| Revision as of 22:46, 7 November 2009 view sourceJpgordon (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Administrators82,329 edits →Arbitration← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:31, 25 November 2010 view source Avraham (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Administrators49,160 editsm Protected User talk:Vanished user 05: No reason for a vanished user to have edits to their user or talk pages. ( (indefinite) (indefinite)) | ||
| (76 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| See older threads in the ]. | |||
| Other pages: ] (not updated), my ] | |||
| ==] nomination of ]== | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>I have nominated ], an article that you created, for ]. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. <!-- Template:AFDWarning --> ] (]) 10:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Freedom of the press in Russia wondering... == | |||
| Hi! I was wondering your motives when you reverted the version you wanted in the article ]. I'm little suprised that we have some editors (with Russian connection) who deny that there is nothing wrong with press freedom in Russia (for example according to the latest IPI report the press freedom in Russian sinked in 2009 under Belarus). I tell you a story: During the perestroika years, in late 1980s, did not only mean freedom of speech in the Soviet Union and East Europeans countries, but also in Finland. Though the country was/is democratic and capitalist, Finland was under heavy ] and the term itself was well-known among Finns even before 1980s. But people and media denied it - "How those arrogant Swedes and Western-Germans could say in aloud that we Finns are under self-censorship due the Soviet influence?". This was not bad, because the term was presented in abroad. But in late 1980s some of Finnish intellects said also this aloud. I remember that even I was angry: "who dared to say such stupidities" and "bring dirty to our homeland". Well, after the Soviet collapse the Finlandization became wellknown historical fact. ] (]) 17:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR warning == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ''']'''{{#if:Freedom of the press in Russia|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the ]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to ] to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. Please stop the disruption, otherwise '''you may be ] from editing'''. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 21:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm grateful for you for your generous warning. I think it's very great for you to inform me that you are engaged in an edit war with me. I certainly lacked of that information. Thank you very much, my dear person. | |||
| : | |||
| :However, I point out that you made all the same three reverts in 24 hours: , , . So I am afraid you may be in the same sort of trouble that I am. Anyway, it was very generous for you to come here and to warn me. I am happy that there are so warm-hearted people in the world. ] (]) 21:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Suggestion of compromise == | |||
| Considering the article ]. User Vlad fedorov's comment and my reply gave me an idea: How about we use only sources which are not U.S.-based (such as Freedom House and United States Department of State)? I think we could get a big picture with International Press Institute, Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. However, the result is/will be negative for Russian contemprorary situation of the freedom of the press; one cannot make other conclusion after these reports. Also, Gil-Robles long quotations should converted to sensible sentences. However, we could use headings as I suggested in talk page, but there could some sort of balance of powers, as 50% negative and 50% positive (exaggerate by generalising), giving readers a freedom to choice. How about compromise? ] (]) 10:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Peltimikko, the IPI, PWB, HRW and AI make certain points about certain real existing troubles -- like, high number of assaults, partiality of judiciary, or some other issues. All of these issues are discussed in the article to greater or less extent. If you are eager to expand any topic or cover it in greater details, who holds you? Nobody. | |||
| : | |||
| :But I certainly resist the idea of creating any sort of a "big picture" where some sources will be banned, and only others would be used. At this point I can't agree with you, at least being a Misplaced Pages contributor who seeks to follow the ] policy. The real situation is very complex, I fear that an attempt to reduce that complexity to an easy picture will ruin the credibility of the whole. | |||
| : | |||
| :All of those reports are equally valid and I see no major contradictions between Gil-Robles and Amnesty International, for example. Their major difference is the topic selection that's naturally more broad in Gil-Robles'es report. For example, when Gil Robles speaks about assaults of journalists he is no less critical than the Amnesty International, albeit slightly in a more diplomatic tone perhaps. In this situation, I don't see how banning one source will work to add credibility to any other source. | |||
| : | |||
| :By the way, if you read Gil-Robles report, you would see it's roughly 50/50 positive to negative. Not anything you are looking for? | |||
| : | |||
| :Currently as Vlad appeared on the talk page and seems to be interested in the discussion, I strongly advise you to continue discussing the topic on the talk page of the article. Misplaced Pages articles are the public property. Users who participate in the talk need not to be ignored, it's a generally recognized requirement. | |||
| :I agree that some Gil-Robles quotations can be reduced to shorter statements. I see no problems, if that won't alter the sense of the quotation, and won't lead to silencing points made. ] (]) 16:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, I do not know what to do with you. You repel multiple reports by human right organisations (many, recent of them are published in 2009) and highlight a single report from 2004. If you are a man of science, you should follow evidences, not beliefs. Anyway, seems we can not find a compromise. However, I edit the article without U.S. based sources, because there is a doubt of these sources. ] (]) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Peltimikko. Please, tell me when did I repel those reports? All the new sourced information you introduced to the article is still there. ] (]) 19:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| For example. You inserted a section '''Pressure on independent media''', with the following passage: | |||
