Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) at 09:40, 13 March 2010 (→Issues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

An update

Since you are keeping tabs on EE matters... Is it : a threat (last phrase)? (this is whole conversation ).

That was also very tense ("who are you working for?"). Interestingly enough, this user said he is related to this user you know, if only I understood him correctly (that's the entire conversation: ). Biophys (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're lying now? I did not say I was related to that user, that's entirely a creation of your own imagination. And I explained what I meant with that comment twice already (I did not ask "who are you working for", another lie). If you can't understand by now then that's not my problem. LokiiT (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise: Can you please do something about this? I do not need Biophys going around spreading lies about me and trying to pry into my real life identity. LokiiT (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

He said that, something that I never did. Then he explained what he means, noticing his sock puppet case and my deleted page (which you may easily check as admin if needed). If these users are not related, I am really at loss what he wanted to tell in the first diff: (he tells "me", and the deleted page indeed mentioned them both - that was just a note for myself). But this is hardly important. I noticed it just in case.Biophys (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If I had said I was some other user, then it should be pretty easy to provide that diff where I said it, right? Same goes for that made up quote that you attributed to me. This is no mystery, you simply said things that were not true. And if you're going to continue to deny that you ever accused me of working for the GRU, I couldn't care less. It's entirely irrelevant. But everyone already knows about your "list" of supposed government workers, related to the EE cabal case. LokiiT (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Back to the point. I go around "spreading lies"? First of them, Saiga12 (talk · contribs) came to my talk page uninvited with this. Forty minutes later LokiiT came to my talk page uninvited with this. I usually do not respond to ridiculous claims, but Saiga12 was very insistent and reverted me several times on my talk page. Fine, I replied. I asked LokiiT to stop: but he responded with even more ridiculous claims.Biophys (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I came to your talk page because you blindly reverted my edit with no explanation after never even having edited that article before. This is something I brought up in the EE mailing list but some how you got off scott free. Seems nothing has changed. LokiiT (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

. Yes, that's the thing. Different subjects are owned by several partly overlapped groups. Some guys (like ellol - see my previous note above) own articles related to Putin. If I tried editing Putin, they would eat me alive, as they did with Muscovite99. Others control Caucasus-related subjects. My first attempt to edit anything in this area triggered this response. No, it was not revert: see the diff .Biophys (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, guys, can you just give me some breathing space for a moment. Before I go on looking at the disputes, let me just try to get this thing about "Vatutinki" and the "GRU" clarified, and please both of you do me a favour and just answer my questions. So, this guy A.K. said he lived in that place. Biophys, in his "socks" subpage and on the CU case, claimed that "Krawndawg (talk · contribs) and Offliner (talk · contribs)" were socks of A.K., and strongly implied A.K.'s living place meant a connection to GRU. The checkuser case found that Krawndawg was a sock of LokiiT. Yes, that means Biophys indirectly claimed a connection between LokiiT and the GRU. No, it does not mean LokiiT, by understanding the GRU claim to be referring to himself, admitted he was related to A.K. – Question to LokiiT: did you admit that Krawndawg was your sock? Question to Biophys: how did A.K. enter the whole picture in the first place? I see no evidence indicating sock involvement by him anywhere? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I admitted Krawndawg was me and I have long since acknowledged my mistakes and moved on. And thank you for clearing that up. LokiiT (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I had only two questions. 1. Is this a threat (last phrase) by another user (not LokiiT); see whole conversation ? 2. This notice by LokiiT I think go beyond civility: . But he changed the subject by making this quite misleading remark . This is all. I should not be talking about another user because this only complicates the issues.Biophys (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A.K. was mentioned in my deleted user sub-page noted by LokiiT during the conversation: User:Biophys/sock. I even forget about it, but LokiiT remembered and mentioned this as a "proof" that I accused him of being connected with secret services. But I did not. This is all so ridiculous! Biophys (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, A.K. was mentioned in this report . According to Thatcher, he was "too old for direct comparison". So, there was no proof either way.Biophys (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What I find ridiculous is Biophys' continuous harassment and stalking, and the fact that he's gotten away with it every single time with not so much as a warning. (Note the part where I say he stalks my edits and blindly reverts me in articles he's never edited in before, just like he did again three days ago). And now he comes to an admin's page in order to get me in trouble over some flimsy interpretation of something I said, after he provoked me there in the first place, all the while lying through his teeth about A: My identity, B: A quote I did not make, and C: A serious accusation he made against me in the past...Ridiculous indeed. LokiiT (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Even as I was typing this he was busy reverting my changes with no explanation, while giving a misleading edit summary. (You can see the specific changes I'm talking about with my following edit). That's another thing I went over in my above linked evidence page. He makes a huge revert with no explanation, with only mention of something minor in the edit summary. (And this specific edit perfectly justifies what I was saying about him whitewashing the articles of criminals, since this quote is properly sourced and very relevant.) LokiiT (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but if you want to bring the EEML case back, here it is with all diffs. Remember Peter from the Netherlands? He does not edit any more, after such your comments. That's became a habit. First him, now me.Biophys (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line. Whatever our content disagreement might be, they do not justify threats and personal attacks.Biophys (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you were going to follow up on this. LokiiT (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he finally forced me to do this. You are also very welcome to review my recent edit history on the Chechnya and terrorism-related subjects . If they are not significant improvements, then I do not know what improvement is.Biophys (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see your recent positive contributions in the Umarov article. If only we could have started with that, or even just a discussion, instead of going straight to reverts. Also, I want to apologize for implying you support or sympathize with terrorists. That was certainly out of line. LokiiT (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Guys, I'm sorry, but I'm just not finding the strength to read through all of this and make a decision here. Okay, I know this must be frustrating for both of you, having invested so much time arguing your cases here on my page, but then again, maybe you are both lucky, because I have the feeling if I mustered enough determination to tackle this I'd likely end up banninating you both... - Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well if you're going to ban me over a minor WP:CIV infraction that was the result of being antagonized then so be it. But you should know that his harassment continues. LokiiT (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Bertport

Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Since you blocked twice my access to English wiki, I have no choice but contact you anonymously. Firstly, I want to express my deepest regret and disaffection for the two blockages. How could people jump to a judgement only by listening to one side's words? Don't you know the villain always sues his victim before he himself is prosecuted. It's User:Bertport who made the very first revert at 00:19, 19 February 2010 while I, mainly with User:Clemensmarabu, had been contributing days to the article Tibet. I never see he does any constructive edit but only undoes others' contributions or stealthily stuffs his biased words.

I waited one week to finally edit the article, if you please have a look at what content is restored , you'll tell at once good from bad. Both sides' opinions are presented and historical events are scholarly argued, thus I wonder where come from the courage of Bertport to revert such an edit and his boldness to accuse others anticipately. Regards. -- LaGrandefr

Watch out

See this. Not another interest party flood. Just a heads up ;) Michi

Talkback

Can you drop by Talk:Robert Lanza to help break a deadlock?

Sinneed and I seem to have an intractable disagreement about editing on the Robert Lanza article. Could you drop by the page again and the discussion on Talk:Robert Lanza to offer a third opinion to help settle the disagreement? If not, can you help me to find an editor who might be able to do so? I believe there is a standard Misplaced Pages method for soliciting outside, neutral editors to help adjudicate disputes, but I don't know how it works. Thanks.142 and 99 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Block of Gilabrand

You posted a message on Gilabrand's talk page saying you blocked her for 48 hours. Her block log says she hasn't be blocked and she's been editing since; am I missing something? -- tariqabjotu 17:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Must have forgotten to actually press that button, being so busy with all the notifications. Thanks for notifying me. I've commented on G.'s talk page now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

3RR complaint

Your biased support of ABD is unacceptable. As far as I can tell, ABD changed edits three times in 24 hours and accused me of vandalism. Let me know when you threaten to block him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.171.11 (talk • contribs)

LOL. . Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hetoum again

216.165.33.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is Hetoum, back to edit warring. Grandmaster 07:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

76.191.230.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also looks quite suspicious, could also be Hetoum or his meatpuppet, as it traces to a geolocation similar to 75.84.198.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Grandmaster 07:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Shaban Demiraj

Shaban Demiraj, i really dont doubt he has contributed to respectable publications, but such a pattern as talked of in the article page is not a rarity. Megistias (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Fresh nonsense

Dodona? . Athenean (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

PAOK F.C.

Can you please see this: , read this: Talk:PAOK_F.C.#PAOK_F.C._finished_4th_in_the_2008-2009_Super_League_Greece, and protect the article or the team's position last year from endless editing by unregistered users? I mean, the league's rules clearly state that the overall position is defined by play-offs results; I keep the regular season position, and add the overall one, but, every time some unregistered ip change it the way they like it... Heracletus (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Bs1996

