Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:51, 19 June 2011

- -

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Happy Holidays!

Seasons greetings and best wishes for 2011! Biophys (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, merry Christmas and best wishes for you and yours in 2011 too. --Martin (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Myth of 1939—40

The article Myth of 1939—40 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

POV redirect created to merely disparage one of POVs in a controversial article

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Igny (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your email message

Feel free to report it if you wish. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Estonian SSR PMs

Template:Estonian SSR PMs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 00:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Your accusations at Edit-warring noticeboard.

I have ocmmented on your accusations at the edit-warring noticeboard. TFD (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:PD-Estonia70

A tag has been placed on Template:PD-Estonia70 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Misplaced Pages"

Communist terrorism

Could yuou please rephrase your question to me on this article, which could be seen as abusive. TFD (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

Why don't you add barnstars to yuor userpage? I thought about giving you one, but... :) Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't done as much work as you, some 12,000 edits since you joined in 2009, so I definitely don't deserve a barn star. --Martin (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You've done 12888 edits, but no barnstars on userpage? My contributions include mostly footballers and I don't even remember making an article about one. Some my other edits include categorization and tagging talk pages. So nothing special for me. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

Your recent addition to the article which was removed by Zloyvolsheb with an edit summary which most certainly does not support his position can be referenced by the very book he says supports his contention. See pages 4&5 of Terrorism Today by Christopher C. Harmon. If you require full quotes from the book feel free to ask. Tentontunic (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

New name?

Is there any special occasion for this assumption of a new identity? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not really, just felt like a change. --Martin (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Any significance to the name? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, any significance to yours, Herr Richthofen? ;) --Martin (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing special. I'm a German-American who happens to have a long-standing interest in air power, especially in the world wars. I use either Lothar or his better-known brother as noms-de-guerre while cavorting about the debate-clubs and war-zones of the internet. Helps keep the real world separated from the virtual one. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Anti-communism

I started the categories to contain the mess in the category:anti-communism. Well, these movements started as something "communist-approved", but soon turned into very anti-communist organizations. It certainly was not purely anti-communist, and I would agree that describing them just as anti-communist would not be fair. But these are categories, and not an exact science. Renata (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Moderated nuclear explosion source articles

You have access to the source articles, not just the summaries?

Just checking...

I'm somewhat concerned with Petri if he's misrepresenting sources, but I want to confirm that you have the whole articles available. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have full online access via my university library account. --Martin (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

Unacceptable statement

This personal slur is unacceptable. Please remove it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed it and replaced it with an attempt at a more acceptably framed query, as it wasn't my intent to slur, but to legitimately question the veracity of his statement. I trust that this is acceptable to you. --Martin (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

Nomination of Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Soman (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours

In relation to this request for arbitration enforcement, you are blocked for 48 hours for unnecessarily and disruptively interacting with User:Russavia—in violation of WP:EEML#Editors restricted. This block is provided for by WP:EEML#Enforcement by block and is in the context of my earlier block of Russavia for his violation of the mutual interaction ban. For a full summary of my rationale, please see the "Result concerning Russavia" section of the enforcement request I linked to. If at any point you need guidance on whether an edit of yours would violate the interaction ban, I encourage you to come to any uninvolved administrator instead of making the edit; my talk page and e-mail is always open. AGK 21:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

AGK's block is unjust and excessive for several reasons:

• He agrees that Russavia's edit at Occupation of the Baltic states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a violation of the interaction ban, yet apparently I can't do anything about it since seeking admin assistance is a violation of the interaction ban according to AGK. What could I have done to end that unwanted and disruptive interaction?
• AGK disagrees with Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs)'s interpretation that the remedy does not cover interaction by editing the same article. It is the opinions of Arbitrators involved in the original case that we rely upon to ensure we keep in compliance and for AGK to repudiate that opinion is unfair upon us as it is a post factum alteration of our understanding of the remedy.
• His claim that I am not an established contributor to Russophobia while Russavia is, is incorrect. I started editing that page on 2007-03-13 with 54 edits while Russavia started in 2008-06-22 with 36 edits . My previous edit to that article was on June 3rd.
• My sum total of two edits to Russophobia since was to ask for a quote and raise the issue of possible OR issues hardly disruptive acts compared to Russavia's direct reverts ,,
• Coming 8 days after the initial request is punitive not preventative per WP:BLOCK
• 48 hrs is excessive for a first offence for WP:EEML#Editors restricted, given Russavia received on 24 hours for a similar first interaction offence, particularly given the length of time AGK arrived at the result

--Martin (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As this block is Arbitration Enforcement, it may not be overturned by another admin. You may only appeal to ArbComm or the blocking admin. Arbcomm can be emailed at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2011 (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.

