Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:58, 8 November 2009

Põhja Konn

Põhja Konn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a highly suspicious account, don't you think? Just take a look at his contributions; almost all of them are reverts. Furthermore, he reverts in almost exactly the same articles where Digwuren and other list members revert. Possibly he is a sockpuppet of one of the list members. Do you have time to investigate this and maybe post something about him at ArbCom pages? Offliner (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Posted about him here: . Offliner (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Andora1

You said that this is possibly also a sockpuppet of the WP:EEML cabal members. Could you post some evidence why you think this is a sockpuppet at the ArbCom page? It would be nice if this one would be checked as well. I don't have time to look for evidence right now. Offliner (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm much more positive that Pohja's done a sock's job at present. (The guy only edits articles where team members are active, and 90% of the time when they need help against their opponents–when he ain't asleep .)

(On a side note, also very interesting to see just now is the case of this strange IP: .) Andora1's editing has been so poor and tendentious that he can probably be blocked without SPI, but he's far less of a disruption to the normal process than Pohja and his loaded ad hominems at Lihula, for instance. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the IP is Jacurek (I think Jacurek has a different location?) I agree about Konn and Andora1. Offliner (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the IP is 99.9% Jacurek, though he denied it (I should have been more clear on this page, but this was the thing I meant here.)

Seems that SPI is the ticket. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Shocked and dismayed

I am pained that you accuse me of Holocaust denial . You refer to this edit of mine (when I was editing before getting a login). As should be clear from my post, what I found absurd was the suggestions that only 40 Poles were responsible in the massacre. This absurd lowering of the number of participants is one of the lines pushed by certain Polish nationalists and this is what I objected to. Clearly I believe that the massacre was perpetrated by Poles, as is clear by this diff which you conveniently managed to ignore .

Given that Holocaust denial is one of the most grave accusations that can be issued against anybody, I expect you do to 2 things.

• 1. Apologize to me and retract your accusations.

• 2. Find every single Misplaced Pages discussion page where I have been accused of Holocaust denial and issue a retraction. Sourcelat0r (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I deeply appreciate your prompt apology. On my part, I will try to write with more clarity in the future so that my sentences taken out of context do not cause confusion, as was the case here. Some of my comments on the Jedwabne pogrom article were somewhat emotional, I admit, but this is a deeply painful matter and can easily generate hasty and ill formulated comments which one regrets later. Sourcelat0r (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Relocation of EEML evidence

Just a notice: For a few users I have relocated your EEML evidence to a sub-page.

The reasons for this are because your sections are now so long it was becoming impossible to navigate and decipher who wrote what, particularly towards the end of sections. This effectively rendered your evidence as unusable, which was not a good thing.

Rather than reduce the size of your evidence (which I deemed as unfair) I have removed them to private subpages. These are yours and yours alone to edit. They certain make interpreting your evidence MUCH easier.

The downside is that when you update your evidence it does not go into the history log of the principal evidence page. Hence I suggest you add a brief "Updated evidence on ..." note beneath your evidence heading on the main evidence page. This will alert people to changes on your subpage. An extra bit of hassle I know, but it a small price for having evidence which can be understood.

Also feel free to create a single sentence description of your main headings and insert it on the main page below the link I have added. See for an example from a previous case.

I hope none of you are upset by this - I assure you my only objective was to increase the usability of your evidence.

Sincerely, Manning (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Matters unrelated to the EEML case

Regarding your recent posting at the EEML case, I have stated my talk page is open to anyone wishing to discuss any edit. Next time, please try that first before engaging in histrionic protests at inappropriate venues. VЄСRUМВА 19:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is very much related to the EEML case. If I didn't, I wouldn't have brought it up, and bring it up I did. I thought that ArbCom was actually examining the conduct of the participants as part of looking into the case. I am still hoping that this is true. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I rather thought and hoped the same. I suspect, though, that the end results we have in mind are at odds. The talk page invitation still stands. VЄСRUМВА 20:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Since it is all related per yourself

As I can't assume you're watching my EEML evidence page I'm notifying you of this. VЄСRUМВА 17:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My question about Lia was an earnest inquiry, but since you're expecting a tit-for-tat, I guess I'll properly indulge this crap by doing my best as far as mentioning the obsessive smears against Liz Holtzman on pages that have naught to do with her, which you've engaged in. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If you mean Holtzman stating Latvians are Nazis, I have no apology. I was there when she said it. Were your inquiry earnest, it would have been stated in an earnest fashion expressing concern, not wondering about coverups and the Australian public being unaware of said coverup. And had it been stated in an earnest fashion, it would have been responded to in kind. In the future, please avoid couching earnest requests in terms which can only be taken as innuendo (if not outright accusation) and there will be no need for these unpleasantries. VЄСRUМВА 18:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You obviously didn't comprehend what I just wrote there (my wondering about Looveer and why her career in Nazi Germany was publicized), and I ask that you stay off my page if you're going to come with accusations of bad faith from now on. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I corrected my remark on talk about her son "having no need to hide" Looveer's Nazi affiliation, thank you for pointing out my oversight. (It didn't materially change my response.) That said, I think we can agree that constructive dialog between us is not possible at this time. VЄСRUМВА 18:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nazi-Soviet rapprochement

re: Dingzin Zhao website

The external link was added because the general unreliability of China's official sources of information might lead people to believe he is not a reliable source. Would you object if I re-inserted it?

I will cite the page re. the Chinese govt's fears about immediately repressing the demos. This was a statement by an interviewee in the study, but the context of its inclusion was such I felt justified in phrasing it as I have done. The ref was already in a few lines down the pgf -- I didn't want to clutter the pgf with duplicate references. Dduff442 (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Lia Looveer

Please stop using the talk page for a blind search of "nazi collaborators" on wikipedia. I hope you'd realize the inappropriateness of such actions on wikipedia in general. Also, please consider changing your username to something more appropriate for editing wikipedia that would not be a dubious political statement. FYI in a week or so the username "Anti-Nationalist" is going to be listed at WP:UAA. Thanks for understanding!--Termer (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's rather unseemly and tendentious, Termer. Please go to the appropriate noticeboard if you feel that my question about Looveer's life doesn't belong in the discussion. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this has created some controversy and 2 people have blanked the section as they feel it disparages the subject. Do you have any more to add regarding Nazi collaboration? I intend to blank that section but if you have more to say I will hold off. James086 07:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Attacks in the article Talk:Lia Looveer

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Talk:Lia Looveer. Misplaced Pages has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Misplaced Pages and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Termer (talk) 07:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

talkback

GedUK  11:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

GedUK  08:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)