Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:11, 12 July 2006

Archives:

• Archive1
• Archive2
• Archive3
• Archive4
• Archive5

3RR

This is a post on my talkpage, I crosspost here to make sure you read it.

After a short wikibreak, I am furious to learn that I had been blocked from editing on the issue of removing warnings from my talkpage, 3RR, and lack of communication. Listed below is a concise and brief explanation.

1. Removing warnings:

A. One is perfectly entitled to remove such warnings from his/her talkpage. An admin support my claim.] Another user removed my warning from his talkpage.]. To add to that the warnings is justified. An admin support my case. ] ] ] support from another user. Read the full length discussion on User:Bishonen talkpage under the heading User:RevolverOcelotX.

B. Even if I am not allowed to remove such warnings, the warning clearly isn't justified. According to the history of List of Chinese Americans and Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China articles, you would see Bonafide.hustla and RevolverOcelotX had both made 3 reverts in the past 24 hours 2 days ago. However, when the initial warning was placed by RevolverOcelotX I made only 1 edit to the article, making the warning totally irrelevant. He placed the warning on the ground that I BROKEN the 3RR on my user talk page after the final warning. As evident in the above discussion, an admin states that 3RR does not apply to a user's personal talkpage. The accusation is groundless.

2. 3RR Again, the 3RR clearly states that a block should only occur if I have made MORE than 3 reverts in the last 24 hrs for an article. I did not unless you count my personal talkpage, but we already established the 3RR does not apply to personal talkpages. See A. and B. above for further details.

3. Lack of communication

A. A series of POV pushing by RevolverOcelotX occured when he first arrived at wikipedia, when I revert his edits as an effort to preserve NPOV (never violating 3RR), he started to engage himself in edit warring with me and many other users ] While I have also posted relevant reasons for reverts in both edit summary and relevant talkpages, he failed to do so. When I attempted to communicate in order to end edit warring, he angrily responded and continue to make POV edits specifically in Taiwanese-Chinese relation. ]

4. Conduct of User:RevolverOcelotX

A. Ever since this user's initial arrival, he has been on a crusade to distort information about Taiwan, China articles. see ].

B. His behavior is similar to User:PoolGuy (who has received an indef. block for bootless wikilawyering and disruption) and often commits wikilawyering. He is in the process of wasting the community's patience. ]

C. This user went as far as harassing admin to support my case in order to prove his point. ]

D. This user even edit the naming convention: Chinese in order to justify his edits. ]

Conclusion: It is obvious that this particular user is a vexatious litigant and the fact that the block on me is not justified. Thanks and I hope someone will restore this unfair treatment.--Bonafide.hustla 23:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR block of Bonafide.hustla

Hi, Alex. I saw your block notice on Bonafide.hustla's talkpage and meant to review the block, but I simply didn't have time to dig into his contribs to find the violation. I don't mean to bitch at you, but it would be great if you'd mention specifics in block notices, especially in the case of 3RR, because those really are a bit of a business to find. Anyway, now that BH has protested the block--retroactively--I suppose I really ought to take a look. Could you tell me what page it was about, please? Bishonen | talk 23:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Moshkov.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Moshkov.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Lazar Kaganovich edit war

Thank you for temp-blocking User:Rastishka from editing. The whole thing is becoming completely ridiculous.

Year Vandalism

"Looks like a content dispute to me. Japanese years are named after the Emperors and we do not know who will be the Emperor in e.g. 2037. Warn him not to disrupt. List is empty)"

Interesting. That didn't occur to me. Thanks

Major Achivements

Here comes the Spiderman!

(Misplaced Pages:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman)

I have threatened to climb the Reichstag, dressed up as and did so, became bollocked from editing for violating Misplaced Pages policy against climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, and then had it become an official policy on Misplaced Pages (and to be an official decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Misplaced Pages (SCREW)). Is Absolutley fantasitic!. This is so great!

"In extreme cases editors may be tempted to climb the Reichstag building dressed as Spiderman in order to promote their cause. This is absolutely forbidden and can result in an indefinite block from editing Misplaced Pages."

This single event is a great example of all the good qualities of our beloved Misplaced Pages! Horay!

Next stop: The Kremlin!

