Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) at 13:51, 18 February 2010 (→Kursk: unblocking). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

help

{{helpme}}

how can i get support of an admin. i need help for a dicussion "Battle of Kursk" . i need an admin who can help to dicsuss the reliability of sources regarding this battle so a admin with knowledge about warfare would be fine. Blablaaa (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be best to start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard where you'll find many knowledgeable editors and admins. Cheers —DoRD (?) (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

thank u for fast helpBlablaaa (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

the rest of the problem remains, i need a fair admin who takes part on the discussion. iam blamed for bias and other stuff. so i cant edit the article... . Blablaaa (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For informal help, I suggest asking for a Third Opinion, or submit a request to the Mediation Cabal. You can get formal help at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation, but try the informal ones first. See WP:DISPUTE for more tips on it. Smappy (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

what can i do against vandalizm, a guy is reverting all my edits even when they are cited Blablaaa (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to reversions made on Battle of Kursk, that is not vandalism. Dapi89 doesn't }}agree with your changes, and has given some reasons for this in the edit summary made, which you can see from the article's page history. You should be discussing the changes and asking why he or she reverted them, not making accusations of vandalism as you did at User talk:Dapi89#vandalizm. All users should try to assume good faith, so please have a discussion with the user and try to reach a consensus. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Thanks! --Mysdaao 17:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

where can i report vandalizm, a guy is revering all of my edits without reason. no explanation hes reverting everything. refs statements maps pictures, everything. please help

Real vandalism can be reported to WP:AIV. Do not, however, go there due to a content dispute. So, make sure you understand the difference. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question (as has already been answered): NO. I linked you to the policy on WP:VANDalism, please read it carefully, especially the part on WP:NOTVAND. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I also find it odd that after Bwilkins specifically told you not to take a content dispute to WP:AIV, you did exactly that. --Smashville 20:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Might I remind you that continuing to accuse a user of vandalism when you have been told repeatedly that it is NOT vandalism is tantamount to a personal attack? Stop it NOW. I see you have already posted to the Reliable Sources noticeboard and advise you to let that discussion continue. --Smashville 20:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

u understood my point? he is reverting everything. i edited more than this. he tarnishs this with "unreliable source" and when he puts his sources in the box than he reverts everything what i edited, including things which have nothing to do with that. iam not sure if my english is too bad to make myself clear but i think i have explained this now more than one time. can u respond to that please? reverting sources statement and maps without reason.... Blablaaa (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

He clearly has a reason. And you've started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. The discussion is still ongoing. What you are doing is tantamount to forum shopping. Stop it. --Smashville 20:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

iamnot forum shopping iam searching for opinion, u are the first who talks with me. i tried to solve this problem and asked many people even an admin who blocked me before. iam not searching for somebody with my opinion iam searching for somebody who has time to discuss this problem. and i dont understand why he can revert all my edits regardless of which source is used . iam also not understanding why he can revert my content without reason. he is calling my major source ( frieser )unrealiable why he is fan of him and citing him too, after i asked why he is calling him unreliable ----> no respond. are u sure u looking neutral on this problem ? Blablaaa (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You called him a vandal when he wasn't. He has no reason to respond to you. You have already taken your discussion to the noticeboard and I can clearly read on this talkpage that I am NOT the only one who has responded to you. He is giving a reason every single time. He has explained the reason. You read the reason, which is why you took the discussion to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard in the first place. Again, let the discussion play out. --Smashville 20:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

ok u didnt look the problem. he gives the explanation "unreliable source" and delets 20 edits of me, even a map , the edits are cited with different sources . u are simply saying: putting a "unreliable source" in the editlog than everything is ok no vandalizm when u give a unlogic explanation. i created a map and i got reverted with "unreliable source" i edit minor typo failures and got reverted with "unrealiable source". i add content and get reverted with "unreliable source" Blablaaa (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

i asked for help than all tell my solve the dispute, then i check "dispute solving" and i should search for 3rd opinions than i do this and nobody responds and u call this forumshopping, huh ? Blablaaa (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

here my words

• "while he is removing this content he is removing everythin else what i have done, hes deleting statements which are cited and even maps which i have created for the article, i search for intervention."

the problem is reverting everything without logic Blablaaa (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

hm i wanted to start editing the southern pincer attack now but i think this would be useless because i will get reverted. Blablaaa (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

ok then with proof ] here he gives the explanation "revert. STOP adding figures to losses that had been contested for years using ONE historian. Restored Glantz as trustworthy sources)"

so while he removes the numbers of frieser zetterling and frankson, he removes the refs for the panther and tiger tanks. he removes this :"In the assemblyarea of the III Panzercorps a bridge was destroyed and the attack was delayed, for example." he removes this :"German leaders decided to deliver some infantry and tank divisions from the 9th Army to the 2nd Tank Army. Model hoped that this divisions could defeat the attack of the Brjansk front and be delivered back to a further attack on Kursk. The Russian attack appeared to be a full operational counter-attack and on the 13 July Model recognized that it was futile to resume his attack. On the same day Hitler canceled the operation of the northern pincer." he removes this picture ] and much more. and u tell me he has a proper reason for this? Blablaaa (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Btn|agration

