940, and, with its dissolution, these countries became newly created entities in 1991. Russia's stance is based upon the desire to avoid financial liability, the view being that acknowledging the Soviet occupation would set the stage for future compensation claims from the Baltic states.

with a reference to some obscure article in Izvestia by some nobody, a wanna-be-polical-commentary.

I find ingenious your attempt to justify your tendentious rewrite, which created more problems than it solved, by claiming that the older version had some "structural problems". For one, if you really tried to fix it instead of simply applying your POV, you should have found a source backing up the paragraph above with an official statement by MID, which I believe was easier to find than your obscure article in Izvestia. Your efforts to find that source, while admirable, was clearly a complete waste of your time, so do not complain to me about your hard work gone down the drain by my revert.

Most of the rest of your rewrite was plagued by the same POVs you have expressed against Russia in the past. (Igny (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC))

To be honest, I think this justification, based upon sourcing of a single statement in the lede, seems rather contrived. Your concern could have be flagged more constructively with an inline tag like if you felt it rather dubious, however that source was used as a cite in a book I have at home, I guess I should have referenced that book instead as a secondary source. There are serious structural problems, which I solved mostly by reordering the various sections to make sense and adding some additional material from some book I had just taken delivery of. While Peltimikko has done an admirable job, he uses basically one single source by Ineta Ziemele. You accuse me of tendentiousness, that is an easy accusation to throw around, but might you be living in a glass house? It certainly appears to me that you may have some WP:OWN issues with this article as you seem to continually dismiss Termer's concerns on talk, as I read it. --Martin (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not just your use of one dubious source. I am sorry that you fail to see how your rewrite is afoul of WP:TEND on so many levels. And your accusation of my ownership, I suggest you to get your facts straight. Termer has never made any constructive edits to the article, just tagged it from time to time with spurious whos and whats. And I was not even a major contributor to that article, Peltimikko was. (Igny (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC))

Well that is not true. Termer attempted to contribute to that article many times but you reverted him too. In the end he gave up and tagged the article, which you also reverted. --Martin (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Show me the diffs of his constructive edits to the article and their reverts by me. (Igny (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC))

October 2010

Per WP:AE, you are blocked for one week for violation of your topic ban. Jehochman 15:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your recent comment

I mostly agree, although I am somewhat partial to a limited broad interaction ban I elaborate on here. Also, have you seen this argument? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

As you should be aware from a January 2010 request for clarification about which you were notified this article comes under the Eastern European topic ban. Could you please remove your comments from the talk page. TFD (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)