→Fifth revert: the point |
PasswordUsername (talk | contribs) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
Yes, it seems Sander Säde has broken 3RR. See the diffs I posted [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Result here]. [[User:Offliner|Offliner]] ([[User talk:Offliner|talk]]) 14:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
Yes, it seems Sander Säde has broken 3RR. See the diffs I posted [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Result here]. [[User:Offliner|Offliner]] ([[User talk:Offliner|talk]]) 14:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Thanks for bringing it up{{ndash}}a swell thing on your part, Offliner. Hopefully it will catch someone's attention at ANI... Where is the grinding of those wheels of Wikijustice? ;-) [[User:PasswordUsername|PasswordUsername]] ([[User talk:PasswordUsername#top|talk]]) 16:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
: I should mention the claims used to delete content is not relevant and is Wikilawyering and vandalism: "Communists were supported by the Soviet Union, who had publicly accepted the principles not recognizing the parliamentary order, seeing terrorism as a legitimate activity." deleted according to WP:ALPHABETSOUP "Observe WP:SELFPUB: Material by the KAPO can only be used to discuss the KAPO so long as it "does not involve claims about third parties"". It makes ''no sense'' to have an article which states that Communists were targeted, and then delete <u>'''WHY'''</u> they were being targeted. Without the additional sentence, it makes Estonian actions appear little more than a phobia of Communists. ''Recall Stalin attempted to topple the Estonian government in a putsch that failed''. This is nothing but deletion of relevant content hoping that appropriate restoration of content can be used to block shop. [[User:Vecrumba|PetersV]] <SMALL><SMALL><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;"> </FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;"> </FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;"> </FONT></SMALL> [[User talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</SMALL> 15:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:00, 7 June 2009
Hello, I am an American and I love democracy.
Check this out
With regard to these your statements... You came to my talk page only to call me a vandal and claim that I intentionally misrepresent sources. And you still did not provide any proof of that. You also said above that you intentially reverted a bunch of my edits to teach me a lesson. Are you going to continue, to follow my edits in articles you were never interested before and revert my edits? Doing so is against WP policies. Regards, Biophys (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I saw this as I am still watching this talk page. This looks like a clash of strong POVs to me, and I have no idea who is right. But one thing: We have a very restrictive, technical definition of vandalism here, which makes sense because reverting vandalism is exempt from 3RR and this exemption is not supposed to be effective in a case such as this one. It's easy for a beginner to get this wrong, especially because many of the more experienced editors abuse the word in all those contexts where they can get away with it. Vandalism warnings are not one of them. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- This user apologized, and I asked him not to follow my edits. If he follows this advise, everything should be fine. I am not sure what you call my "POV". I do not hold any strong opinions about Novodvorskaya beyond following WP:BLP rules, and I do not care about Neo-Stalinism. I edited hundreds other articles and will continue doing so. Thank you for the comment.Biophys (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Renominating
It's a little soon, unless you've come up with some really persuasive arguments that weren't touched on last time. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- There's no hard-and-fast rule; generally, though, unless the closure was so inappropriate that it should have gone to deletion review, I've seen it suggested that six months is a good bare minimum. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Reply
I would appreciate if you do not revert every my edit, even such neutral edit as formatting an image ([1]), without even talking. Also note that you promised at the ANI do not edit war using alternative accounts, but you are doing just that.Biophys (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- As I've explained to you on your talk page, you cited WP:BLP as a reason for removing a photograph of Valeriya Novodvorskaya, whereas WP:BLP privedes for no such thing. You did not reformat the image; you deleted it. And I am watching the Novodvorskaya page, as you seem to be the only one making the extraordinary and radical anti-consensus claims found at Talk:Valeriya Novodvorskaya. My edit only happened under an IP as I got automatically logged out at the time of going to the Novodvorskaya page without realizing it, and I identified myself with both accounts within a minute of making the edit, as you have obviously seen at User talk:32.178.98.17. Best, PasswordUsername (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, I did not cite BLP as a reason for removing image. Two very similar images of the same person are too much per WP:MOS. Your revert of such "gnomish" edit, without even talking, was unacceptable.Biophys (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- MOS doesn't forbid using two images of the same person to illustrate– you did still cite BLP in your removal of the picture in your second edit to a version rejected by consensus(1), whereas you did not cite any policy of Wikipedia in your "two pictures are unnecessary" summary in the first one. I don't see what the issue of MOS here is; if it's a matter of adding captions, I can easily do that should you request. Your first edit also requests that we see talk, whereas you added nothing new to the discussion (where all your previous points had been addressed) there before reverting from the previous version. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You are right
You are absolutely right about this. I was just about to post a similar comment. (I totally disagree with User:Biruitorul's claim: "since their return, Digwuren has shown good conduct, but Petri Krohn has proven unable to do so.) However, I decided to leave the board in peace and complained here instead. I can only hope that the admins will take a deeper look at the issues before jumping into action. Offliner (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
MLauba (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Volunteers
The brigade resorted to the conscription of young Estonians to complete its establishment and many others. Do you mean that you edit-warred without even trying to find out anything about the subject? Not good. Colchicum (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: Explain
This is synthesis, as the source is not about Armenians. You may ask at any noticeboard and will learn that this is not on. Furthermore, this is a logical fallacy, the synthesis would be valid only if all Russophones were left without Estonian citizenship, which is emphatically not the case. Frankly, you don't even know for sure whether these 2,000 Armenians lived there before 1991 or they are recent immigrants. You don't even know whether they are Estonian citizens or not. This is pure original research, or rather guesswork. And in no way could the Russophones in question be "deprived" of what they had never had. Systematically? Where is this taken from? Your source doesn't use such words. Colchicum (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Beer lovers
A tag has been placed on Beer lovers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block
Regarding reversions[2] made on June 7 2009 to Kaitsepolitsei
{{unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Fifth revert
I did indicate a fifth revert later on in the discussion for Sander Sade. Would appreciate it if you take a look. Thanks. PasswordUsername (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not obviously. What is it? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is revert # 5: [3]. (This is another instance of Sade reverting my edit, not in the first four I'd indicated in the beginning. I misattributed it to a revert of Offliner's content at the reverts noticeboard.) Also, I'd say the incivility in Sade's edit summaries at Kaitsepolitsei is probably an aggravating factor. PasswordUsername (talk)
- --and I just found a sixth and seventh reverts: [4], [5]. PasswordUsername (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it seems Sander Säde has broken 3RR. See the diffs I posted here. Offliner (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing it up–a swell thing on your part, Offliner. Hopefully it will catch someone's attention at ANI... Where is the grinding of those wheels of Wikijustice? ;-) PasswordUsername (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)