Misplaced Pages

Whale meat

Thanks for the edits. It could get good DYK attention in a few days, so having it balanced with no tags would be great. I could sure use a hand fixing it up. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Howard Martin

I'm not sure that this is suitable -- DYK does not run negative hooks about living people, even when reliably referenced, nor highlight articles that are almost wholly negative in tone. In this case I can't see how an appropriate hook could be found. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the bit of the guidelines you point out, there's also the stronger statement (Under The hook/Content): "Articles and hooks which focus on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." Personally I feel the article just isn't suitable for DYK in its current state, but I wasn't the editor who removed it from the suggestions page. Probably your best course is to start a general thread at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know to clarify where the consensus lies on the general principle of including negative hooks to predominantly negative articles where the sourcing is reasonably reliable. You might also discuss the question with Wizardman, who removed the hook from the suggestions page.

As to the "See also" section, it seems to me to be in clear contravention of the BLP policy to link someone who admits to having hastened the death of dying people purely on humanitarian grounds and has never been successfully prosecuted for a crime with convicted or suspected serial killers, such as Shipman & Adams. I agree Moor might be a more appropriate link, but "See also" implies there are similarities between the cases without references, which I feel is problematic -- are there reliable references that have compared the two cases? Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly be appropriate to start a discussion at the DYK talk page, though getting consensus there can sometimes be akin to herding cats! Espresso Addict (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Whale meat

Hello folks, as expected, the POV tag on whale meat is preventing it from hitting the front page as DYK. I would really like it to make it. As you know, DYKs get thousands of hits. A whale meat DYK might get 5 thousand or more.

This would be very good for the article, as editors would improve it, and neutrality issues would certainly be resolved. Also, if you feel strongly about whale meat consumption, this is a good way for it to get exposure.

So, please, could we remove the tag? Or, if there are issues, could we remove the contentious text for the time being. After DYK, other editors will restore it or leave it out, based on consensus. I hope this seems fair. Time is short, so please act quickly

I also sent this message to User talk:Phoenix7777. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

See also DYK nom. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The DYK came and went. Pity. It would have brought a lot of attention to the article. What changes to the article would make the article NPOV, so we can remove the tag you added? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Government by itineration

Hello, please see your nomination of Government by itineration at DYK for comments.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

...and also the one for Howard Martin, which has a minor issue about a word in the hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved. Good luck on the DYK. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

please notify in the future

In the future, if you are going to mention me on somebody's talk page or anywhere else for that matter, particularly if you're making negative comments about me, as you did here , I would appreciate it if you'd let me know. Otherwise there's a certain unpleasant "talking about somebody behind their back" aspect to these kinds of comments. Thanks.radek (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no. Malick78 (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Government by itineration

Articles for deletion nomination of Spieprzaj dziadu!

Scrapes

Apart from the fact it has nothing to do with Radeksz, the Spieprzaj dziadu! article and the AfD, I am really curious how did you manage to dig up that +8 months old thing.  Dr. Loosmark  20:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Robert George Clements

probable lover

Please don't put such speculation about subjects in the lede, also there is nothing in the body of the article, if you want to add it and it is noteworthy then cite it and add it to the body of the article, thanks, please place the cites that support this claim on the talkpage for me to investigate thanks. Also if you are going to cite and add it then as it is speculation please attribute where that speculation is coming from, who is is that speculates that and why also, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Rachel Baker for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rachel Baker until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Mufka 19:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Islamic marital practices

I ran across your edits in recent changes. The scope of the above article seems to be that of marriage ceremonies and customs relating to finding partners. The material you've added would be more relevant in Islamic marital jurisprudence. Oore (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll also want to take a look at Islamic sexual jurisprudence. Be sure to use a reliable secondary source as answering-islam is self-published, and the Qur'an is a primary source. Oore (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, the name of the article has a wider scope than the intro sentence. One of them should therefore change I'd guess. Don't you think?

• Btw, sending people in the edit summary to my page to discuss the edits is probably not a good idea. Editing should be discussed on the article's talk page. Let's do this there :) Malick78 (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mikhail Beketov

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:John Bodkin Adams after trial.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:John Bodkin Adams after trial.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks

You are correct that redlinks should generally not be removed from the body of articles. However, the "See also" section is different. Redlinks are not permitted in the see also section. See WP:SEEALSO. Yworo (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, all you have to do is write a sentence about the connection, and voila! Or add the wanted articles at articles for creation.

I think the idea is that "See also" is for navigation and they don't want non-working navigational links. Also there aren't supposed to be redlinks in "List of" article, presumably for the same reason. Yworo (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Re Ricardo Teixeira

Sorry for the reverton Ricardo Teixeira. Especially with a claim of bribery, the specific source from the BBC should be provided as a reference. Alansohn (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The source was there, but the first time I looked the final paragraph with the source was cut off. The source is indeed there and the revert was not appropriate. My apologies for my error. Alansohn (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Viktor Kalashnikov

DYK for Marina Kalashnikova

DYK for Rudolf Elmer

The Beggar's Benison

Hi - you list Thomas Erskine as a notable member, but which Thomas Erskine was it? The link previously went to a theologian called Thomas Erskine which possibly wasn't the right one. (I am trying to sort out wikilinks to Thomas Erskine.) I tried the link to footnote 7 but couldn't find anything that looked like a facsimile of a document. Do you have any dates, then at least we might be able to exclude some Thomas Erskines. Or another source? Southdevonian (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have found the answer - it was Thomas Erskine, 6th Earl of Kellie the composer, not Thomas Erskine the theologian.Southdevonian (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC) And the 9th apparentlySouthdevonian (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of DJ Jabbathakut

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on DJ Jabbathakut requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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 Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — ] (talk · contribs) 12:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of K-Delight

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on K-Delight requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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 Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — ] (talk · contribs) 12:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination for David T. Beers

DYK nomination of David T. Beers

Hello! Your submission of David T. Beers at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for David T. Beers

Catherine Wilson

Hi! I recently found the page Catherine Wilson, which tells a fascinating story. I'm interested in working on its references. I wanted to let you know because I consider it "your" article. Please drop me a note if you have any thoughts about the question I mention at Talk:Catherine Wilson. --Officiallyover (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, I'd be more than happy to give input :) Thanks for the message. Malick78 (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Nomination of Murzyn for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Murzyn until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--Lysy 23:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks

This is very disappointing: . Keep in mind that on Misplaced Pages we don't like personal attacks, so such ad hominens and poisoning the well are not welcome. Please consider WP:REFACTORing your post. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, you are right, his comment was out of line and I told him so. But you started it, and your bringing up of old history, irrelevant to this article, is very much a personal attack. You should both refactor the posts; I suggest you do so and ask VM to remove his comments. On wiki, we can edit offending remarks out of existence, take advantage of it. Now, I think VM involvement has been helpful, a trial by fire often leads to an improvement of the article. If you'd like me to review specific refs, link me to them, but on a cursory check I recall VM removing unreliable references, such as to an extremist website. Overall, I suggest you take care to format your refs better (with cite templates, and helpful gadgets like WP:REFLINK) and http://reftag.appspot.com. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleting msgs from one's talk page is not very friendly, but is allowable, and if VM thinks you are harassing him with his personal attacks, he may well be overreacting. Again, the right thing to do would be to remove your comments he views as objectionable, and try to reach out to him again. With regards to your references, I cannot speak for others, but they most certainly not match my standards - be it for Misplaced Pages, or, when I am teaching a class, for my students. For example: SJP.pl - just the name of the publisher, not the article, missing date of publication/access. Czy Obama jest Murzynem?, Juraszek.net - missing name of the author, dates. - totally bare url. O rasizmie w mowie: Dziś Bambo chodzi z nami do szkoły, Gazeta.pl - missing author, dates.

