Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coren (talk | contribs) at 10:49, 23 September 2009 (→Unblock: No other talk pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Phone Call to Putin

Hi there, in regards to Phone Call to Putin, I believe that the AfD was closed inappropriately, and have therefore relisted here. --Russavia 01:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is now at deletion review. Cheers, --Russavia 17:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The AfD which you initiated has now been reopened at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Phone Call to Putin (2nd nomination). --Russavia 20:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Putinland

Hey there, here's an article which was created as a WP:POINT to the AfD for eSStonia. You may want to take a look at it. Putinland. --Russavia 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Kolchak

Your edits in the Kolchak page amount to vandalism. Please cease with the removal of sourced text. Kupredu (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC) I remove only Soviet nonsense with dubious or strongly partisan sources:

• "Some think of Kolchak" - taken from forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=127527&start=0, total nonsense about ultra-right wing parties, most ministers in Kolchaks government were socialists.
• Piece from Soviet Russia pictorial published Soviet Government Bureau and Friends of Soviet Russia - strongly partisan source. Especially funny as Lenin himself ordered to blow up the railways many times.
• "follow the example of the Japanese who, in the Amur region, had exterminated the local population" - this is nonsense both about Kolchack and Japanese, who did not exterminate local population.
• piece about people 25000 shot in Ekaterinburg from BSE - total nonsense.

DonaldDuck (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Material published by Russia's Academy of Sciences qualify as reliable sources. Your opinion of scholarly material as "rubbish" and "total nonsense" is worthless. Nor is there any justification for your deletion of historian Arno Mayer's citation of a quote showing Kolchak's call for atrocities against peaceful people. Even if your claim about the partisan aspect of the sources is to be accepted as valid, it would still be unjustified to remove the sources. For example, Lenin's Collected Works are partisan, but all professional historians on the subject of the Russian Revolution cite his works for analyses, etc. Misplaced Pages does not practice censorship. All sources published by professional scholars have a place in this encyclopedia. Kupredu (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Lenin's Collected Works may be relevant for description of Lenin himself, but not for scholarly description of Kolchak. There are good books on Kolchak: Sibir, soiuzniki i Kolchak: povorotnyi moment russkoi istorii 1918-1920 gg. by G. K. Gins or Belaia Sibir by Konstantin Sakharov, for example. DonaldDuck (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Your vandalism and attempted censorship of the page is absolutely unacceptable. You cannot remove material just because you don't like what it says.Kupredu (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bialystok

I don't have a handy copy of Radzinsky anymore - but does it reference that the other pogroms (Kishieniev, Kiev, Odessa...) were organized by Czarist authorities? The sources for the fact that this one was are in the article already.radek (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally I expect that this source: also has same info but unfortunetly that particular page is not available for preview.radek (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Quack quack cuckoo quack quack Biophys quack quack

You may be interested to know that User:Biophys is accusing you of being a sockpuppet of MPowerDrive (talk · contribs) (or vice versa). His accusations are being made at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacob_Peters. You should note that this checkuser case has been denied, so having said that, you should keep an eye on Special:Contributions/Biophys so that you can see when he files the report on you. You may also want to take note of his continued harrassment against myself at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive191#Ethics_of_sharing_an_account with the aid of other editors, another sockpuppet report against User:Petri Krohn and User:Offliner at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Petri Krohn, and my complaint against Biophys and his continued accusations against editors whom he is in editorial disputes with at Misplaced Pages:AN#Biophys_continuing_harrassment. --Russavia 04:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will keep an eye on this.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

deletion?