I have replied on my talk page, as I like to keep discussions in one place. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

help

{{helpme}}

how can i see the code of an older version of a article? i want to restore a big part of an article but not allBlablaaa (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

At the top, click on the "history" link and choose the date you want. Of course, only restore content that has not been removed by previous consensus.  fetchcomms☛ 22:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

i need the code, when i click the version i see the version but that dont helps. the problem is battle of kursk: the infobox is disputed now so another user edited his version of the box AND deleted many edits of me, so ... now i want to restore the other edits but not the infobox. how can i do without doin 100 times copy and pasteBlablaaa (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking - maybe you're looking for WP:DIFF? —La Pianista 22:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

But before you try to restore your edits, please read WP:WAR. Please civilly discuss your thoughts with the other editor. I'm sure he'll work out a compromise with you. —La Pianista 22:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

i edited the article , many edits... one of them is disputed. another user decided to put his favoured source in the infobox, while doing this he deleted everything what i have done before, most of this if not all is NOT disputed. he did more than one edit so i cant do undo ( what i would have preferred, exception : the disputed content ) now i want to restore the not disputed parts. the best option, which i see, is doing every edit again but thats very uncool. so i want to click my last version than copying the code ( but not the disputed one ) and than editing the page... Blablaaa (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If you go to the diff of his change from before, you can see the difference and retrieve the material there.  fetchcomms☛ 23:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

hm yes ok thats the exhausting method but if there is no better way i will do. thanks for replyBlablaaa (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for one week

As just some examples of your recent incivility, I am referring to recent behavior such as this, this, this and this in which you falsely claimed that another editor is a vandal and encouraged other editors to counter them , this and this bogus vandalism abuse reports and this edit in which you claimed that a set of figures which are exactly those published in the source were 'faked sources' (I own the book and am able to check the figures). You will be blocked for much longer periods if this behavior continues after your block ends. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

lol .... corrupt....Blablaaa (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

it is no vandalizm when he reverts all edits without reason ], dear nick u are corrupt Blablaaa (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

hm i think u will not unblock me regardless what i write but please look this change ] the user is reverting everything of my edits without reasen he is claiming krivosheev unreliable hes claiming frieser unrealiable. the admin nick blocked me because i call a user an liar after he accused me beeing a bad faith editor after he accuses me using unreliable sources. then when i show to admins that he does vandalizm ( he deleted 10 edits of me while claiming this is because a content dispute, only one was a content dispute ) i get blocked because i call other users vandalist. i wanted to edit this site and the other user delets everything without reason, now iam blocked because i searched help against this behaviour. only wanted to improve the article with other sourcen than this the user has, but than everything is reverted and iam blocked. hope the admin now takes some time to check and judge fairly

Decline reason:

You have been told again and again how to handle this, and yet you call editors liars and vandals. Did you stop to think that perhaps you need to verify your "sources" through the reliable source noticeboard? You're changing data that have been argued over before, and you have been told that. We work on WP:CONSENSUS. You need to stop. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kursk

I want to try and work this out. I am not pushing any particular agenda. So what I intend to do is start a sub article on my own page (a sandbox) with its own talk page. You are free to edit the talk page, and then any discussions can be ironed out and then moved to the Kursk article as appropriate (when finished). The article can be written there as we go along instead of inflicting an edit war on the Kursk article. I am not criticising your sources; I am criticising the way in which you handled them. The best way forward, would be to put "disputed" in both strength and loss columns, then direct readers to a casualty/strength section which ALL sources can then be discussed to allow the reader to make up his own mind. But author/date and page number is necessary. If there is any doubt, on your part or mine, then the party is obliged to provide a FULL (and I mean full, not selected) quote from the source offered. If these conditions are acceptable to you, I will try to persuade the Admins to unblock you. Dapi89 (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ok . i think this would be an deal. i ordered the newest book of glantz about kursk. so i can see his arguments and we can provide both views proper. i dont want to get unblocked because u intervent. i want to get unblocked because its not correct to block me for a week. even if iam not unblocked i will start editing in one week. thanks for your words... see u in a week Blablaaa (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

the problem now is that iam the idiot here and u the editor who got harassed by me. so i dont want to keep the problems alive but. can u tell were i tried to push a german bias while citing frieser? in general were did i try to push german bias???? to be honest what i write is pretty the same written by frieser. please show me or admit that this is NOT true Blablaaa (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

i mean this "I am not criticising Frieser -I have cited him many times, but the way he is using him. This is not about the sources author, but anb editor." , please explain .... Blablaaa (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.

Nobody is calling you an idiot. Check out my block log. I'll see what I can do.

I'll explain later. I only have time until tonight to leave a request with the admins. Dapi89 (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Blablaa seems to recognize what he did wrong, and has agreed to work collegially going forward. Hence, while the original block was valid, there seems to be no reason to leave it in place going forward.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Request handled by: SarekOfVulcan (talk) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.