DYK for Murzynek Bambo

New Page Patrol survey

Poems

And why did you ask me those questions at the talk page of my DYK subpage? Next time use my talk page, please. I personally asked my friend Richard Tylman (User:Poeticbent) to make translations of some fragments of poetry. He agreed, translated them and requested his name be mentioned along with the translations. All those poems are sourced and all of them are copyright-free as the publishing companies do not exist anymore and the poets themselves are not among the living. - Darwinek (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, however those fragments of poems serve there to illustrate the style of particular author in connection with themes they used. Is there any possibility to retain that in articles? Do you have any ideas? - Darwinek (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You see, Wawrosz and others were local authors with influence stretching mostly only to the border of Cieszyn Silesia, which is culturally rich but geographically small region. It means honestly that no one will gonna sue Misplaced Pages for using tiny fragments of their poems. In fact, their families probably don't even know about those articles, and if they would, they'd be happy to see them. The shortcoming of the local nature of those poets is, that no English translation exists, so in order to bring it closer to English Misplaced Pages readers, some translation must be obtained anyhow, or the mentioned fragments should be deleted and the articles would be transformed to mere encyclopedia entries. - Darwinek (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Sepp Blatter

I'd like to invite you to a discussion regarding Sepp Blatter, please see the talk page. Regards IJA (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Mikhail Suprun, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page FSB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Noize MC

The article Noize MC has been proposed for deletion because, under Misplaced Pages policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. reddogsix (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Kseniya Sobchak, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Nashi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

European Recycling Company (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charity

Sergei Udaltsov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to FSB

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Gadzhimurat Kamalov

2011–2012 Russian protests‎

User Greyhood is active again adding highly POV sections such as this . Närking (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Advice on your interactions with Greyhood

I have seen your interactions with User:Greyhood on numerous articles, and comments such as this, accusing them of lying, and other generally combative behaviour and language towards Greyhood is getting too much. If I should see such behaviour from you again in the future, I won't hesitate to report you to WP:AE and ask for sanctions to be placed on you as per Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Standard_discretionary_sanctions. Calm down in your interactions with other editors with whom you may have opposing views with, and be more collegial in nature, otherwise you may find your ability to edit in this area on WP severely restricted. Russavia 17:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are not an Admin (which you are not) I'd worry more about my own conflicts with others and your adoption of some sort of Russian-POV-luv rather than "warning" Malick78.

Agreed, Russavia himself does himself seem to be acting on the edge of what is acceptable at times.Malick78 (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kelly Marcel

The article Kelly Marcel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable person, barely known for one event.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Speciate (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Putin

• Ok, no prob.Malick78 (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Please add the citation to the article for your claim about his rank--Toddy1 (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Technically, it wasn't a claim. I was reverting somebody else's claim (which was unreferenced). However, I did put the ref in the edit summary.Malick78 (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

But please could you put the citation in the article. In 2 weeks time it will be very hard to find a citation in an edit summary. It will be too hard to achieve in 6 months time.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Incivility warning

Please remove/refactor your comment here. I agree with VM it is a personal attack. Please note those are not allowed, per WP:NPA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Of course you agree with him. I mentioned he'd been in the EEML. So were you. Perhaps your opinion is not as neutral as you think? I presume you have warned him about his personal attacks too? He says just above your link "I have been very critical of you... ", further down the page he calls me an "ass", and then here "a huge jerk". How can you differentiate between our 'personal attacks'? The fact is, I haven't engaged in name calling, he has. And calling my work a '3rd grade essay', or something like that. And of course as Radeksz, he tried to get a few of my articles deleted... along with the other EEML members. And you. I even had one reinstated because of you lot (Spieprzaj dziadu!). And here he's checking my sandbox. Is that him trying to avoid me? How about we all leave each other alone? Malick78 (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely with your specific and general approach to Piotr & Marek. These two have been caught and punished to a degree unknown to 99.9% of Misplaced Pages editors for breaking the rules, yet today they adopt the lie of being Wiki-perfectionists, interested only in Wiki rules. Once caught as criminals, today they pretend the role of police. Only their obsessession with their agenda and the eventual disinterest they create in honest Wikipedians encourages their desperate existence. Keep up the work and don't forget .

72.145.253.232 (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the encouragement. Interacting with them can be soul destroying... ;) Malick78 (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

and that is precisely their point. Read the archived talk pages at articles like Western Betrayal and see how the same problems with the article, (namely its one-sided Polish apologist POV) are repeatedly raised by dozens of independent or casual editors,but they are just worn down by the paranoid 24/7 policing by the article's owner and EEML colleagues. These guys have been punished, banned or deleted from Misplaced Pages so many times that they are simultaneously experts at wikilawyering and grossly obsessed with frustrating Misplaced Pages's broad ideas and specific guidelines. What purpose is a solemn and awe-inspiring 'incivility warning' from a defrocked admin only recently again punished by the ongoing EEML sanctions?....except of course to adopt the facade of wikiexpert and lamely intimidate those who dare question a EEML colleague? Try to keep PBS involved, the EEML are all terrified at such high ideals equally administered to all without bias as PBS tries to do. 184.36.234.102 (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again mystery stranger :) I'll bear that in mind. I agree with the fact that over the months, 2 or 3 editors have shouted down many passing editors. Btw, what's the thing with "only recently again punished" - what has happened? Can you send a link? Malick78 (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

How about this: if you're up for it we can talk here about developing the WB article without EEML harassment? The newest case against them is in the works and as Usual the EEML alone are providing the evidence against themselves, so we can I think ignore them and put energy towards the articles. I can't talk on the WB talk page anyway, (along with 99.9% of the world who have no wiki username).

