| Revision as of 16:30, 25 August 2010 editHodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 edits →Peace offer: fine, perhaps it's better not to talk about anything except improving the content← Previous edit |
Revision as of 20:00, 25 August 2010 edit undoHodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 edits no response - discussion removed. Anyone is welcome to revert/restore if this is needed for whatever reason.Next edit → |
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Long Wikibreak|]|in October}} |
|
{{Long Wikibreak|]|in October}} |
|
|
|
|
== Peace offer == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have no desire to play a part in the latest round of this ridiculous battleground ( and by ]). Actually, I'd like to disengage completely, and concentrate solely on new , as I have done in the last few days after my return to editing. But it's hard to do this as long as people keep my name in their reports and presenting material against me (although I have only created new content and done nothing wrong in the last few days). So I have the following '''offering of peace''': I will not mention your name in any noticeboard discussions or present any material against you. In fact, I believe that there is currently no reason for any kind of conflict between you and me and I promise to do everything I can to prevent any kind of conflict from developing. The condition is that you stop attacking me, stop mentioning my name and remove my name from the battleground thread. I think we can both profit from making peace. Perhaps we can even collaborate on articles like ], which you recently edited, although pre-1991 history isn't really my field. I'm sure we can find something where we can collaborate on in a positive way. I'm sure that this would also be viewed favourably by the admins who, at the moment, are likely considering to indiscriminately block us all to get rid of the battleground. What do you say? ] (]) 18:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, I do not mind talking to get things straight. Then, could you please explain if you (or someone else who you know) was the person who sent emails to Petri Krohn and to Russavia ? I would like to know.] (]) 18:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Unfortunately, I don't know who is the person who has engaged in illegal email cooperation. Do you accept my offer? Btw, I have already started to ]. Looking forward to collaborating with you there if you agree. ] (]) 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::So, you are telling that Russavia did not tell the truth (second link). Fine, I accept it.] (]) 20:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That's not what I'm saying. Where did you get that idea? ] (]) 20:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::But what are you saying? Let me rephrase the question. I am really surprised that Russavia started following my edits on old Russian history. I edited this area before, including even such controversial figure as ] and Russavia did not pay attention, which is not surprising since he is interested in very different subjects. Why now? I have gut feeling this has something to do with your return because you guys collaborated previously to have me banned . Did not you? ] (]) 23:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::If you do not want to talk and clarify things, I have no problems with that. Then, let's just agree about the following. If we talk with each other, we will talk only about improving article ''content'' and nothing else. At least, that is something I am going to do, no matter what you decide.] (]) 16:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Captain Obvious has to point out that there is no need for any sort of formal agreement in this case. Don't do anything wrong and you won't be sanctioned, you don't need any license for this. Neither would you benefit from having one. ''Omertà'' is no good, hehe. ] (]) 19:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::And if someone did anything wrong, he will be sanctioned anyway, regardless to making separate agreements (me, Offliner or the both). Saying that, I am open to debating anything if it helps to resolve the issues.] (]) 19:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Of course the user who seriously violates the purpose of Misplaced Pages will get eventually blocked in any case. I'm just saying that we make mutual peace and not to each other, because then the other party will have to defend itself - and the battleground only continues. What I'm proposing is the only (voluntary) way to end the battleground once and for all. I don't think we have much choice here. Unless we both want to get indeffed. ] (]) 19:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::What violations on my part are you talking about? I did not violate the ban and only posted my opinion on AE (in response to statement by Russavia). If you feel you have to defend yourself, that's your right. But ''I am not at war with anyone to accept "offers of piece".''] (]) 20:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Well I'm not surprised that you reject my offer, but at least I've tried now. ] (]) 20:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Rejecting what? I am not in "state of war" with you and never was. There is nothing to reject.] (]) 20:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Sure, but some people here look inconsistent, calling people names and asking loaded questions isn't disengaging. I don't mind, of course, but they should. Anyway, who cares. It doesn't take a Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance to collaborate. ] (]) 19:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Oh wow. I must admit it is ] to ], but I am afraid Offie overestimates our admins' guts. Admins are not empowered to block indiscriminately just because they are overburdened, there are policies around. They are not always very intuitive, but they are still here. And the reasoning behind this doomsday scenario is flawed, you absolutely don't have to "defend" yourself when you are "attacked", it is your free choice. On Misplaced Pages more often than not it is better to keep quiet. The usage of the word battleground here has also been way too liberal lately, in disagreement with ]. Enforcing existing policies and Arbcom rulings by no means amount to battleground. ] (]) 20:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
I like constructive discussion but will not be involved in political and ideological struggle .