Files are not my forte, but this ANI thread may be of interest to you. I've warned the editor not to upload any more copyvios. Can you go through their uploads and sort the mess out please? Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

promacedonia.org

Hello there, why the website is not acceptable i don't think it is UNreliable source? Thank you. --Подпоручикъ (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a nationalist advocacy site. The materials hosted on it are, for the most part, either copyright violations, or cheap nationalist propganda literature, either expressions of modern Bulgarian-Macedonian revisionism or, worse, WWII-era fascist pro-annexation propaganda. Unfortunately, much of the editing of Macedonia-related articles by Bulgarian users here on Misplaced Pages has been by an endless series of single-purpose accounts whose whole idea of the topic has been informed almost exclusively by this and similar sites, and who did little else but plastering links and quotes from them all over the place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright is not a problem for wikipedia, after the materials are not on wiki servers; Here are the greek POV and Republic of Macedonian's one , but do the "endless series of single-purpose accounts" are the bad to read/post, or those who havent at all? Also, most of the books in promacedonia are written by wellknown authors (bulgarian and nonbulgarian) and some of them are written by participants of the history events. There can be find even greek, serbian and republic of Macedonia POV books, so what is acctualy the problem of quotation books according the NPOV wiki rules? P.S. Sorry for my bad english.--Подпоручикъ (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright indeed is a problem, because Misplaced Pages has a policy of not linking to sites when those sites host copyright violations. In the (rare) cases where the works on promacedonia are genuine, legitimate academic texts, it is preferable to just quote those works in their original print version, without a link to the mirror. However, works with titles like "the new national liberation struggle in Vardar Macedonia" or "Macedonism and the resistance against it" are quite obviously expressions of a heavily biased nationalist POV, and as such can only be used if their claims are framed and attributed with strict adherence to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The fact that some of these works may be written by "participants of the events" doesn't make them more useable, quite to the contrary: such works are primary, not secondary sources, and as such must be handled with even greater care, because their authors naturally will have strong personal POVs on the issues they write about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont know if there is statistic that shows the % of using the copyright violations, but for sure is more then 30%. Anyway i think you made me clear of what you think. Thank you again for shared time to explain me. --Подпоручикъ (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI NYB and FPAS

See — Rlevse • Talk • 20:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Constantinople not Istanbul

I understand why you are substituting "Istanbul" for "Constantinople". But these biographies are of people who were born at a time when Istanbul did not exist. Associating their names with Istanbul is not right historically. The historic context is more important than whether or not the reader knows where Constantinople is today. If you have a problem with linking to Constantinople because the article does not contain information up to 1900 then I'll gladly expand Constantinople so that it does. Giving the excuse that the Constantinople section doesn't adequately cover its history up to the mid 1800s (so I'll use Istanbul, which didn't exist at that time, instead) is poor form (you're substituting Constantinople which doesn't have enough info but does have the historical context, for Istanbul which was never relevant in the first place). Your approach makes me think that you have a biased POV since it is not based on historical fact. People that read these biographies automatically assume that the person was born in Istanbul which identifies them as Turkish which is not the case. Moreover, the way that you word your changes makes them appear Turkish which is not the case. Just wanted to get that off my chest. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The claim that "Istanbul didn't exist" is plain nonsense. You are again mixing up names and things. The name "Istanbul" hadn't yet been widely adopted for the city in western languages in the 19th century. It was of course already called like that in Turkish. And it is called like that retrospectively by modern scholarship when dealing with that period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why were all diplomatic communications and all postal communications addressed to "Constantinople" and not "Istanbul" up in to the late 1920s and early 1930s? Then there is the matter on the "Istanbul" page of "Istanbul's" history starting from prehistoric times. What sort of nonsense is that? Constantinople's and Byzantium's history have been hijacked and put across as Istanbul's history. It's all nonsense and propaganda. The kind of propaganda instigated by that pederast Kemal Ataturk. Or would you prefer me to use "despot" or "tyrant". "Pederast" is factual historically. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Read previous discussions, among them Talk:Names of Istanbul#That 1930 "renaming"... and Talk:Istanbul/Archive 4#Proposed guideline. In the 19th century, the city was called Istanbul by Turks, Constantinople by Greeks, and most frequently Constantinople (though side by side with "Stambul" and other variants) by western foreigners. In 1930, the Turkish state passed a law that demanded foreigners should likewise switch to using "Istanbul", which most of them did subsequently. But you are still ignoring the point: the issue is not what speakers of English did back in the 19th century, but what speakers of English in reliable modern publications do now when talking of the 19th century. What they do is this: they use "Istanbul" and "Constantinople" variably. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So what? So why are you claiming that men born in the early 1800s were born in Istanbul and Albania? What's your excuse? Nipsonanomhmata (talk)