| ''According to the World Press Freedom Review 2008 by ], Russian independent media is under increasing pressure. The goverment use variety of methods to control of broadcasters, to sideline critical journalists, and to intimidate them into self-censorship.<ref name="IPIRussia"></ref> According to the Freedom House report the Russian constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, but in reality, the politized and corrupt court system is used against independent journalists.<ref name="freedom2009" /> '' | |||
| In the recent version, there's the section '''Trends''', which sais: | |||
| ''The World Press Freedom Review 2008 by International Press Institute stated that Russian independent media is under increasing pressure:'' | |||
| {{cquote|The central administration strengthened its grip on power by restricting journalism in the run-up to the State Duma and Presidential elections. State officials and pro-government businesses relied on a variety of methods to consolidate control of influential broadcasters, to sideline critical journalists, and to intimidate them into self-censorship.}} | |||
| ] (]) 20:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| By the way, note the following: this particular source emphasized the particular event -- the elections to the State Duma and the Presidentials. In your version the statement made by the source is generalized, intentionally or unintentionally. The source sais somewhat different thing than the way you used it. Please, take it as a piece of friendly critique. ] (]) 20:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration == | |||
| I think you should have filed a 3RR report instead. It's very unlikely that the Arb case will be accepted. ] (]) 15:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you much for the information, Offliner! It would be bad to go the wrong way with this case, as I was intended to do. Thanks again, ] (]) 16:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Very fun. But anyway, I wouldn't have broken the 3 RR policy. I had only the choice of either breaking the 3 RR myself, or reporting the violation. Why the hell I would break a Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 17:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You might want to consider reading the actual policy ].] (]) 17:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Good. But after that, my version of that article is more neutral and less opinionated. The currently existing section -- "Issues under debate" -- is essentially an euphemism for "Strong POV pushing", where one can not care about making accurate use of the sources, and is absolutely free to bash. I object the existence of this section in such a form. The other point is, that Peltimikko's version lacks of certain actual viewpoints made by the European Commissioner for Human Rights. Those viewpoints are not simply shortened, moved to other section or anything. They are simply removed. What is it, if it's not the POV pushing? ] (]) 18:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I see. You've read what you liked and seemed to be in your favor after twisting it a bit. Sorry, but ''that is not who it works''. You where edit warring as much as the other editor and unless you see this you'll run into trouble again.] (]) 19:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No. Let's look on it. Did I remove the information the other user provided? No. Did he remove the information of equal credibility, coming from equally credible sources, that I have provided? Yes. Who is wrong? ] (]) 19:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please stop being ]. You think you're right as the other editor thinks he is right. That is called a content dispute, which in this case ended up to be an editwar with both of you being "wrong" as you both engaged in editwarring. There is ] on WP! Please keep this in mind.] (]) 20:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Please, listen to me a minute. The other user insists that the report of the European Commissioner for Human Rights does not qualify as a report of an international organization. But what the hell it is, if it's not the international organization? May be it's Russian organization? How can he imagine that the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe is a Russian organization? What way? I'm very interested in learning that. Unfortunately, he keeps silent about it. ] (]) 20:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Sorry, but I'm not interested in the dispute itself. It seems like there was a RFC at the article's talk page with no prevail, (right?); So try another one and/or mediation. In any case, edit warring should be '''never''' be the answer if you're looking for a solution, only if you're looking for a block.] (]) 21:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, but how can you make points about the dispute if you did not bother to get into the details? This may sound weird, but in a dispute there can be a right and a wrong side. ] (]) 22:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Indeed, and there can also be a right way and wrong way of resolving such disputes. On Misplaced Pages, edit warring is the wrong way. I also neither know nor care what the details of the dispute are; all I need do is look at the edit history of the article, note that two editors are going back and forth with their changes, look a bit closer to see that there is neither vandalism nor allegations of vandalism, and conclude that edit warring is going on and needs to be stopped.--]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == November 2009 == | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for '''edit warring'''. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. ] (]) 16:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1= I did not break the 3 Revert rule, either in November 7, or previously: . I follow the Misplaced Pages policies.|decline=You were not blocked for breaking 3RR, you were blocked for edit warring, as was the other person in that dispute. Use the talk page and this won't happen again. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)}} | |||