| Revision as of 21:03, 12 June 2009 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,255 edits →WP:AE: Restrictions imposed per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:04, 13 June 2009 edit undoPasswordUsername (talk | contribs)5,580 edits →WP:AENext edit → | ||
| Line 140: | Line 140: | ||
| * For three months, to run concurrently with the preceding sanction, you are topic-banned from editing ] with respect to any page (including but not limited to biographical articles) related to Russia or Estonia, or nationals of these countries, broadly defined. Reverts of ''obvious'' vandalism are exempt. | * For three months, to run concurrently with the preceding sanction, you are topic-banned from editing ] with respect to any page (including but not limited to biographical articles) related to Russia or Estonia, or nationals of these countries, broadly defined. Reverts of ''obvious'' vandalism are exempt. | ||
| <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ===Sorry=== | |||
| Hi, Shotlandiya. Sorry to hear about your editing restriciton. I think that the restrictions imposed are certainly a tad excessive{{ndash}}some of the evidence dug up against you, after all, was from as long ago as 2008... | |||
| It is indeed unfair that Digwuren has essentially gamed away Misplaced Pages's fair standards; I suspect that there may be administrators who have been reluctant to deal with him as it is hard to put up with a critical mass of POV pushers (you can see how this sort of problem was discussed by ] at ] just hours ago). At the same time, I note that ] was just blocked two days ago on another technicality. So long as his habits of ] do not change substantially, it is only a matter of time before the hammer does come down on him in all its might. ] (]) 23:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:04, 13 June 2009
Welcome to Misplaced Pages!!!
|
Edit Summary Request
I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Misplaced Pages. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello!
Hello, Shotlandiya. I see, you are online. Please, leave here a short message, and type four tildes after it. Let is see, hoe does it work. dima 10:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Does this work? Shotlandiya 13:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, Shotlandiya! Very good. I finished with Vladimir Bukovsky. Did you see the movies I cited? Do you like the correction of the confusion with the passport? Type your comments at the Talk:Vladimir Bukovsky, and let us think if we can even improve it.dima 15:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
August 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Garry Kasparov. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Kerotan Have a nice day :) 13:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Shotlandiya (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Can anyone explain why this account has been blocked? From what I can understand, my IP address has been blocked from editing as it is a shared address for the House of Commons, but I thought having my own Misplaced Pages username got around this problem. I certainly don't want to have to open a new account as I've made quite a few edits on this one and would like to carry on. Can anyone help?
Decline reason:
Most likely, you've been hit by an autoblock. Someone else using an account from the same address has been blocked and so all users are temporarily blocked. This happens automatically and is because vandals regularly use alternate accounts to continue editing. Please follow these instructions so we can lift the autoblock. — Yamla (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2007 (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.
WP:OR edit warring - Scottish mafia
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
from Edward Lucas
I don't want my wikipedia entry to become part of an edit war. And I am grateful for your instant second thoughts about the insulting remark that you briefly posted about my father. But it seems to me unfair that you have inserted a "criticism" section without a "praise". I am more than happy for readers to know that the exile and many other people detest what I write. But shouldn't they also know that the book has been praised by Richard Pipes, Mart Laar, Vladimir Bukovsky, Oleg Gordievsky, Robert Gellately and others? Surely the point of a wikipedia article is that it should be balanced? Edwardlucas (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
One small point. Isn't the Exile article footnoted here by Alexander Zaitchik not by Mark Ames as stated? They actually reviewed the book twice, once without having read it (which is the review cited here) and then in another review http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=17180&IBLOCK_ID=35&phrase_id=11576 which was by Zaitchik AND Ames 194.129.60.10 (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Research Centre Free Europe
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Research Centre Free Europe, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. B. Wolterding (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Edward Lucas
Hello Shotlandiya. I'm growing concerned over your attempts to link Lucas to this La Russophobe blog in his article. So he links to the blog from his, and his work has been cited as an inspiration for the blog. That is hardly the most notable aspect of Lucas' life, but its not a huge problem to document that since it is cited. However, this is a BLP, note particularly Misplaced Pages:BLP#Criticism and praise, "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association."
However heinous you may fiend the La Russophobe blog, it is not appropriate to document its transgressions on Lucas' bio. In noting his (tenuous) links to the site, then criticizing it we are implying guilt by association. The critical content you are adding is clearly not about the subject of the article specifically. If La Russophobe is notable, then you can write about it here, but please don't use Lucas' bio as a coatrack to hang an expose of Russia's critics. Rockpocket 22:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
KGB, eh?
3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Historical Truth Commission. 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. Peltimikko (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Nationalism
Re your edit summary in , you might be interested to learn that there is no Baltic nation, and no notable person is arguing for one. Hence, there is also no Baltic nationalism.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have intertwined cultures, shared history, and tend to be on friendly terms -- the Sprat War ended more than a decade ago --, but differ considerably linguistically and ethnically. One of the reasons why EU has been such a successful framework is that it recognises this kind of differences without trying to force member nations to be like each other. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Removing Speedy at Mark Siryk
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles you created, as you did with Mark Siryk. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:
Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
re: Wasn't eant as attack
Hullo there Shotlandiya, looks like you got your keep reason in the wrong place again, you should use the talk page of the article, you can get to that by going to the article, and the selecting the "Discussion" tab along the top (right next to the "Article" tab). Admins will look here rather then my talk page :). Cheers - Kingpin (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:AE
Please be aware of this report: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Shotlandiya. -- Sander Säde 06:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Gee, thanks! Shotlandiya (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Restrictions
Shotlandiya, pursuant to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions and for the reasons given in the AE thread above (permalink) you are subject to the following restrictions:
- For six months, you are restricted from making more than one revert per page per seven-day period with respect to any page related to Russia or Estonia, or nationals of these countries, broadly defined. Reverts of obvious vandalism are exempt.
- For three months, to run concurrently with the preceding sanction, you are topic-banned from editing biographical material about living persons with respect to any page (including but not limited to biographical articles) related to Russia or Estonia, or nationals of these countries, broadly defined. Reverts of obvious vandalism are exempt.
Sandstein 21:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry
Hi, Shotlandiya. Sorry to hear about your editing restriciton. I think that the restrictions imposed are certainly a tad excessive–some of the evidence dug up against you, after all, was from as long ago as 2008... It is indeed unfair that Digwuren has essentially gamed away Misplaced Pages's fair standards; I suspect that there may be administrators who have been reluctant to deal with him as it is hard to put up with a critical mass of POV pushers (you can see how this sort of problem was discussed by Durova at User:Vassayana/Difficulty just hours ago). At the same time, I note that Digwuren was just blocked two days ago on another technicality. So long as his habits of WP:SOAPBOXING do not change substantially, it is only a matter of time before the hammer does come down on him in all its might. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)