| Revision as of 20:03, 10 October 2011 view sourceEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,202 edits →Collect: Recommend that you undo your edit to Collect's statement← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:10, 10 October 2011 view source Russavia (talk | contribs)78,741 edits →Collect: rsp to edjohnstonNext edit → | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
| :Oh yeah, it's a joke. Everytime I see "uninvolved Collect" I piss myself laughing, because it actually indicates that he is knee deep involved. Such as at the AE request, how on earth can he say he is "uninvolved" when he also actively edit warred in removing the POV tag, tried claiming neutrality on the issue, which of course got some bemused comments from other editors. Collect is neither uninvolved or neutral in most things. I have never really bumped into Collect before, and from using wikistalk we had only ever edited around about 6 articles which were the same...and never at the same time, but rather long periods apart. But yet, there "uninvolved" and "neutral" Collect is, at almost every dispute discussion involving myself, making his uninvolved and neutral comments to try and have me sanctioned. So I share your disdain for such behaviour, even moreso when the editor outright lies at a 3RR report and an amendment request involving myself, and pushes for me to be sanctioned and/or banned (refer to the last 2 weeks). Frankly, I have no time for such dishonest editors, and they will themselves get banned before too long because of that dishonesty. Glad I'm not the only one who see this. Good luck with your request too. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC) | :Oh yeah, it's a joke. Everytime I see "uninvolved Collect" I piss myself laughing, because it actually indicates that he is knee deep involved. Such as at the AE request, how on earth can he say he is "uninvolved" when he also actively edit warred in removing the POV tag, tried claiming neutrality on the issue, which of course got some bemused comments from other editors. Collect is neither uninvolved or neutral in most things. I have never really bumped into Collect before, and from using wikistalk we had only ever edited around about 6 articles which were the same...and never at the same time, but rather long periods apart. But yet, there "uninvolved" and "neutral" Collect is, at almost every dispute discussion involving myself, making his uninvolved and neutral comments to try and have me sanctioned. So I share your disdain for such behaviour, even moreso when the editor outright lies at a 3RR report and an amendment request involving myself, and pushes for me to be sanctioned and/or banned (refer to the last 2 weeks). Frankly, I have no time for such dishonest editors, and they will themselves get banned before too long because of that dishonesty. Glad I'm not the only one who see this. Good luck with your request too. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :: of Collect's statement to make him 'involved' seems to be a violation of ]. Since ] is an admin board, I can't rule out that you might be blocked for modifying someone else's statement. When an editor states that they are 'uninvolved,' it is simply a claim by the person making it. You can interpret their statement with whatever grain of salt you think best. You would normally be free to rebut Collect's statement in your own section, but you can't do so anymore since the report is closed. To avoid problems, I suggest that you revert your own edit to the closed report. Your use of the word 'lies' above also seems to be a personal attack. Please be circumspect about your own behavior if you want to participate in discussions about others' behavior at AE. ] (]) 20:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | :: of Collect's statement to make him 'involved' seems to be a violation of ]. Since ] is an admin board, I can't rule out that you might be blocked for modifying someone else's statement. When an editor states that they are 'uninvolved,' it is simply a claim by the person making it. You can interpret their statement with whatever grain of salt you think best. You would normally be free to rebut Collect's statement in your own section, but you can't do so anymore since the report is closed. To avoid problems, I suggest that you revert your own edit to the closed report. Your use of the word 'lies' above also seems to be a personal attack. Please be circumspect about your own behavior if you want to participate in discussions about others' behavior at AE. ] (]) 20:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::I know you mean well and you are just trying to follow Misplaced Pages's guidelines but I don't see this issue even addressed in the TPG. If "involved"/"uninvolved" is something anyone can be dishonest about, and without consequences (but consequences for those who know) rather than a guide for admins to ascertain the status of a user (hence the formalised nature and the third-person), then what purpose would it serve? | |||
| :::Having said that, I'm open to changing my mind. If you are aware of any precedents supporting the use of misleading editorial status, I'll undo the change, regardless of it being another ridiculous, and obvious, loophole for editorial dishonesty. If there are no precedents, a community discussion regarding misleading uses of "involved/uninvolved" would be interesting. | |||
| :::Based upon this, I must at this time, respectfully decline your request. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Please do not edit other people's statements.. == | == Please do not edit other people's statements.. == | ||
Revision as of 22:10, 10 October 2011
| Can you help?!?
I am in constant need of photos for various articles I am working on, and I am in dire need of the following photos from around the globe. So I turn to the community in the hope that someone out there is able to take the photos that I require. If you can help with photos of any of these subjects, please upload them to Commons, and then post a short message with a link to the photos on my English Misplaced Pages talk page. In the event you don't have a Commons log-in, you can email them to me at russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com and advise which licence you would like to licence them under, and I can do the uploading, categorisation, etc. I have provided as much detail on what I require, including addresses, links to online maps, and photos of the subject that I am unable to upload to Commons, in order for photographers to identify the subject I require. More info at User:Russavia/Required photos |
| Welcome to my talk page. Please leave me a message, alternatively you are welcome to email me. If you leave a message here for me and it requires a reply, I will reply here, so you may want to add my talk page to your watchlist. All users have my permission to remove any bot messages from my talk page at any time. |
|---|
 |
|---|
| 24 December 2024 |
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Notes
- Russophobia - add back in information on Latvia - http://rt.com/politics/latvia-russia-relations-nationalists/ - http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/11/17/34992378.html - http://www.humanrights.org.lv/html/monitor/30267.html - http://www.reitingi.lv/en/news/politics/2529.htm - http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/11/22/35422738.html - http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/11/09/32682722.html - http://rt.com/politics/roar-russia/ - http://english.pravda.ru/world/ussr/09-11-2010/115704-latvian_nazism-0/
- It needs to be noted 1) Slutsis/Slucis was a member of the Civic Union 2) Slutsis was a major contributor to the party 3) Slutsis was expelled from the party after the scandal in order not to damage the new government 4) another Latvian doctor also made such Russophobic statements 5) that same doctor was also expelled from the party 6) the Latvian FM scandal threatened to scuttle the Latvian Prez's trip to Russia, after he drew almost universal condemnation in Russia for agreeing with the Russophobic Slutsis
- http://www.minelres.lv/MinIssues/info/2003/63.html - Xenophobic (as a rule, Russophobic) statements are common in readers' letters in all Latvian newspapers.
