Revision as of 19:06, 12 May 2009 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,008 edits →User notice: temporary 3RR block: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:11, 12 May 2009 edit undoWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,008 edits indefNext edit → | ||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
Soviet Union was expelled from League of Nations for violation of Covenant of the League. But this is not a law, but document of the League of Nations, so the term "illegally" doesn't apply there.] (]) 12:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC) | Soviet Union was expelled from League of Nations for violation of Covenant of the League. But this is not a law, but document of the League of Nations, so the term "illegally" doesn't apply there.] (]) 12:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
== User notice: |
== User notice: indefinite 3RR block == | ||
<div style="background-color: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid red; padding: 3px;"> | <div style="background-color: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid red; padding: 3px;"> | ||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
] (]) 19:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)</div> | ] (]) 19:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)</div> | ||
I've just read and so have extended the block to indef ] (]) 19:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:11, 12 May 2009
Phone Call to Putin
Hi there, in regards to Phone Call to Putin, I believe that the AfD was closed inappropriately, and have therefore relisted here. --Russavia 01:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is now at deletion review. Cheers, --Russavia 17:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- The AfD which you initiated has now been reopened at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Phone Call to Putin (2nd nomination). --Russavia 20:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- The AfD which you initiated has now been reopened at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Phone Call to Putin (2nd nomination). --Russavia 20:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Putinland
Hey there, here's an article which was created as a WP:POINT to the AfD for eSStonia. You may want to take a look at it. Putinland. --Russavia 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Kolchak
Your edits in the Kolchak page amount to vandalism. Please cease with the removal of sourced text. Kupredu (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC) I remove only Soviet nonsense with dubious or strongly partisan sources:
- "Some think of Kolchak" - taken from forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=127527&start=0, total nonsense about ultra-right wing parties, most ministers in Kolchaks government were socialists.
- Piece from Soviet Russia pictorial published Soviet Government Bureau and Friends of Soviet Russia - strongly partisan source. Especially funny as Lenin himself ordered to blow up the railways many times.
- "follow the example of the Japanese who, in the Amur region, had exterminated the local population" - this is nonsense both about Kolchack and Japanese, who did not exterminate local population.
- piece about people 25000 shot in Ekaterinburg from BSE - total nonsense.
DonaldDuck (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Material published by Russia's Academy of Sciences qualify as reliable sources. Your opinion of scholarly material as "rubbish" and "total nonsense" is worthless. Nor is there any justification for your deletion of historian Arno Mayer's citation of a quote showing Kolchak's call for atrocities against peaceful people. Even if your claim about the partisan aspect of the sources is to be accepted as valid, it would still be unjustified to remove the sources. For example, Lenin's Collected Works are partisan, but all professional historians on the subject of the Russian Revolution cite his works for analyses, etc. Misplaced Pages does not practice censorship. All sources published by professional scholars have a place in this encyclopedia. Kupredu (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Lenin's Collected Works may be relevant for description of Lenin himself, but not for scholarly description of Kolchak. There are good books on Kolchak: Sibir, soiuzniki i Kolchak: povorotnyi moment russkoi istorii 1918-1920 gg. by G. K. Gins or Belaia Sibir by Konstantin Sakharov, for example. DonaldDuck (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Material published by Russia's Academy of Sciences qualify as reliable sources. Your opinion of scholarly material as "rubbish" and "total nonsense" is worthless. Nor is there any justification for your deletion of historian Arno Mayer's citation of a quote showing Kolchak's call for atrocities against peaceful people. Even if your claim about the partisan aspect of the sources is to be accepted as valid, it would still be unjustified to remove the sources. For example, Lenin's Collected Works are partisan, but all professional historians on the subject of the Russian Revolution cite his works for analyses, etc. Misplaced Pages does not practice censorship. All sources published by professional scholars have a place in this encyclopedia. Kupredu (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Your vandalism and attempted censorship of the page is absolutely unacceptable. You cannot remove material just because you don't like what it says.Kupredu (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Bialystok
I don't have a handy copy of Radzinsky anymore - but does it reference that the other pogroms (Kishieniev, Kiev, Odessa...) were organized by Czarist authorities? The sources for the fact that this one was are in the article already.radek (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Additionally I expect that this source: also has same info but unfortunetly that particular page is not available for preview.radek (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Quack quack cuckoo quack quack Biophys quack quack
You may be interested to know that User:Biophys is accusing you of being a sockpuppet of MPowerDrive (talk · contribs) (or vice versa). His accusations are being made at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacob_Peters. You should note that this checkuser case has been denied, so having said that, you should keep an eye on Special:Contributions/Biophys so that you can see when he files the report on you. You may also want to take note of his continued harrassment against myself at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive191#Ethics_of_sharing_an_account with the aid of other editors, another sockpuppet report against User:Petri Krohn and User:Offliner at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Petri Krohn, and my complaint against Biophys and his continued accusations against editors whom he is in editorial disputes with at Misplaced Pages:AN#Biophys_continuing_harrassment. --Russavia 04:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will keep an eye on this.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
deletion?
What is the purpose of ? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Articles about molotov-ribbentrop pact and deportations are unrelated to "falsification of history" (by the way, it is typical KGB phraseology).DonaldDuck (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
3RR violation on Tsarist autocracy
You've violated the 3RR rule on Tsarist autocracy, with your last edit if not the one before it (basically 5 reverts in a little over 24 hrs). I'd appreciate it if you self reverted, per: .radek (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've reverted myself. Still, nobody answered issues raised by Altenmann at the talk page.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I mean that sincerely, I appreciate it. I think part of the reason why nobody's responding to Altenmann is because it just doesn't seem like a serious argument. The Google BOOK search is a concise way of referencing several scholarly works at once, rather than inserting numerous individual citations for what are obviously scholarly sources.radek (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
May 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Białystok pogrom. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — ] (talk · contribs) 03:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Ongoing vandalism
Note that there are consequences for vandalism as you have done in the Kolchak page as well as the article on the Revolution of 1905. I suggest you stop now. Kupredu (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's not his only target. Consider this bit of vandalism, for example. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
December 14
In December 14, is there another qualifier that could be used instead of "illegally"? I think that "The Soviet Union is expelled from the League of Nations for invading Finland", not because they invaded Finland but because they "illegally" invaded Finland. Maybe another word other than illegally? Wasn't the entire purpose of the League of Nations the prevention of war? Wouldn't starting a war be contrary to the requirements of the League then? 199.125.109.64 (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Soviet Union was expelled from League of Nations for violation of Covenant of the League. But this is not a law, but document of the League of Nations, so the term "illegally" doesn't apply there.DonaldDuck (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
User notice: indefinite 3RR block
Regarding reversions made on May 12 2009 to Tsarist autocracy
You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text{{unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. The duration of the block is 2 weeks.
You're clearly edit warring here. You have a previous 1 week block that appears to have taught you nothing. You never mark any of your reverts as such.
William M. Connolley (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)I've just read and so have extended the block to indef William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)