Thankyou! Dfrg.msc 08:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

comfort women

user: dollarfifty is at it again on this page. Can you help?--Blog Mav Rick 23:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rastishka

He's at it again on Lazar Kaganovich. Maybe we need some kind of mediation. Help please? TheQuandry 03:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Unblock

Heh, well, ususally I don't block like that but when you redirect an article toward "Nigger"... I'll consider an unblock pending his response... :-) Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 04:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking 202.21.158.12

Firstly, thanks for unblocking my IP. However, it is a school IP and thus it is not possible to work from another IP. ZhongHan 06:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Your summary at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Irpen

Your summary at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Irpen misinforms the community. You wrote about Russian architecture "There is no discussion on the talk page, no suggestions on improving the article". In fact there was (and still is) a discussion and solution has been proposed. (Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Irpen#Comment_to_the_summary_by_Alex_Bakharev_and_others). I suugest you to reformulate your summary.--AndriyK 08:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think my summary is adequate. I fail to see any meaningful discussion and proposals to improve the article on the talk page at least in the last few months (even if consider your proposal to divide and remove made in November in 2005 as made in the good faith). abakharev 09:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Alex! Unfortunatelly, I have to disagree with you. You wrote "there is no discussion", but there was one. You may consider the discussion "not meaningful", but "no discussion" and "miningless discussion" is not the same. "No discussion" is a solid fact that can be checked by inspecting the page history. "Meaningless discussion" is your judgement and other people may disagree with you.

Even if one of the parties consider the dispute "miningless" it does not mean that there is no dispute at all and such a judgement does not justify the tag removal.

I think, your summary has to be slightly corrected. Thanks.--Mbuk 06:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between edit warring and discussion. Inserting tags and arguing about an inherited right for the tag insertion is different from the discussions on the substance of the article. abakharev 07:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there was a discussion about the subject of the article . And a further step of DR has been proposed .

The edit warring and arguments about the tag insertion were provoked by those who were removing the tag contrary to the policy.

Please correct your statement "There is no discussion on the talk page".--Mbuk 19:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Chechnya

You must be very busy now. But can I draw your attention to the fact that in Chechnya User:Ewen Le Gloan-Korenyuk has again deleted the pro-Russian links, although; having read your comment to him, I added "Kadyrov site" to the free Ru one.

I thought I had once seen this guy's name (who must be living in France or Switzerland according to google) on French Wiki, but strangely enough he is (now?) absent there. But he does have accounts on both Norwegian Wikis, as recent as the English one. On bokmal, apart from Chechnya external links, he corrected two misprints and changed one number 14 into "fourteen". On nynorsk, he only did Chechnya external links, already got reverted, but that did not bother him: I do not want to get in an edit war with this guy, but surely he cannot delete these links so that the pro-separatist side is overrepresented, while there is also Chechen Republic of Ichkeria to put all that stuff.--Pan Gerwazy 01:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

i responded on my talk page...

... but there is no evidence of my violating 3RR on homophobia. i am happy to open this up to other admins (or even arbcom, but i think they would reject a rfar because it is too small potatos) for examination because i am certain that you are mistaken about your judgement regarding this. r b-j 15:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

Thanks You Rule!

Thank you so much for the article for Vsevolod Solovyov I did not have the info or the time to flesh the article out and I found that Vsevolod Solovyov was redirecting to his "brother" Vladimir. Hey what do you know abou Nikolia Lossky? LoveMonkey 18:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Chechnya (again)

I like what you did with the external links there. After reverting Elk Salmon's rename of Pro-Umarov to Al Qaeda, I was thanked by User:Ldingley on my talk page. I suppose he does not know I am of Masurian descent. ;>) Yes, I must really do something about my name on en:wikipedia. Pan Gerwazy is a crusader name, which was alright to use in newsgroups (anyone who understands Dutch, French or German can google my earlier presence there and find out who I am) but on Misplaced Pages it sounds like Napoleon, Bonaparte (sic) or Robespierre.

However, Ldingley's intervention did inspire me. Why should Prague watchdog be listed under "Pro-Umarov" sites. I agree that these guys are one-sided, but choosing sides is not their avowed policy. On the other hand, the yahoo group is "moderated". But moderated by whom? Look at the comments of a/the moderator here:

Yes, he affirms he does not know anything about law, but still he thinks he has the right to condemn French judges. On the basis of this (+99% of the news articles quoted are anti-Russia - I know this because I often go there for a quick English version of long Russian articles - my Russian is a bit rusty), I would be inclined to say Prague Watchdog and this yahoo group belong in the same category - move the yahoo group to Pro-Umarov, I would say. Do you agree? --Pan Gerwazy 20:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Headline text

Hi there I was in the process of a hijab and sound page. While their may be some debate, I intetended to cover all bases eventually and as such I put it in a seperate file.

