Misplaced Pages

User talk:Hodja Nasreddin

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thatcher (talk | contribs) at 01:03, 1 July 2009 (→Talk Page comment replies: formal notice for the record, I know you agreed to this informally). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:03, 1 July 2009 by Thatcher (talk | contribs) (→Talk Page comment replies: formal notice for the record, I know you agreed to this informally)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, Hodja Nasreddin, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Russia Portal, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Misplaced Pages notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist.

Again, welcome! Alex Bakharev 00:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration 3RR

Soviet_War_Memorial_(Treptower_Park)

Please read Talk:Soviet_War_Memorial_(Treptower_Park)#Case_Closed before reverting, I think Beatle has shown quite convincingly that the nickname is related to another monument (according to the sources). Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I will check and ask 3rd opinion.Biophys (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Meyer

Any reason for this? I'm confused why you would recreate a page that had an AfD consensus for deletion. CTJF83Talk 17:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please look WP:Deletion. AfD is not a proper venue for discussing merging and redirection. This should be discussed at article talk page. In addition, the decision about effectively removing the article was made by a non-administrator. Let's wait what current AfD discussion would produce.Biophys (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Note

Please do not remove yourself from an active request. If you feel you should not be included in a request, please make a statement requesting an arbitrator remove you from the list. Regards. MBisanz 20:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I did not know.Biophys (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I'm less involved than you are. You are welcome to simply stand aside and say nothing, or you can explain why there should be, or should not be a case. If you'd like to help resolve these disputes, it may be useful for you to participate, but if it causes you stress, you are free to simply ignore the proceedings. Jehochman 20:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like not to comment, but you reopened my AE case.Biophys (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Feedback from ArbCom is that they don't want to hear the case, and that they want us to resolve matters at WP:AE. If I may make suggestions:
  1. Before filing any further AE requests, ask an uninvolved administrator to review your diffs. This will prevent filing of any complaints viewed as frivolous.
  2. Pick one or a few EE articles and work on WP:GAC or WP:FAC. Use neutral, outside reviewers to get feedback on the article and work towards a quality standard. This can help prevent edit warring.
  3. Avoid off wiki correspondence with other editors. If you want to talk about articles, do it on wiki where everything is transparent.
I hope this helps. Jehochman 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. 100%. Actually, I always use best available sources, primarily books by the best experts on the subject. I can easily show this if there are any concerns. Why are you asking about off wiki communications? Do you have any particular concerns or evidence?Biophys (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a general suggestion I have provided to all editors in this venue. Keeping communications on wiki helps rebut accusations of collusion. Jehochman 17:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Break

I may not read messages here. Please contact me over wikipedia email.Biophys (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Victims of psychiatric repression

I have nominated Category:Victims of psychiatric repression (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Robofish (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Long Wikibreak

Wellcome back

Dear Biophys, I am glad that you changed your mind and decided not to retire. Although I generally disagree with your edits I believe your contribution into WP is positive rather than negative. I wish your WP life to be long and fruitful.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page comment replies

First, welcome back. Per your suggestion, along with the ANI board's suggestion, an RfCU was started instead that is here.

Per the RfCU rules, you could potentially probably certify as part of the Wikihounding campaign, which had actually started even before the block and spread to Jonestown. If you're not comfortable with having made an effort to previously resolve the dispute (I can't remember whether you did or not), you could also certify in the Additional users endorsing this cause for concern, subsection. Two people (I'm obviously one) are needed in 48 hours for the RfCU to go forward.

Also, re your comments on editing Human rights in the United States, I agree and I already stated I wished to edit less (or perhaps not even at all) that article because of Viriditas' contentious editing there, and even stated as much on a plea on Viriditas' Talk page to please stop letting disputes spill over into other articles. Which was, of course, compeltely ignored, hence the RfCU complaint.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


1RR limit

Under the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren I am placing you on a one revert per week limitation for all articles covered by that Arbitration case (Eastern Europe, broadly defined). You are prohibited from making more than one reversion per week per article, not including obvious vandalism. A reversion is any edit that substantially restores the article to prior content, whether or not it is a reversion in the purely technical sense. All reversions must be discussed on the article talk page. Violations will result in escalating blocks. You may request to have the 1RR limit reviewed or lifted after 6 months.
This limit is imposed following evidence of prolonged edit warring, the Arbitration Enforcement complaint made here, and as a result of the recent disgraceful edit warring at at Nashi (youth movement) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the inclusion of Category:Anti-fascist organizations. While no editor violated the 3RR rule (4 reverts in 24 hours) there were at least 23 reversion of the category between June 11 and June 21, without a single comment by anyone on the talk page. The list of editors and reversions makes a prima facia case for tag-team editing; whether it was organized or spontaneous is irrelevant, and it is not required that I prove anything one way or the other. It's time to edit cooperatively and use the talk pages to discuss disputes.

Thatcher 01:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)