Ok, to start: I think the WB article has a few broad overriding problems,

1. It is overwhelmingly Polish in POV. This can be remedied by either including all the numerous other non-Polish western betrayals in individual article sections, OR, if it makes sense (and it might) to keep the almost unilateral Polish perspective, then some counter arguments to the Polish explanation should be provided. For instance, the articles owner is hyper motivated to block pointing out Poland grabbed land after Munich because of the obvious hypocrisy which exists when Poland initially happily benefits from Munich but later blames the West for betraying them at Munich. There are numerous other things Poland does to further along it's own eventual disaster,such as not joining a Soviet defense pact it was offered (38 I think); which tend to show Poland was more involved in betraying itself than those who prefer to blame Britain and America are comfortable allowing on Misplaced Pages.

2. It is too long. It's a whiny laundry list of Polish complaints. The thinking is probably that sheer volume equals proof Of the concept.

3. There is no mention of how the WB concept was used so potently during the cold war by the Soviets and Warsaw pact governments to engender anti-western sentiment in their own people. Also, see the Christ of Europe article for how victimhood or martyrdom are a chosen self identity for Poland especially; western betrayal is an important subset of this national psychology.

...much more of course needs work, and maybe you want to start a new section here for this discussion? It is nice to talk freely about the article and not get dragged into the self hatred and pedantic banality of its owner's attacks, I hope we can work together.184.36.234.102 (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Others editing your talk page

Another editor has edited your talk page by removing my encouraging words to your efforts; this illustrates the point my original comments made. Thanks for your work! 01:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.253.232 (talk)

• Thx too for the heads up.Malick78 (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Western betrayal -- comments about things other than content.

If you want the article to improve then you have to stay focused on the content and not the behaviour of other users on the article talk pages.

Refactor this comment to remove the complaint about another editors behaviour on your talk page. The article talk pages are only for developing content. The comment, (intended or not) is an open invitation for a retort that has nothing to do with content. Take it to an ANI if you want to complain do not complain on an article talk page.

Also remove the comment you have placed after my blocking of the IP addresses. Again it is not anything to do with the development of the article and is yet another inappropriate inflammatory comment for an article talk page. -- PBS (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Warning

This is your only warning on this issue. If a comment by you on a users talk page is deleted by that user you may not revert it (See the guideline (WP:TALK). You have been doing this on user talk:Volunteer Marek. Now that you have been warned if you do it again it is likely to lead to administrative action. -- PBS (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI see this warning. -- PBS (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BLANKING (and read the whole page) and Misplaced Pages:Don't restore removed comments -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

See also my edit that created an WP:ANI section that mentions you user name. -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, WB edits refactored as per request. As for the above, I'll take note. One problem though is that a user's past behaviour and present behaviour should be visible to other editors in general. This, in the case of VM, is vital since he was once called Radeksz and was punished for being part of the EEML (do you know of it? Editors off-WP coordinating actions - such as AFD votes). I argued with him 2 (or so) years ago when he and other EEML editors nominated certain articles, which I had started, for deletion. Then after his punishment he changed his name, and once again - as VM - I have come across him and had problems. It took me a while to realise he was one and the same editor who I'd clashed with before. If it'd been easier to know about his previous behaviour, I'd have been less at a disadvantage. Hence my dislike of him deleting my posts (and those of others). It smacks of someone covering their tracks.
• Oh, and sorry to bore you with all this :) Malick78 (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said above alleged problems about user behaviour should be dealt with at ANI not on the talk page of articles. I did not ask you to strike out your comments I asked you to remove them . -- PBS (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood what you exactly meant by 'refactor'. As for comments... will you ask VM to remove his comments of a similar type? Like calling me a 'huge jerk'?Malick78 (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No. This is a request to remove the two comments you placed on the page since I took administrative action to dampen down this edit war. -- PBS (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Development at Western Betrayal

I was contacted by a colleague in Australia about this recently delivered paper: http://pubapps.uws.edu.au/events_diary/event.php?id=2194 It Is a good source by an academic expert on the myth of WB and importantly the categorisation as 'myth' is in itself important vis-a-vis the determined effort by the articles owner to portray WB as fact. Here's Alger Hiss saying much the same thing: https://files.nyu.edu/th15/public/yaltamyths.html Also there is a book by Athan Theoharis called the 'Yalta Myth' or Munich Myth, if it can be found it too provides a counetrbalance and good explanation to those who choose to blame the entirety of their problems on Anglo-American betrayal. Btw for betrayal to occur doesn't there first have to be some obligation? What obligation did anyone ever have to Poland which wasn't satisfied by declaring war? There are several other good sources, but let me know what you think. We can compose a good update to the WB article free from EEML hectoring here if you agree. Also, see my comments above where I talk about 3 general problems with the WB article. I hope we can make it more worthy of this encyclopedia and a bit less of a propaganda piece. . You've just recently overcome a fierce EEML attack so congratulations! But they are watching this talk page and you closely; I would expect the same two ringleaders to keep up their campaign of disruption and keep trying to silence their critics, So check for deletions often here or anywhere else you visit on wiki. They may switch to using one of their colleagues, cohorts or socks against you but these are already documented so just react professionally. I appreciate your serious interest in Wikpedia and hope you will want to work a bit on the WB article. 184.36.234.102 (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, in general I'm happy to work on WB but I should say now that my time is limited (I also have to fight POV-pushers on the Putin article, for instance ;) ) - so, if you could do the legwork I'll happily facilitate in any other way I can. I think that if we have the refs then the additions to the text you discuss are all feasible. I think the monograph is perhaps not useful till it's published properly, but the Hiss bit is interesting. In fact, it's mention of China is perhaps the best part - and could be used to extend the article to cover why China felt aggrieved (and may suggest to other editors that Poland shouldn't be the main focus). Malick78 (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well I only have a few hours a week here and there to contribute, maybe some off time at work, maybe time after the kids are in bed, maybe when I'm waiting in airports etc... etc... How about I find some sources/quotes and you can weave them into the article if you think they're useful?

So maybe a start is the fact that WB is more properly seen as a political soundbite than it is an indisputable fact, for instance:

1. Athan Theoharis - arguably the premier AngloAmerican expert on this topic, says WB was advanced in the West at least in part for partisan political reasons in the height of the Cold War as a way to assign blame for the growing Soviet threat. An example are the politicians who "Sought to recapture the Polish-American vote By regularly assailing the Yalta Betrayal of Poland" in Chicago with its large Polish community.

P.66. The Yalta Myths: an issue in US Politics, 1945-1945, by Athan Theoharis.

He cites Chicago newspaper articles and Republican Party literature. This book has lots to say that contradicts the Polish-victimhood mantra of the current WB article and is partially available on Google Books. (everything I put in quotes is a direct quote from the named source) I'll try posting a link but it might be easier to search for the quote directly on the oogle books site or just regular google.

http://books.google.com/books?id=JmN3AAAAMAAJ&q=Betrayal#search_anchor

2. "..the bitter feelings of Polish-Americans" were vocal and behind political appeals such as Arguing the West and the "United Nations betrayed" Poland. Words spoken in the US Congress. P. 114, same source. (hmmmm...bitter Polish Americans.....)