- Review http://www.lhrc.lv/biblioteka/last_prisoners.pdf and http://szf.lu.lv/files/petnieciba/publikacijas/Integracija_anglu.pdf
- Consular Department of the RF
- Russian Agency for International Development - Vedomosti, Moscow Times, Forbes, LDPR against
- http://www.mid.ru/ns-dgpch.nsf/aa259d77f08b8f4543256da40037b908/ff0b06a742a63c5ac32572f9004a2a15 - make contact with organisations on this list
- http://reocities.com/CapitolHill/parliament/3005/ - old Tunis embassy website - get relevant info from there for future articles
Come back
Please change your mind and come back. Laissez faire, it doesn't matter. Do get involved again.
P.S.: I started to upload the images you suggested to Commons, and also started to include them in a number of articles.
With warmest regards --Jetstreamer (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Collect
Re : interesting. Collect has made similar implausible claims of uninvolvement elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, it's a joke. Everytime I see "uninvolved Collect" I piss myself laughing, because it actually indicates that he is knee deep involved. Such as at the AE request, how on earth can he say he is "uninvolved" when he also actively edit warred in removing the POV tag, tried claiming neutrality on the issue, which of course got some bemused comments from other editors. Collect is neither uninvolved or neutral in most things. I have never really bumped into Collect before, and from using wikistalk we had only ever edited around about 6 articles which were the same...and never at the same time, but rather long periods apart. But yet, there "uninvolved" and "neutral" Collect is, at almost every dispute discussion involving myself, making his uninvolved and neutral comments to try and have me sanctioned. So I share your disdain for such behaviour, even moreso when the editor outright lies at a 3RR report and an amendment request involving myself, and pushes for me to be sanctioned and/or banned (refer to the last 2 weeks). Frankly, I have no time for such dishonest editors, and they will themselves get banned before too long because of that dishonesty. Glad I'm not the only one who see this. Good luck with your request too. Russavia 18:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your edit of Collect's statement to make him 'involved' seems to be a violation of WP:TPG. Since WP:AE is an admin board, I can't rule out that you might be blocked for modifying someone else's statement. When an editor states that they are 'uninvolved,' it is simply a claim by the person making it. You can interpret their statement with whatever grain of salt you think best. You would normally be free to rebut Collect's statement in your own section, but you can't do so anymore since the report is closed. To avoid problems, I suggest that you revert your own edit to the closed report. Your use of the word 'lies' above also seems to be a personal attack. Please be circumspect about your own behavior if you want to participate in discussions about others' behavior at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I know you mean well and you are just trying to follow Misplaced Pages's guidelines but I don't see this issue even addressed in the TPG. If "involved"/"uninvolved" is something anyone can be dishonest about, and without consequences (but consequences for those who know) rather than a guide for admins to ascertain the status of a user (hence the formalised nature and the third-person), then what purpose would it serve?
- Having said that, I'm open to changing my mind. If you are aware of any precedents supporting the use of misleading editorial status, I'll undo the change, regardless of it being another ridiculous, and obvious, loophole for editorial dishonesty. If there are no precedents, a community discussion regarding misleading uses of "involved/uninvolved" would be interesting.
- Based upon this, I must at this time, respectfully decline your request. Russavia 22:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your edit of Collect's statement to make him 'involved' seems to be a violation of WP:TPG. Since WP:AE is an admin board, I can't rule out that you might be blocked for modifying someone else's statement. When an editor states that they are 'uninvolved,' it is simply a claim by the person making it. You can interpret their statement with whatever grain of salt you think best. You would normally be free to rebut Collect's statement in your own section, but you can't do so anymore since the report is closed. To avoid problems, I suggest that you revert your own edit to the closed report. Your use of the word 'lies' above also seems to be a personal attack. Please be circumspect about your own behavior if you want to participate in discussions about others' behavior at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Please do not edit other people's statements..
Like you just did at RfArb/A: It's impolite, combative, and in the long run of things, fairly useless to the Arbitrators. See this discussion thread on more Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Statement_by_uninvolved.... Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Refer to User_talk:Russavia#Collect right above here. It is dishonest of an editor to claim to be uninvolved, particular in a thread which is discussing topic bans on two editors in which Collect was more than a willing participant in edit warring, plastering notices on people's talk pages warning them of 3RR, when he was edit warring, and ignoring talk page discussions. It is now becoming a running joke. It may not be of any use to Arbitrators, but it of use to the general community who might be otherwise clueless as to an editor's level of involvement. But hey, if you say it is combative, I won't do it in future. I have removed all pages, except for those in my userspace from my watchlist, am no longer keeping any major tabs on discussions, with the exception of the clarification request, so I thank you for the link; I will post a comment over there. Cheers, Russavia 19:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)