Epirus not Albania

Ditto regarding Epirus and Albania. These people were not born in Albania. They never lived in Albania. Albania did not exist in their lifetimes. Why mention Albania in an article that is not about anything to do with Albania? Particularly when the linked locations link to articles about towns where Albania is mentioned. Once again your approach makes me think that you have a biased POV since it is not based on historical fact. People that read these biographies automatically assume that the person was born in Albania which identifies them as Albanian which is not the case. They were born in the Ottoman Empire. Claiming that the Ottoman Empire was a big place and that people need to know that they were born in what is modern day Albania is a poor excuse. Moreover, the way that you word these changes makes it look like these people were Albanian which is not the case. Just wanted to get that off my chest as well. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

More nonsense. Of course "Albania" existed. Not as a state, but as a geographical concept. This means it existed just as much as Greece, Italy, Germany and many others. And the issue is that readers need to be given a point of orientation, which can only be done by naming the modern country. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So you believe that a geographical concept takes priority over the actuality which was the Ottoman Empire. Albania ofcourse was spawned by the Ottoman Empire. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you also be willing to avoid using "Greece" as a geographical descriptor when talking about anything pre-1830? Or "Italy", for that matter? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the ethnic and cultural identities. Ethnic identity is important. But creating pseudo-countries and pseudo-regions and renaming national identity in restrospect is dishonest. But clearly it's an approach that you support. It's not an approach that I agree with. I've never claimed that Greece existed before 1821 but the Hellenes (called Greeks by the English, I've personally never agreed with that either) existed from ancient times. I haven't got a problem with you calling Istanbul -> Istanbul but I do have a problem when you pretend that Constantinople's history is all Turkish. And don't pretend that you aren't partaking in that inventive assimilation revelry. It's plain to see. Moreover, I do not appreciate the way that you communicate to me. You stomp on me as though I am an insignificant ant. You're wasting your time. I don't squash. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I've had enough of you. From now on, stay off my talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please unblock Gliabrand to assist in urgent FA promotion

Hi! I have been contacted by User:Gilabrand who is willing to give me much needed copyediting assistance at the Hurva Synagogue article. As she's unfortunaely blocked at present, I am wondering whether it would be in order to unblock her in this instance so she can help promte to FA, especially as I want to get this done asap (for March 15!). Regards, Chesdovi (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilabrand can certainly be unblocked as soon as she confirms she is willing to abide by the topic ban, the way it's been explained to her (i.e., stay away from all edits touching on the I/P conflict, not merely articles that are nominally "about" the I/P conflict as a whole). Unfortunately, seeing how she reacted to the block yesterday, she didn't seem willing to consider such an acknowledgment. (Note: I might be away for much of today/tomorrow; if she makes such a commitment in the meantime and I'm not available, I have no objections against any other admin unblocking her without further consultation.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would not consider the Hurva topic as part of the I/P conflict, whether or not it touches upon it I am unsure. Chesdovi (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A large part of the article (Hurva Synagogue) focuses on the synagogues destruction during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. So, yes, it is definitely part of the I/P conflict. Factsontheground (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, yes, there's that section, but I don't see a problem with her editing the rest (and, personally, I wouldn't have a problem with her editing that section either, as long as it's really just uncontentious copyediting - but I cannot be positive that other admins would see it the same way.) Trouble is, without a clear statement from her that she'll stay out of anything potentially contentious I cannot consider an unblock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Persia2099 and User:Bahramm 2

I saw that you have blocked Persia2099 indefinitely. User:Bahramm 2 has exactly the same edit pattern and based on recent edits of Persia2099 in Persian Misplaced Pages, I'm almost sure that these two are the same. Is it possible to check them or it's too late? Alefbe (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: Both might be also related to User:R1000R1000 (I'm not sure about this one). Alefbe (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues

I now noticed that Moreschi is inactive; in any case as you was one of the blocking admins as well, I ask you to investigate this issue. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how this was in any way a breach of the Arb Com imposed topic ban. But yes, Jacurek shouldn't have written that and perhaps the block is deserved based solely on the WP:PA nature of it. Of course, if you're going to go around blocking people for making personal attacks on other users' talk pages than how about doing something about the extremely rude and offensive personal attack made by Dr. Dan here: (watch the video to the end and note that this is in response to a question, and a follow up to a completely false accusation made by DD). If this isn't gross incivility, and a naked display of contempt for another editor than I don't know what is. I would find it in extremely bad taste no matter who made it and whom it was directed at.radek (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Another sock

CaptainGio (talk · contribs) is yet another sock. This SPA reverted Khanate of Erevan with his very first edit to this version by the IP sock account: I believe it is not worth wasting time on CU with this. Moreschi would normally block such accounts on spot, but since his is away, maybe you can have a look? I can file a CU request too, if needed. Thanks. Grandmaster 08:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)