3. P.29, same Theoharis source; the allegation of the western allies betraying Poland was used by UN opponents in a call to "reappraise the US commitment to the United Nations." ---

4. "American conservatives see the Yalta conference as a betrayal of Poland AND CHINA.". . . Goes towards both the use of WB as a political view held by one side in a multisided partisan debate and the fact that WB is used for a lot more than simply referring to Polands complaints. . .

From The Oxford Companion to US History, online at

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Yalta_Conference.aspx#3 ... ...

5. Same Oxford source, The western betrayal complainers "helped stimulate the excesses of the McCarthy era."

alright, enough for now. I will keep adding quotes and sources, maybe you will be able to use some of them? If PBS goes ahead with the line-by-line review of the article he suggested, whatever gets added will ideally include direct quotes or indisputable summaries of strong sources. Thanks for your interest and please don't get too caught up in all the bureaucratic wrangling the article's owner prosecutes onto everyone posting things she doesn't like!

184.36.234.102 (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Where to aim?

The available literature on the subject suggests 4 broad areas belonging in the article which are currently absent'

I. WB as but one of several betrayals on the Polish people, in terms of Polish weltenschaung widely adopted in the 20th century. A discussion of WB as part of an overall Polish self-mythology in part enunciated elsewhere at Christ of Europe. The victimhood and martyrdom identities are adopted/encouraged.

II. WB as a political catchphrase used by the West, the Poles, other EE nations and ths Soviets for various and opposing meanings/purposes esp. In the Cold War.

III. WB as a frequent phrase implying AngloAmerican blame for national failures everywhere, e.g. Googling WB today reveals Kurdistan(!), not Poland, is the loudest and most recent victim of this apparently frequent western policy. China is another, the Jews are another, and many others.

IV. Specific arguments that the idea of WB is simply wrong, the historians, statesmen etc. who argue there was no betrayal, no duty to Poland/EE or that Poland betrayed itself.

So all the sources I find will likely fit I into one of the four areas....most of the sources I list above seem to it into area 2, WB used as a partisan political concept. More later184.36.234.102 (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Good sources below I want to review. I will organise, summarise and directly quote them later.

6. Good stuff from a Polish source about prewar Polish policy blunders http://web.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/AMC_2011_Foreign%20Policy%20of%20Pilsudski%20and%20Beck.docx

7. Polish/Nazi collaboration, Polish self-ascribed martyrdom and difficulty confronting their own role in the horrors of the war; http://www.jpost.com/JerusalemReport/Article.aspx?id=193304

8. Betrayal as a convenient political scapegoat in post war EE countries, also impossibility of Britain doing anything more about Poland than what was in fact done; http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13619469808581488

9. Addresses some of the points you brought up about WB being a fuzzy translation that doesn't convert well to English, btw almost all the literature uses 'Yalta Betrayal,'not WB, really IMO the articles title should be Yalta Betrayal especially if it remains Polish-centric as WB is the more umbrella term used anytime Britain and America get blamed. http://books.google.com/books?id=0wOKfjnXdAUC&q=betrayal#v=snippet&q=betrayal&f=false

10. same source, "Yalta" used as a common expression in postwar Poland in place of saying "that's life" or "that's fate". Polish mythology.

11. Outstanding Polish source deconstructive several Polish myths, especially victimhood/martyrdom in the postwar world; http://www.archivespp.pl/uploads/images/2011_13_1/Jozefik35_Archives1_11.pdf

12. American political,commentary on Yalta Betrayal, not sure if this author in a blog meets Wiki guidelines, need to check; http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/exit-strategies/summit-of-betrayal/

13. Great overview of the betrayal ("stabbed in the back") doctrine used manipulatively all over politics; http://harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081080

14. Formerly Polish Jews rejecting the betrayal/heroic/victim narrative of Polands war history, asserting Nazi collaboration instead; lots of sources along these lines arguing only Jewish Poles were betrayed while 'regular' Poles helped with the betraying; http://books.google.com/books?id=h7ixFslfFxwC&pg=PT272&lpg=PT272&dq=myth+of+betrayal+poland&source=bl&ots=BktUZj2UgE&sig=quBr_EI6tGSx-C7e0rxNR7niraw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1DJxT_KjCc6Jtwe6u6TcDw&ved=0CCYQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=myth%20of%20betrayal%20poland&f=false

ok, as mentioned I will summarize and quote later but these sources should be a strong foundation for the articles improvement. 184.36.234.102 (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, thanks, that's a big list. I'll try to work on it gradually... but with my own life and the admin board... I don't know how soon I'll get round to it - and also if I'll do it justice: you seem to have a deep knowledge of this, whereas I'm just entering the subject. Is it not worth starting your own account to work on the page while it's blocked to IPs? Malick78 (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It is blocked to new users as well, so my participation is impossible. anyway if PBS continues to shepherd the article along yes I may join up, and for the short term a one paragraph retort to its yearning propaganda would be an accomplishment. So do what you can on your terms and on your time if you like, there are many others wo will chime in to help if you give it a good start....I'll extend and extrapolate points from these and other sources for you and if things are kept orderly and you make headway I'll gladly join you in direct editing, good luck, thanks, good work and so forth.184.36.234.102 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ps are you in Poland by any chance? I'm Across from Praga park if you know,the area?

in an above comment you asked for a link to the ongoing EEML sanctions. They are often now grouped Under different dicipline categories, but it still the same cast of players playing all their old tricks. For instance take a look into the article owners panic of activity as she faces yet another ban, this time for 2 weeks, in current EEML interaction violation proceedings.74.190.0.35 (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I saw some have been up again before the admins, though I haven't seen it being directly connected to EEML activity, though I may have missed that. As for where I live, I'd prefer to keep my anonymity for the time being. That said, I know the park you're referring to I think. Malick78 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous locations are desirable, yes. Interesting reading, but tragically the result backfired on whoever filed this case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Russavia 74.190.0.35 (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources, summaries and quotes applicable to the rewrite or subdivision of Western Betrayal

First of all, according to scholarly sources, 'Western Betrayal' is clearly a term that,, more often than not, refers to concepts having nothing to do with the events so central in the current WB article. The article as (badly) written now deserves only one title: Yalta Betrayal (Polish Concept). Whether the title is changed or Yalta betrayal is instead made into an article section, all the main things in the article as written now do belong there or somewhere on Misplaced Pages (albeit in less detail, better sourced and not so POVish) insofar that it is made clear that they form part of a Polish mythology and are by no means conclusive to the question of whether there was in fact a betrayal at Yalta. Given that the pro-betrayal POV is already in place, the following explains, questions or contradicts the Polish sponsored version of betrayal at Yalta:

from Barbara Józefik, Krzysztof Szwajca. "Polish Myths and their Deconstruction In the Context of Polish Jewish relations.". Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. 2011. Volume 1' pages 35-41. http://www.archivespp.pl/uploads/images/2011_13_1/Jozefik35_Archives1_11.pdf