Response and note from blocking administrator

First, note that I amended your block length to 24 hours (minus time served). I meant to make your block the same as Russavia's, but I misremembered the actual length. I didn't intend to make your block inexplicably longer than his.

Second, my responses to the unblock appeal is as follows:

1. I did action Russavia's violation of the interaction ban, as you acknowledge, with a block.
2. Sanctions are enforced with a view to long-term prevention, and citing "punitive per WP:BLOCK" is a misguided view of how arbitration (and arbitration enforcement) works.
3. I disagreed with a remark by Newyorkbrad in his capacity as an individual arbitrator, not with the Committee. In any case, as I stated at AE, the situation here is different from the one that NYB discusses in his remark; his advice was not applicable here, which was why I disagreed.

I will think some more about the established contributor to Russ. and respond soon, but I do not anticipate that my view will change. A violation is a violation. Note that this block can't be overturned by a simple unblock request, but requires a consensus of uninvolved sysops. Perhaps somebody could copy this over to AE at their first convenience, if Martin wishes to pursue an appeal. AGK 23:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. You might also want to think about the first point: how should one resolve the issue of when the other editor comes in and directly reverts your edits when both are under a mutual interaction ban, without getting one's fingers burnt ? --Martin (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, then filing Arbitration requests and amendments were explicitly not covered by the interaction ban - instead those are allowed as "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution". I.e. I think Russavia himself has interacted repeatedly with ex-EEML members in ArbCom pages. Not to mention, blocking someone for filing a correct, actionable enforcement request will send a rather wrong message. I would recommend unbanning Martin and seeking clarification from arbitrators - or at the very least, consensus from several sysops. Sander Säde 07:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:IBAN explicitly exempts seeking admin intervention in violations of interaction bans by the other party:

The following exceptions to article, topic and interaction bans are usually recognized:

• Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once), asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, or appealing the ban for a good reason.

Such edits are allowed even if the ban would otherwise prohibit them.

Reporting a violation to WP:AE is effectively seeking admin action as permitted by WP:IBAN. --Martin (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

The 24 hour term has expired, but the block remains in place. Can someone fix this apparent technical glitch.

Accept reason:

I removed the autoblock. Could you see if you're still blocked? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I am following up on your direct appeal of my block, because it is only fair that I re-visit the matter and am open to voiding the block if appropriate. On reflection, I agree with Sander Sade's point that the filing of an arbitration enforcement is a necessary exemption from the EEML interaction ban. The alternative is obviously unworkable. However, you did interact with Russavia at Occupation of the Baltic States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by making edits about post-independence citizenship policy; this was a violation of the interaction ban. On 10 Jun 2011, you made this edit; in the next change to the article, Russavia reverted you. Taking only that edit into account, you would not have violated the interaction ban—although Russavia would have, and I would have blocked him had I not already. However, on 17 Jun 2011, you made the same changes (with some additional material added), which transgressed the interaction ban because you undid Russavia's earlier revert. I do not think as a general matter it is helpful to punitively block for any minor interaction between editor who are subject to this kind of ban, and I acknowledge that in an online community, editors will at one point come into contact with one another. In this case, I do not see what action could have been taken other than to block your account, because interaction in the context of a contentious article is precisely the sort the ban is designed to prevent.

On a separate topic and as a passing observation, I see that both your changes were made with an inaccurate edit summary ("see-also link" in the first, and "copy edit" in the second). Although I would not agree with the strident rhetoric of Russavia in "reverting sneaking in of controversial changes", I do think that this practice is concerning, and that you ought to resolve to use more accurate edit summaries in future—especially for contested changes. The issue of the edit summary is an irrelevancy to the interaction ban, so I have not discussed it at greater length, and I certainly will not take administrative action in relation to it; but I would generally caution you that such practices are disruptive, and therefore could result in you being blocked. With regards to the initial issue, in summary: I therefore conclude that the block was valid, albeit on a different basis. I have watchlisted your talk page, and am happy to discuss this analysis at greater length, because it may be that this conclusion, like my last one, was wrong; by no means do I consider myself to be infallible. Regards, AGK 20:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)