| Revision as of 18:49, 8 January 2011 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 5d) to User talk:Piotrus/Archive 35.← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:45, 8 January 2011 edit undoExxess (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,947 edits →REMOVED MY COMMENTS: -- I want as little interaction as possible with this editor/GodKing with a long history of bans and blocks.Next edit → | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
| Hi, can you find a source or to for this?♦ ] 17:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC) | Hi, can you find a source or to for this?♦ ] 17:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
| == REMOVED MY COMMENTS == | |||
| You know what, Konieczny? The thought of my comments from yesterday being here nauseates me. Your archive will be the edit history. Your conception of what nobility is, particularly Polish nobility, is so underdeveloped and ignorant, callow and juvenile, it's laughable trying to have an intelligent discussion with you in regards to its significance. Your one-dimensional, simplistic criteria for notability is RICH = NOTABLE, or something simplistic along those lines. Really, it's all you can conceive, given the little you have to draw upon, which I have to infer from the way the debate was framed. Who knows? It's something befuddled and dark, like a tar pit of ignorance. As you've said (paraphrasing), "Smart peasants were joining the szlachta all the time." That says it all. | |||
| Since I'm deleting my comments, and you're big on archiving, this is only here as a courtesy, for what that's worth, since I want nothing of any finesse or depth showing me in an exercise of futility, which I find extremely embarrassing, even nauseating. I'm going to write my articles, and consider your deletion nominations like so many large, blood-sucking horseflies I'm going to have to deal with, and that's the only reason you have my attention. Don't go citing civility and personal attacks, because you know, and anyone at large reading knows, it's the truth, so I'm cutting to the chase now publicly, and as far as biting my tongue, which I should do in consideration of the Misplaced Pages community at large, I've bitten it off. See your lengthy ban history. -- ] (]) 04:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Re your AE topic ban appeal == | == Re your AE topic ban appeal == | ||
Revision as of 22:45, 8 January 2011
: 632
: 82
: 6
: 22
 You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Misplaced Pages Signpost today.
|
| This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps (not signed with ~~~~) are archived manually when I get around to it. |
| "You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Oh, Template:Talkback is ok. Thank you. |
|---|
| Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance. |
|---|
Talk archives:
|
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. | |
 Some general observations on Misplaced Pages governance being broken and good editors trampled by the system 
Current RfAdminship
November copy edit drive
Welcome to Misplaced Pages!Wow, you are such an example of a helpful Wikipedian Piotrus! I appreciate the welcome, and thank you for your awesome contributions to the Misplaced Pages effort--thanks again! 216.38.130.164 (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2010 Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Piotrus Piotrus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: See detailed reasons below. Short version: I am topic banned "from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe". I edited an uncontroversial article about a battle in Eastern Europe. Blocking admin thinks I violated my topic ban because all things military are clearly part of my topic ban. I believe I didn't. I would like to ask you to consider this: which disputes was I banned from? I was banned from ETHNIC, NATIONAL and CULTURAL disputes. Not from ALL disputes. Nor from MILITARY ones. There is no word "MILITARY" in my topic ban. Hence I did not violate it. I am open to discussing whether I should not edit military articles. Heck, I promise that I will abstain from them till neutral editors reach consensus on that issue (presumably, on AE). The block serves no purpose, if one wanted to warn me that somewhere in the ETHNIC, NATIONAL and CULTURAL disputes there are MILIARY disputes (and I have trouble seeing where), this could have been achieved with a simple warning - why the draconian one week block? I thus believe that it is sufficiently clear that I did not violate the topic ban that I should be unblocked; at the same time I promise to avoid military-related articles pending discussion to determine if this is so. I have no desire to aggreviate the situation, I just wish to return to peaceful editing as soon as possible. Please review the procedural note below, though - I don't want to get any admin in trouble over unblocking me (the wiki bureaucracy gets more and more complex and unfriendly by the minute, it seems). Thank you, --User:Piotrus 00:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC) PS. I am blocked so I cannot notify the blocking admin with a diff, I emailed him and I see he has now copied the appeal to AE. Please note that my unblock request is separate, and related, and I don't believe it is procedurally invalidated by an ongoing AE discussion. Decline reason: Procedural decline—you know the drill AE blocks to contested at AE yadda yadda. Wait one while I copy your appeal over there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:50, 1 January 2011 (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.
The Signpost: 3 January 2011
7dteam- Thank you for your advice how to add a page, but I need to know how to add an article to a page. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7dteam (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC) "Adopted" getting Białystok to B-ClassNeed suggestions on what additional Białystok needs to get to B-Class. Been putting some heavy work into the top half of the article. I already know the culture / sport section needs some improvement since I haven't touched below the Industry section. Ajh1492 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Ryszard CzerniawskiHi, can you find a source or to for this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Re your AE topic ban appealSorry, but it strains credulity (mine, anyway) to believe that you didn't realize that the Adam Mickiewicz article was the subject of a dispute among Lithuanian and Polish editors with whom you are well-acquainted until the moment before you were going to hit save, as you state here . (Quote: But moments before I was about to hit the save button, I realized that the article seems to be in the midst of an edit war related to the subject nationality...). (Recent article/talk page history: , ). You haven't edited the article since 2007 and you must have thousands of other articles that need improvement on your watchlist. You could have posted an article edit request to the PL noticeboard re this, as you have for many articles during the past few months. In my view the A.M. part of your appeal demonstrates.. what to call it... a lack of forthcoming-ness. The remainder of the appeal, in which you speak of WP's losses from your lack of participation, that's a different story that others can think over. If you remove the A.M. section I shan't contest your appeal, since lifting your topic ban now or in March doesn't make much difference in the long run. But I am concerned about that part - possibly the readers will take your assertion at face value without checking the article/talk page histories. You could either remove that section (since it hasn't been commented on there yet) or strike it. If you choose not to do either, I may bring it up at the AE appeal. I'd prefer that we keep the conversation here, but if you'd rather have it on my talk page, that's OK by me - if so I'll post talkbacks. Novickas (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
|