1. "Exaltation of suffering and sacrifice is the basic element" of the myths pervassive in modern Polish culture and self identity. p. 36

2. Because Poland did not exist as a nation for hundreds of years, myths "held a special significance" in national aspirations. p. 36

3. "Defeats and sacrifices for blood" are an "attribute of Polishness". p. 36

4. ---(!)---->This self created Polish identity "freed" Poland from "decisions, political mistakes, wrong strategies (including those which led to the loss of independence), absolved from criticism and reflections about individual choices and their influence, created an ethos which allowed to retain dignity when faced with fiascos."" (!!!) p. 36

5. The Polish myths allowed them to "simultaneously accept the role of a victim" and "made it possible to concentrate on one’s own perspective without noticing the suffering of the others, or sometimes even questioning their suffering.". p.36

6. The Polish mythologies of betrayal and suffering allow them to "assume equivalence" between the Holocaust and Poland overall or even to belittle the suffering of anyone else in WW2. P. 36

I think the above quotes or summaries of them present a Good introduction to either an opposing views section of a rewritten article OR, better yet, form parts of a good overall summary of Yalta Betrayal written by a neutral observer. ... More coming from more sources. ] (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so the above presents the basic background that Polish myth making is centered on tthe idea of victimhood and the denial of responsibility for national tragedies. What is now needed is a connection to Yalta/Munich; that is sources that say the betrayal accustions Poland places on the Western allies in WW2 are part of this overall national/cultural current of martyrdom and the habit of blaming foreigners for Polish mistakes. In short, what sources say that Poland is itself in some noticeable degree responsible for that which it often blames on "the West" in various 'betrayal' myths?

from Anna M. Cienciala, ThE FOREIGN POLICY OF JÓZEF PIŁSUDSKI AND JÓZEF BECK, 1926-1939: MISCONCEPTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS, The Polish Review, Vol. LVI, Nos. 1-2, 2011:111-152.

1. Two significant features of Polish policy in the 1930s were "strongly critIcised" at the time and are "condemned by historians today," namely,

"(1)the Polish-German Declaration of Non-Aggression of January 26, 1934, which was the joint achievement of Piłsudski and Foreign Minister Józef Beck, and (2) Polish foreign policy during the Czechoslovak Crisis of 1938, culminating in the annexation of two-thirds of western Cieszyn (Teschen) Silesia, known in Polish as Zaolzie (the land across the Olza river), after the Munich Conference of September 29, 1938.". p. 111

(i)Polish-German non aggression pact as a fatal Polish move,

(a) Polish foreign minister Jozef Beck said Poland "cold not participate in multilateral agreements that would endanger her bilateral agreements with Germany and the USSR," p. 114. in other words Polish foreign policy of the 1930s was to avoid alliances that might upset Germany or the Soviets, even though stronger alliances might have been the better choice since Germany and the USSR would soon invade Poland. In other other words, Poland was too busy trying to avoid upsetting the Germans and Russians to do the prudent thing and create stronger protective alliances against the Germans and Russians.

(b)Polish brinksmanship between Germany and Russia caused Russia to believe Beck had joined in secret conspiracy with the Nazis against Russia, an idea still held in Russia today. p. 115. Russia was already anxious about Poland due to Polnds own saber rattling.

(ii) Polish policy during the Czech crisis and Polands forceful annexation of Czech territory after Munich (especially relevant to later Polish claims of a Munich Betrayal)

(a) "the most frequently condemned feature of interwar Polish foreign policy, condemned not only by Soviet, Russian, and most Western historians but also by many Polish historians today, that is, the method used to gain Zaolzie from Czechoslovakia on September 30, 1938.". p.134. Poland took over a chunk of Czechoslavakia in the same way Germany did - !with the threat of force! This was later called appeasement to Hitler but somehow the Polish equally sharing in the plunder is not admitted by Poles, nor mentioned by them as giving legitimacy to German territorial aggression nor admitted as a crime against the Czechs in collaboration with Hitler.

(b) Poland used the same German red herring of seeking to protect a minority in Czechoslavakia, claiming the Polish minority was treated unfairly. Again, Poland happily joins in Nazi-led land grabs and even goes so far as to borrow the "protecting" a minority explanation for its own territorial,aggression. p. 136

(c) Polish foreign minister Beck confers with Hitler and Herman Goering and does not oppose stated German plans to dismantle Czecoslavakia entirely as he has been promised Polish rights in Danzig "will not be diminished.". p. 136. Poland is happily selling Czech's future to the Germans for its own selfish goals, the same exact behaviour it assigns to the Western allies in its narrative of 'betrayal' at Yalta and Munich.

lots more quotes and summaries of Polish foreign minister Beck happily facilitating Nazi aggression right up to the day it is turned on Poland.

..........more later74.190.0.35 (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 74.190.0.35 (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video - proposal to reduce edit warring

I have made a proposal to reduce edit warring on the article on Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video. See Talk:Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video#Proposal to reduce edit warring. Are you willing to agree to this?--Toddy1 (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think the article should be deleted, do an AFD and live with what happens.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"live with what happens" Erm, that sounds a very confrontational thing to say. Perhaps you should tone things down.Malick78 (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not in the least bit confrontational. If, as you say, you think the article should be deleted, then propose an AFD. Is that a confrontational thing to say?

If the AFD results in the article being deleted, then it is gone.

If the AFD results in the article not being deleted, then accept that it is not going to be deleted.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it sounded like a veiled threat. Glad to hear it wasn't.Malick78 (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Murder of Oksana Makar

I see that the Russian version of this article has been commented out on the grounds that it violates policies on biographies of living people (i.e her alleged murderers).

In Misplaced Pages, as in life, it helps to have friends (or is the word associates?).--Toddy1 (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, even WP has been infiltrated... Btw, do you speak Russian? I was wondering whether you could read the sources for the Donkey article? Malick78 (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have read some of the sources. What languages I understand are stated in my profile.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Erm, it says you don't understand English ;) And it says nothing about your Russian... though the photos suggest you speak it. I'll take that as you do, then.Malick78 (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any comment regarding the type of infobox? It would deal with one of O's NPOV objections, and would allow the kind of biographical details given for some other victims.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I've no preferences at all. It seems to me that Oxy's complaints are shared by no one else, and so are not worth worrying about too much till others begin to share them. The page is currently treated as an event - so the infobox now is ok, but since she spent some time with the suspects before the attack, her bio becomes relevant too. It goes both ways.Malick78 (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

I am considering proposing the article on Mazhory for deletion. The term means rich people. It is being applied by journalists both to rich people and well connected people.