What is the purpose of ? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles about molotov-ribbentrop pact and deportations are unrelated to "falsification of history" (by the way, it is typical KGB phraseology).DonaldDuck (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation on Tsarist autocracy

You've violated the 3RR rule on Tsarist autocracy, with your last edit if not the one before it (basically 5 reverts in a little over 24 hrs). I'd appreciate it if you self reverted, per: .radek (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've reverted myself. Still, nobody answered issues raised by Altenmann at the talk page.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I mean that sincerely, I appreciate it. I think part of the reason why nobody's responding to Altenmann is because it just doesn't seem like a serious argument. The Google BOOK search is a concise way of referencing several scholarly works at once, rather than inserting numerous individual citations for what are obviously scholarly sources.radek (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Białystok pogrom. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — ] (talk · contribs) 03:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism

Note that there are consequences for vandalism as you have done in the Kolchak page as well as the article on the Revolution of 1905. I suggest you stop now. Kupredu (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not his only target. Consider this bit of vandalism, for example. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

December 14

In December 14, is there another qualifier that could be used instead of "illegally"? I think that "The Soviet Union is expelled from the League of Nations for invading Finland", not because they invaded Finland but because they "illegally" invaded Finland. Maybe another word other than illegally? Wasn't the entire purpose of the League of Nations the prevention of war? Wouldn't starting a war be contrary to the requirements of the League then? 199.125.109.64 (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

, , .

Soviet Union was expelled from League of Nations for violation of Covenant of the League. But this is not a law, but document of the League of Nations, so the term "illegally" doesn't apply there.DonaldDuck (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically what makes something illegal is solely the fact that it is a violation of some "rule", which we commonly refer to as a "law". For example, the ten commandments are not "laws" in todays sense of the word, but don't try to tell that to any orthodox Jew who considers them to be the only laws that exist. By the 19th century only three of the ten commandments were still considered worthy of making into laws - thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal, plus thou shalt not bear false witness. Of the many laws punishable by death 2,000 years ago, most are no longer illegal today, and most of the laws today were not even considered inappropriate actions 2,000 years ago. So a violation of something written is what we call doing something "illegal", but if you can find a better word to describe "they were kicked out of the League of Nations for a violation of the Covenant of the League" than "illegally invading" that would be great. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked

You're unblocked. This is conditional on you following WP:1RR for the foreseeable future. I'm doing this mainly to stop you getting tempted into edit wars. On 1RR, you automatically lose, so you're obliged to talk, or better still do some of the vast array of non-controversial things that wiki needs done William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.DonaldDuck (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked: Indefinitely. During your previous indefinite block, while you were negotiating with William M. Connolley, you were also evading your ban by using the sockpuppet account D.Albionov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Under the circumstances I have reinstated the indefinite ban. I don't know what promises you made to WMC, but you did not keep them. I am not interested in unblocking you for any reason, but perhaps you can find another admin to make new promises to. Thatcher 14:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I am not sure what the procedure is, for requesting an unblock from another admin, but I still ask, is this the username you wish to use - and note that you can not create another one until you are unblocked, per the rules. However, I would recommend that you respect the rules rather than circumvent them, and think about whether or not you wish to be a part of the project. I don't think it is particularly appropriate for one admin to set you free, and another to say oh but yesterday they did something they weren't supposed to so I'm blocking you again. I believe block decisions should be based on new behavior after you were unblocked, though you have to realize that it is a serious violation to evade a block. That should have been noticed by WMC before setting you free to edit, but since it wasn't, I see no real purpose in reversing that. However, you have dug yourself a hole, and it is up to you to decide what you want to do now, bearing in mind that there are three choices, leave the project, evade the block and be blocked again, or appeal this block and choose either this or any other username. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for advice, but who you are and why don't you register/create account yourself? It seems that your only enter wikipedia to discuss my situation. If you want to help me you can ask some admin to unblock me.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

I have unblocked your temporarily so that you may participate in the arbitration case. Until a proper decision is made regarding your block itself, you are restricted from editing any page except this talk page, the case pages, and their associated talk pages. — Coren  10:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to make things clear, your edit restriction include other editors' talk pages. By "the case pages", I meant strictly pages included under Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list; further editing outside those and this talk page will lead to this account being reblocked. — Coren  10:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)