Revision as of 08:38, 29 October 2009 view sourceVarsovian (talk | contribs)1,649 edits →Blocked and restricted← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:21, 29 October 2009 view source Jacurek (talk | contribs)9,609 edits →Blocked and restrictedNext edit → | ||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
::Pretty ridiculous he? :) I actually trusted Future Perfect at Sunrise and asked him for advice just a minute before his execution here.:) I'm shocked also...I have to gather some thoughts before appealing..--] (]) 07:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | ::Pretty ridiculous he? :) I actually trusted Future Perfect at Sunrise and asked him for advice just a minute before his execution here.:) I'm shocked also...I have to gather some thoughts before appealing..--] (]) 07:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
::::Jacurek: Can I try to extend an olive branch here? I've already agreed to leave the London Parade article alone for a week and will stick to that commitment (despite Loosmark promptly reverting the article after I said I'd step away from it). I would like to work with you on the article: I suggest that once the week I agree to is up, I remove the current wording of disputed section and we (you and I) then work together to reach a version we both agree on. While we are discussing the article, useful discussion, not shouting at each other or calling each other troll or idiot (sorry about that, did you notice that I apologised yesterday here ?) I will agree to not post anything in that section which you do not agree on and you do the same. What do you think?] (]) 08:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | ::::Jacurek: Can I try to extend an olive branch here? I've already agreed to leave the London Parade article alone for a week and will stick to that commitment (despite Loosmark promptly reverting the article after I said I'd step away from it). I would like to work with you on the article: I suggest that once the week I agree to is up, I remove the current wording of disputed section and we (you and I) then work together to reach a version we both agree on. While we are discussing the article, useful discussion, not shouting at each other or calling each other troll or idiot (sorry about that, did you notice that I apologised yesterday here ?) I will agree to not post anything in that section which you do not agree on and you do the same. What do you think?] (]) 08:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
::::::You know what Varsovian, now when you telling me all this nice words you sound more real but I still have my doubts that you are real judging by what was happening until now (sorry). At this point I'm not even sure if I will bother to edit Misplaced Pages at all. I formed by opinion about the whole project. What happened now is also '''totally unjust'''. Please don't argue that it was justified because you will never convince me and I have the right to form my own opinion. What I also want to say to you is that your sudden arrival only one month ago already eliminated two long established editors maybe forever. Perhaps you should reflect on that. Goodbye Varsovian. Please do not respond anymore. Thanks--] (]) 14:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:21, 29 October 2009
Extended content | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
My problemsAs you probably know, I have been partially banned: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Xx236&diff=314527493&oldid=312602264 I don't care about their opinion about me, if they don't like me, I have other things to do. German Misplaced Pages is probably more "politically correct" and limits nationalistic propaganda. This Misplaced Pages allows "We were the main victims" stories, supported by "sources" created by Western ignorants. Xx236 (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Resp to your question on Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent ArmyI was never asked to join that club...
October 2009Please don't alter or remove sourced content, as you repeatedly did in History of Pomerania (1945–present). Skäpperöd (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:AEI have requested arbitration enforcement here. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
|
Varsovian
hi Jacurek, I have filled an ANI report on user:Varsovian because of his edit-warring on the London Victory Parade of 1946. Loosmark (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Blocked and restricted
With your inquisitorial exchange with User:Varsovian, you have seriously crossed the line into personal harassment. You were already under WP:DIGWUREN warnings for disruptive behaviour, so you now get sanctioned. You are blocked for a month for edit-warring, battleground behaviour and harassment, and placed on a 1R/d restriction on all Eastern Europe related pages for another six months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- You have to be kidding. Have you even read the exchange? Varsovian was trying to get more authority and the upper hand for his position by claiming he was living in Warsaw for 15 years and wrote books about it. To that Jacurek simply wanted to check if that is true and in reply he was called an idiot. So if anybody then Varsovian should be placed on restrictions for incivility. btw is Victory parade even an Eastern Europe topic area page? Loosmark (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Pretty ridiculous he? :) I actually trusted Future Perfect at Sunrise and asked him for advice just a minute before his execution here.:) I'm shocked also...I have to gather some thoughts before appealing..--Jacurek (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Jacurek: Can I try to extend an olive branch here? I've already agreed to leave the London Parade article alone for a week and will stick to that commitment (despite Loosmark promptly reverting the article after I said I'd step away from it). I would like to work with you on the article: I suggest that once the week I agree to is up, I remove the current wording of disputed section and we (you and I) then work together to reach a version we both agree on. While we are discussing the article, useful discussion, not shouting at each other or calling each other troll or idiot (sorry about that, did you notice that I apologised yesterday here ?) I will agree to not post anything in that section which you do not agree on and you do the same. What do you think?Varsovian (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- You know what Varsovian, now when you telling me all this nice words you sound more real but I still have my doubts that you are real judging by what was happening until now (sorry). At this point I'm not even sure if I will bother to edit Misplaced Pages at all. I formed by opinion about the whole project. What happened now is also totally unjust. Please don't argue that it was justified because you will never convince me and I have the right to form my own opinion. What I also want to say to you is that your sudden arrival only one month ago already eliminated two long established editors maybe forever. Perhaps you should reflect on that. Goodbye Varsovian. Please do not respond anymore. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Jacurek: Can I try to extend an olive branch here? I've already agreed to leave the London Parade article alone for a week and will stick to that commitment (despite Loosmark promptly reverting the article after I said I'd step away from it). I would like to work with you on the article: I suggest that once the week I agree to is up, I remove the current wording of disputed section and we (you and I) then work together to reach a version we both agree on. While we are discussing the article, useful discussion, not shouting at each other or calling each other troll or idiot (sorry about that, did you notice that I apologised yesterday here ?) I will agree to not post anything in that section which you do not agree on and you do the same. What do you think?Varsovian (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Pretty ridiculous he? :) I actually trusted Future Perfect at Sunrise and asked him for advice just a minute before his execution here.:) I'm shocked also...I have to gather some thoughts before appealing..--Jacurek (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)