• Coverage of the term is unbalanced. The article focuses on negative aspects of the well off and well connected.
  • Maybe Misplaced Pages should have an article entitled footballers that uses newspaper articles about how footballers abuse their wives/girlfriends, beat people up, waste money on expensive prostitutes, and that kind of thing. A look at English language newspapers shows that these aspects of footballers are often covered in the news. The article need not mention that footballers are so named because they play football (stories in the front pages of English newspapers do not mention the football playing aspect of footballers.
• The article describes a universal phenomenon. In every country there are rich and well connected people. And, sometimes such people act badly - just like in Eastern and Central Ukraine.
• There are political aspects to the article that do not exist in real life. You know this; I know this.

--Toddy1 (talk) 05:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for the heads-up. I think the article could be better, but it should remain: the word is notable for its cultural connotations, and doesn't just mean 'rich people'. In Russia, it seems to mean 'children of rich people', and in the Ukraine it means 'children of influential people, who then manage to avoid punishment when they commit a crime'. The Ukrainian version is more interesting, and is focused on, but it's unique cultural connotations do not exist in other languages (we have nothing like that either in Britain or in the English language) and that's why it deserves to be an article. I have created articles on foreign words/concepts before (Murzyn and Zakazukha for example), gone through the wearisome AFDs, and they've been kept, so, please think hard before starting an AFD - they tend to waste an awful lot of time when they fail, and I feel this one would. The article is valid. It has problems, sure, but specify them on the talk page and people will hopefully take note and work to improve the page. Thanks. Malick78 (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• One more thing. You say: "There are political aspects to the article that do not exist in real life. You know this; I know this." Erm, I'm not sure what you mean actually. Could you give more details please?Malick78 (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

1. On what do you base your statements about the meaning of this slang term? I base my understanding on what Misplaced Pages calls original research. i.e. I asked other people what they thought it meant. I know that journalists are using the term in articles on bad behaviour by the rich and influential. If you have access to British tabloid newspapers you will see many articles on front few pages about bad behaviour about footballers - if you did not know that the word "footballer" meant someone who played soccer football, you could very easily imagine that it meant someone who uses prostitutes, beats up his wife/girlfriend, and stuff like that. It is an analogous situation.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

2. The section marked examples is completely one-sided. The reality is that these abuses occur all over Ukraine. By cherry picking examples it suggests that the problems are associated with the Russian-speaking part of the country and with Ukrainian conservatives. This is no different from people cherry picking examples of pimps and swindlers who belong to an ethnic minority, and suggesting that the ethnic minority is responsible for the nation's pimps and swindlers. Misplaced Pages policies forbid this kind of thing.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Well, my view is based on having read a dozen sources or so, many of which attempt to define the words: Russian sources consistently do it as said above. Ukrainian ones, again, as said above.

2. Perhaps it's worth perusing the sources before complaining about perceived "cherry picking"? This article clearly states: "Another habitual feature of all these stories is their almost exclusive localization in Southeastern Ukraine—the area firmly controlled by the Party of Regions, alongside the capital city of Kyiv where an enormous number of national VIPs is ominously concentrated. It is no accident that all the heroes of these stories are either members of the Party of Regions or their close political-cum-business associates. The only story in my collection that occurred in the West of the country refers to a young man and his cronies at Kalush, Ivano-Frankivsk region, who tried to solve a road incident with the help of gas and traumatic pistols. Remarkably, the main culprit, yet again, was the son of the local Party of Regions MP Volodymyr Lychuk."

Removal of tags

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Mazhory. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

RS/N, and advice is always worth exactly what you pay for it!

Just some friendly advice, if there isn't a quotation somewhere that says "Sometimes, the person that talks the most, says the least", there should be, and I'm copyrighting it. Usually the RSN crowd is pretty savvy. If I have a source dispute, unless it's been mis-characterized, I sit back and listen to what those uninvolved have to say, bringing your article's arguments over there seldom helps, and often prevents input from people that don't want to be drawn into a dispute. I know it's very tempting to "defend" your position there too. But hey, what do I know, feel free to ignore me! -- Despayre   22:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Putin

Please can we try to encourage this IP editor to become a registered user and to contribute him/herself. With Oxy on other pages we seem to be having success; he has become a useful and constructive editor. English language Misplaced Pages benefits from having a range of opinions and from a range of countries.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Da-s :) Ja soglasen. Malick78 (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Since there's already a recent relevant section... So, when you reverted my edit you said: "tag removed with nonsensical reasoning. restored". Alright, give me your "sensical" reasoning on why this tag should be there. This person is noteworthy, therefore tags like that should be approached with care. Currently there are two sections at talkpage that raise concern of neutrality of article. First one left from an unsigned user, second is made by an either troll or biased person who posted a link to his section in order to have negatively-oriented people at Putin, add anti-Putin stuff into article. A link to an incriminating evidence was left on that section. Are these two sections serve as base for keeping the tag, in your opinion? Pessimist2006 (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, you mentioned "libel". How is a POV tag libel? It was a patently absurd edit summary. As for the talk page... it seems to me that there are more people complaining of POV issues, e.g. the large section entitled "Picture POV problem". You're removal of the tag ignored their views.Malick78 (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Because at talkpage one of editors, who's opposed to Putin, said that more information about protests in December, 2011 should be added, whereas in the edit summary I said: "per WP:BIO, no libelious attacks, those who complained got told about the coverage in proper articles", besides Putin wasn't the main reason for these protests. Pessimist2006 (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I really don't follow your reasoning. Libel is saying something untrue about somebody. It's not clear at all how a POV tag on an article is saying something untrue about Putin. My reverting of your edit seems justified.Malick78 (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Putin - (Picture POV problem)

I've re-initiated this topic on the Putin article's talk page. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Mikhail Beketov

nice work on the Mikhail Beketov article. Decora (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. And thanks for your additions too! Malick78 (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Misplaced Pages better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 04:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam

Ocaasi 15:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Buildings near the Black Sea whose purpose is unknown

Please can you contribute to Talk:Vladimir Putin#Buildings near the Black Sea whose purpose is unknown.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hilarious

I'm still laughing :) Närking (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. It's funny... cos it could so possibly be true :D Malick78 (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Illegal acts

Please do not ask other editors to post scans of pages from books in copyright on Misplaced Pages. What you are asking them to do is a criminal act. Misplaced Pages does not want people to break the law. I know you meant no harm. Please could you delete the offending words from Talk:Vladimir Putin.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Erm, no. Get over it.Malick78 (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Greeyhood

Please do not make personal attacks on other User:Greyhood as you did in your edit of 08:52, 19 May 2012. Please stop.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Coming from the guy who calls me 'comrade' all the time to goad me? Hmm.... Malick78 (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comments at User talk:Russavia