Imyaslavie

Дорогой Алекс. Я ищу материалы (а также добровольцев) для работы над статьёй ru:Схимонах Иларион. Не могли бы помочь? - Vald 10:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Your recent edits

Please reread WP:NPA:

The article talk page is reserved to discuss the article. Flooding it with unrelated stuff makes it difficult to read and follow the discussion. Please explain your view, if you disagree with me. Thanks.--Mbuk 13:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:RPA. It says:

Conclusions: a) it is a guideline (not policy), b) it is disputed. My $ 0,02. Thanks. --Tēlex 13:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess the question is Irpen's comments on AndriyK's editorial patterns on Talk:Ukrainization. The significant part of the talk is devoted to discussions about the tags inserted by the user. Many editors suspect that the tags were not inserted in the good faith. In this case a brief factual analysis of the AndriyK's editorial pattern is IMHO appropriate and relevant to the article. Such a discussion obviously should not include attacks on the personal qualities of the user, swear words, etc. - but only facts about his edits to the moment. Such an analysis is not in my humble opinion a Personal attack but rather an attempt to figure out what to do with the tags introduced by the user. abakharev 13:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, according to WP:RPA:

Mbuk, I advise you to beware. Only remove posts when there is communitly consensus for doing so. When you are being reverted by many users this is clearly not the case, and people may believe that you are one of these "malefactors". --Tēlex 13:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Last but not least is that my entry was not at all a personal attack. To dismiss the valid criticism as personal attack is an old tactic. Alex acted properly by reverting the inapropriate blanking of the talk page. --Irpen 06:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Undoing other admins' blocks

Hi there, I notice that you unblocked User:Lysy, whom I blocked for revert warring. I just wanted to let you know that this isn't recommended, see the relevant section of the blocking policy. At a minimum, you should have notified me. The matter is, however, now moot. Stifle (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

External links in Chechnya article

Thanks. I will have a close look. By the way, I am sure I am a Westerner (whatever that means when Romanians on Misplaced Pages now consider themselves Westerners) but I have never been in Chechnya. Kislovodsk, yes, in 2002 - one year before that tragedy. (I suppose you did not really google for it - but if you did, one guy in be.politics thought it was in Chechnya and I did not correct him) I suppose, by the way, some people may actually think it means it disqualifies me as partial.

All of this pales of course in comparison to the threat of Ghirla leaving. I actually thought he had a point. And again I am partial, living in Belgium. His alignment ensured that the text about the church in Leuven/Louvain was close to its picture. IN the other version, that was not the case. Stupid, really.--Pan Gerwazy 23:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Bonafide.hustla's block again

Hi Alex. Bonafide.hustla made a request of me, which I'm hereby passing on to you. I'd really appreciate if you could see your way to obliging him. I think his request is reasonable, and the block really seems to have hurt his feelings. Bishonen | talk 23:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC).

Thank you so much, Alex. Putting a note in the block log like that was really clever! Bishonen | talk 01:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

DYK!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Boris Sobinov, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm| 09:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Kiev tram, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm| 10:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Your blocking of AOL IPs

It is inappropriate to block AOL IPs for long periods such as a week. They change very quickly from user to user and you cannot predict who will be affected by such blocks. As a result, I urge you to shorten your AOL blocks to somewhere between 15 minutes and a few hours. 02:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• My blocks only affect unregistered users (because of the new features of the blocking software). Spend a few seconds and get yoursef an account. abakharev 03:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, etc.

I have blocked four editors (and warned a fifth), most of whom I consider to be productive. The problem is that despite a long history of edit warring at that article, and warnings about edit warring before, and a prior protection of that article, all of the editors in question, including Irpen, continued that sterile edit war. It's just 24 hours to cool off and take the time to think about the edit warring a bit before it gets too far. The first revert I cited was a content addition (which wasn't what I was citing) along with reverting the tag again in the same edit. The fact that the same people continued edit warring but used different tags does not change the fact of the unporductive edit war. I don't quite see a reason to reverse the block, as talk page discussion tempered with continuing reverting is not all that helpful. Dmcdevit·t 05:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm reverted twice today (which is considerably different than three times in seven days), and the self-revert is true, but it's only because (as the edit history shows) he meant to revert AndriyK and continue the edit war, but Telex reverted AndriyK first, so he accidentally reverted Telex. It was still participating in an edit war. No one is entitled to revert, two per day or otherwise. The fact is that his unproductive edit warring today has reignited the conflict unnecessarily. Dmcdevit·t 05:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

ake a look at if you didn't read it. rpen was edit warring at this very article in October 2005, and has been very frequently ever since. Months of it, mostly with AndriyK. To me, it looks like you are trying to tag a specific revert number to a specific time frame, when it seems like the sensible thing to do is look at the situation, especially as it has developed over time, and conclude that this will continue unabated over time if the participants are allowed to continue edit warring like nothing is wrong. Of course, I don't object to you bringing the matter up on ANI (perhaos an {{unblock}} will do the job quicker), but I'm not sure how much longer I'll be awake. Dmcdevit·t 06:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)