I removed your comments from User talk:Russavia. They were unnecessary and bordered on personal attacks. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, you shouldn't have. If they 'bordered' on an attack, that suggests it's just your perception - others might disagree. I could redact them if you want, but I guess you just want the admin to think everyone is against him/her. Moreover, Russavia has happily insulted others... isn't it highly ironic to complain that someone might have insulted him/her? Malick78 (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

re: piersi/cycki murzynki

On reliability, check WP:RS. You can ask questions at WP:RSN. For notability, if you think the subject is notable - create an article, VM will probably AFD it, and we will see how the community will vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree; again, RSN is where you can ask others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I like your words: "I do the same with Russia, China, and British/international medical killers." As Polish dissident Adam Michnik said, "patriotism is the amount of shame felt for crimes committed in the name of nation" (my poor translation). Yes, I am actually with you on all counts. But just imagine what will happen if someone reports you on AE. It would be a very good idea to drop all Polish issues. Creating new articles was fine, but some discussions on userpages and article talk pages were not. This is just too much to handle. Believe me. Keep up your good content work, My very best wishes (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Did not you get it yet? One thing that surprises me most is inability of people to admit reality. NPOV does not matter. RS does not matter. The only thing that matters is WP:CONSENSUS. It means the following: if there is a group of people who really do not like your edits, and you do not leave their turf, you will be banned. That is what had happened with Brews who edited Physics, with me and many others. They may be very good content contributors (and then you definitely must leave their turf), they may be terrible contributors who do disservice to reader (as another group you are dealing with), it does not matter, no one will looks at this. My very best wishes (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the concern. I've always liked an uphill struggle, unfortunately. Spasibo! :)

Welcome. Think and act rationally. What you are going to gain by doing this? Maybe an interaction ban for you and another contributor, and believe me, this is not a good thing. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I this time agree with My very best wishes, but still: keep up your work and try to be more careful in the future.Estlandia (dialogue) 14:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

user talk page

Please stop posting on User talk:Volunteer Marek; when an editor reverts your comment without a reply or discussion it's a pretty clear indication they prefer you don't post on their talk page. Repeatedly making posts after receiving such an indication is generally considered disruptive. Nobody Ent 21:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

But what if he was disruptive on article pages - reverting people correcting his mistakes? Have you considered that? He kept readding a grammar mistake, and also claiming that a source didn't mention a person when it did in the second para. Taking it to his talk page was better than the edit war he had started. Next, he disingenuously called my comments "trolling", his usual ploy when backed into a corner. Lastly, is it appropriate to swear at me in the edit summary on his talk page? Have you told him off for that? He did it to another editor recently as well (calling him an "asshole", I think). Regards, Malick78 (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you discussed on article talk page? Which article? I don't tell people off as that just escalates the situation -- I can't make Misplaced Pages more civil by not be civil myself. I have commented on his behavior here: Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_assistance#Volunteer_Marek_needs_to_be_informed_of_what_a_personal_attack_consists_of. You're welcome to comment but I advise not doing so; WQA is not well situated to deal with long term low level incivility by an established editor. I highly advise ignoring incivil comments by other editors and focusing strictly on content; the only other possible feasible alternate would be WP:RFC/U but they are a lot work and the outcome would be uncertain. Nobody Ent 22:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Civility - please try to be less aggressive

Please try to be less aggressive in your edit summaries. The inclusion of the expression "doh" in your edit summary was unnecessary and uncivil.

I realise that I am a complete hypocrite in pointing this out to you, since I am guilty of the same sin. I sometimes find it useful when Wiki-friends tell me when I am being a "dick"; as the feedback makes me stop (or at least be less of a dick. (I am not suggesting that you are being a dick.)--Toddy1 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Toddy1 has given you a Pork pie. Pork pies are full of meaty goodness, and are wonderfully delicious! On Misplaced Pages, they promote love and sincerity. Hopefully, this one has made your day happier.

Spread the goodness and sincerity of pork pies by adding {{subst:Pork Pie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Give one to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Thanks for the pie. Could you pick the jelly out next time? I have meat-jelly-phobia. Btw, "doh" is rather mild. But point taken ;) Malick78 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Western Betrayal

Would you kindly review Volunteer Marek's deletions to large parts of this article? 98.88.137.67 (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Following

Malick, please don't think I am you enemy. In fact, I enjoyed your articles "spieprzaj" and "demalvinization". And I think I improved them, by eliminating dubious and unnecessary parts. I know, different people have different state of mind and please don't take this as an offense, but in your enthusiasm to improve information in wikipedia, you fail to notice crossing a vague boundary towards original research. By the way, since I am here, I'd like to notice that there is lot of sense in what you are trying to say about "murzyn" and "murzynek Bambo". I agree that there is plenty of controversy here today. For weeks I have an intention to cover it properly, however I simply don't have time to do it properly. BTW, I know you are not Malick, but I am OK with this. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you feel threathened, I will no longer do edits conflicting with you in heated articles (with the exception of murzyn issue, where I promise I will expand them in correct way (and in general accordance with your intentions)). On the other hand, I explained my edits in Putin talk page. If you disagree, please disprove my arguments. (oops, it seems I didn't click "save" in putin talk page) But I will not edit this page, despite thinking that yours were glaring examples of mistakes in wikipedia editing. I am sure there are plenty of putinists for you to fight with, but you have to use proper means in order to convey what you want to. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Leaves which eat animals

Hi Malick78: I saw the article you posted on the leaf talk page—neat!! Thanks for sharing it. You might also post the message on the Carnivorous plant talk page. In a quick check, I didn't see anything mentioned about the involved species in that article. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

G Brown

• - Gordon Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi - I have reverted your addition of the speculative opinionated content - supported by the blog post - as per WP:BRD - if you want to discuss I will be available - Personally as per my interpretation of policy and WP:BLP I wouldn't support such an addition - why not add it to Brown's Bottom - regards - Youreallycan 19:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sale of UK gold reserves, 1999-2002 - I first edited your addition to in my interpretation of wiki policy and then on second look removed it completely from here also - I am available (albeit busy in real life) to discuss on the article talkpage - thanks - Youreallycan 19:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD

• - WP:BRD

• - Sale of UK gold reserves, 1999-2002 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am disappointed you appear unable to follow a bold addition - revert - discuss cycle - please remove your desired addition and wait for consensus to arise through discussion - Youreallycan 20:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Its Thomas Pascoe's not asserted notable blogged opinions - I have little desire to discuss with you while you revert war your disputed addition into the article - Revert warring disputed content into any en wikipedia article will never give it discussed consensus support - Youreallycan 20:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I wouldn't go too OTT if I were you - I reverted once. Is that an edit war? You're assertion that a Telegraph opinion page is inherently non-notable leaves little room for discussion, does it? Malick78 (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, and you've still not explained why it's a 'primary source'. It's clearly not and therefore your reasoning is quite perplexing. Malick78 (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This persons opinion - Thomas Pascoe - he is not wikipedia notable is he? - has any secondary source reported his opinions? No - so its a primary report - him reporting his own not independently notable opinions . - You reverted your desired addition into the article, - that is edit warring - and you should do the good faith bold revert discuss position and remove it and wait for consensus and discussion to resolve - without you doing that your content remains disputed in good faith and will have no value in policy and will be removed again - Youreallycan 20:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be reverted by someone else, that's possible, but I guarantee it won't be reverted for your above reason: it's simply not a primary source. He's not describing his actions, but the actions of others. That makes it a secondary source.

PS - he doesn't have his own article as yet on WP, but that doesn't make him non-notable: he writes for the Telegraph, one of the world's leading newspaper's. That qualifies him as notable. Malick78 (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

He is not wikipedia notable and its an opinionated blog post - he is not notable at all - Thomas Pascoe - and as no secondary - WP:Secondary source has reported about his opinions - the whole issue is a non event and it clearly undue - WP:Undue weight to such a persons primary opinions - As is a recommended editing practice, I follow a One revert, bold revert discuss cycle - Youreallycan 21:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, regarding your accusation of WP:edit warring at the start: "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts. Nevertheless, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring:" Was there a back and forth? No. So, in future please don't make wild accusations - and read WP policy more closely before you feel you're about to accuse someone of something.

Secondly, I fail to see why you think he is so definitely not notable. A published journalist in the Daily Telegraph would meet most people's criteria. And yet again, you have failed to understand what a secondary source is and why it's needed. He is the secondary source regarding the fact claimed. He is not a document. And he is not writing about himself. He is not primary. Malick78 (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The only reason a serious edit war has not broken out is because of my good editing practices - you have revert warred your disputed desired addition into the article irrespective of my good faith policy driven objections. - Thomas Pascoe is a not notable wiki person - this opinionated blog post is not notable and you should remove it asap - then seek consensus for its inclusion - that is the strength - without it you have no chance , just reverting against consensus - is not going to result in your desired additions. - Youreallycan 21:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

But you are seriously misapplying policy. That's a problem, no matter how good your faith is. Btw, jumping in with an accusation of warring most certainly wasn't good faith.

Btw, bandying about the word 'blog' is problematic: there are two types. Some blogs are self-published with no oversight, others are hosted by RS. This is the latter type, and therefore has more weight than the former.

Lastly, do you now accept that it is a secondary source? You didn't deal with that issue in your last comment, so I'm not sure if that is agreement or whether you still disagree. Malick78 (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Failing to follow BRD when requested is warring - reverting your disputed desired addition into the article is warring - This person writing about his opinions is a primary opinionated source - if others have reported his opinions then they are secondary reports of his opinions - there are no secondary reports of his opinions are they ? - he himself... Thomas Pascoe ... is not even wiki notable. - Youreallycan 21:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are repeatedly misunderstanding what a primary source is. It's a document, a video... etc. Or, perhaps, a person writing about their involvement in events. This man is not. He's an outside observer. That he has his own take on things doesn't make it primary: all secondary sources have a way of framing the facts they recount. Secondly, your definition of warring differs markedly from that of WP's. I say we go with theirs. Lastly, as for my revert - if you are so sure it'll be reverted due to its heinous nature, I suggest we wait and allow that to happen. It shouldn't be long. Malick78 (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sale of UK gold reserves, 1999-2002#Thomas_Pascoe's opinion - Hi again - its not that the citation is a wp:primary, but that its his opinion - him writing about his opinion - a primary opinion without any secondary reference to his opinion or additional reports expounding the same opinions - its just the opinions of a not notable reporter - there are no secondary reports of his opinions/speculation are there? Coverage of it is undue unless you can assert others have opined the same thing? - are the not wiki notable persons opinions, Thomas Pascoe, expounded by others is the question to ask yourself as regards inclusion - are his opinions notable and repeated by others? Youreallycan 14:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi, I understand that you are concerned that his view of events may be 'novel', but that's certainly not anything to do with being a primary source ( - your terminology would lead to any 'secondary source' talking about Pascoe being a 'primary' view of Pascoe's opinion unless it too was referenced... and create a never-ending loop).
  • So, let's get rid of the 'primary' issue now - it's a distraction and not-applicable. Your question of whether his view is undue is the more important one. In my opinion, only hearing the views of other editors will say whether it's undue. The wording in our article doesn't suggest this is the main explanation, but clearly suggests its an alternative one. Moreover, it seems that Pascoe's take isn't actually that new (others have speculated about it), and he quotes a source by name (always good), and bearing in mind it's hosted by the DT I'm happy to say it's RS until other editors complain.
  • Lastly, could you use apostrophes in your posts? They'd help me understand some of your more complicated phrases. Thx. Malick78 (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

, and he quotes a source by name (always good) - who is that, is it Peter Hambro, chairman of Petroplavosk? - as he is notable and quoted, perhaps we should be quoting him and not the not notable journalist - here is the quoted comments from the notable person, “I think that Mr Brown found himself in a terrible position,” he said. “He was facing a problem that was a world scale problem where a number of financial institutions had become voluntarily short of gold to the extent that it was threatening the stability of the financial system and it was obvious that something had to be done.” - we should not use this quotable comment to assert notability of the further opinions/speculations of the not notable journalist - as for the telegraph Its a reliable source - its the telegraph - but regarding this editorial blog post, is it a single speculative opinion that inclusion causes promotion of and undue issues of the thoughts of a not notable person or is it a repeated opinion that has some value to report to our reader? Are there any RS to support his opinions/speculations being notable? Youreallycan 15:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the article all the way through? Your comment suggests you might not have. If we're to talk about this seriously, it'd help you read the article. For the record, he quotes Peter Hambro, "chairman of Petroplavosk and a leading figure in the London gold market, late last year and asked him about the rumours above.

“I think that Mr Brown found himself in a terrible position,” he said. “He was facing a problem that was a world scale problem where a number of financial institutions had become voluntarily short of gold to the extent that it was threatening the stability of the financial system and it was obvious that something had to be done.”"

The whole body of the article could, with little tweaking, go straight into the main section of the Telegraph, to be honest. However, I'll look for other articles that back up his views, when I have time. I've a busy weekend up ahead unfortunately. Malick78 (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

• Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
• If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
• Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
• Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
• If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Misplaced Pages better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "]". Thank you! EarwigBot  17:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC

Because of your previous participation at Monty Hall problem, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

• If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
• If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Misplaced Pages email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Misplaced Pages will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Misplaced Pages).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Misplaced Pages better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

A gift for the defender of Misplaced Pages!

Thanks, you're most kind! Malick78 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

disfix

Sorry, but you need a ref, or at least an example, that this is common, or found in English. I can't think of any examples, anyway, and sources say these are rare. — kwami (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The Polish examples don't look like disfixation. I just checked Swan (2002) and a couple other sources, and all show a null suffix for the gen.pl. For example, mysz does not become *my in the gen.pl. — kwami (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: WP:ARBEE

You made a personal attack on another editor at by calling them a "good goader". I have removed this personal attack. Please do not reinsert it or similar statements, or I will block you for disrupting the arbitration enforcement process. You should know that all who make statements at WP:AE are expected to display exemplary behavior and to refrain from all activity that could further complicate or inflame a situation. Please also take note of the warning below. Thanks,  Sandstein  00:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.