Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:36, 20 January 2016

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Wikibreak	Third opinion $220	Chance?	Mediation $220	Arbitration $240	Jimbo Wales $200	In the news $260	On this day $260	MediaWiki $150	Did you know $280	You are banned!
RFA $200	WIKIOPOLY									FPC $300
PERM $180										POTD $300
Community discussion										Community discussion
Editor review $180										FAC $320
Developers $200										Rouge admin $200
Deletion review $160										Chance?
AFD $140										TFA $350
Wikimedia Foundation $150										Edit war (pay $100)
CSD $140										Main Page $400
WP:BANNED Just browsing	WikiProject Spam $120	UAA $100	Chance?	AIV $100	Admin cabal $200	Teh Drahmaz (pay $200)	AN $60	Community discussion	ANI $60	Go Collect $200 salary as you pass

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the German retreat from France in 1944 Op-ed: TomStar81 on empires of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greets!

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you. It is kind of you to think of me.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hope I'm clearer now

Hi. I've tried to improve my edits as you requested. Have a good 2016 :) Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Spasibo. But the dates of articles are a lot more important than the date you accessed them. But since you took the first step, I completed that bit.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

New round

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/31.154.167.98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Неполканов (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 January 2016‎

He has multiply anonimious clones vandalizing the Karait page . Need admin help. Неполканов (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to make a new WP:SPI report on this sock of Kaz. Why have you not done this?-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There are going to be problems demonstrating that it is Kaz. This IP sock is using a Tel Aviv IP address.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your effort to solve the problem. Some IMHOs to explain the things :

1) On his personal page he clams to have Israeli citizense.

2) In his "Karaim Insitute" site he onse called himself Yosef (as new Institute Director ). He changed this page significantly after my references here during previous round.He removed the name of the director(now this name is changed to "_") . So we have Yusef Hubert Won Staufer(In Hebrew the same letter used for o,u,v and w) Неполканов (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It is amazing!He has corected this page right now where he wrote that he has no right to Israeli citizense (If not why you mention Israel at all?). But still possible to see the original version in Google Cache Неполканов (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverts

I think we need to discuss your "across the board" and unilateral reverts of some of my recent edits. Please bring your issues to Talk:Karait#Disruptive_edits. And what is all this about being a sock of Kaz? Thank you. YuHuw (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Your recent editing history at Karait shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. You have declined comment on your actions. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--YuHuw (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The user who placed this notice is a sockpuppet of User:Kaz-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I assure you I am not a sockpuppet of User:Kaz but if you do not accept that then I am willing to do whatever it takes to prove that to the Wikimedia Foundatoin if necessary. You have intimidated me so much by your recent accusations and blanket reverts of my recent edits that I am currently afraid to touch any new subjects until you and I can enter into a discussion. If you can put down your weapons for a moment can we start talking please? I can see from your edit history you have made a lot of good contributions to Misplaced Pages especially on topics related to current affairs in Ukraine. Perhaps you are concerned that my edits are related in some way to the Russian annexation of Crimea? YuHuw (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

lol. You are on holiday in Israel, so I assume that a check-user will show that the account is using a different IP than the ones you used when you were editing in Cardiff.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I am an Israeli. I am willing to produce my ID card to the Wikimedia Foundation Offices if necessary. YuHuw (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Cossack Hetmanate

Hi Toddy, I would like to know your take on the Cossack Hetmanate article where a user insists to call the it a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire in the infobx, placing WP:UNDUE weight on the Ukrainian-Ottoman relationship, but also cherry-picking the sources to make it look like an Ottoman dependency, when it was more of a military alliance. Thanks,--BoguSlav 20:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for consulting me. I have not read the book, and it is rather expensive. Irrespective of whether the information should go in the infobox, cited relevant information from the book in question should go in the history section. If you feel that what the books says is a "point of view", then it would be perfectly OK to also cite sources in the history section giving the other point of view.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Toddy I never cherry-picked anything, in fact adding SPECIFIC reference doesn't imply cherry-picking, it implies detailed references. People will always complain, the first edit as far as I remember was a very bad reference towards the 1655 Cossack vassalge of the Ottoman, Iryna asked me to change it and afterwards I compiled from two books and added the reference per Misplaced Pages rules, that I have read again which I have violated in the beginning. With his logic, if I added information say a ruler's age in certain battle, I'm cherry-picking. I'm working on the history section which would take me some time, since I'm reading some books to further enhance the page. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, you should add the information to the history section. The information should be put there, irrespective of whether it should go in the infobox or the introductions.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr Ivanov, you have cherry-picked it is very easy to prove. In the infobox you are using the book, The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries to say that the Cossack Hetmanate was a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire. I will let the book speak for itself to show that the Ottomans did not defend the Cossack land: "Rather than occupying and defending the Cossack land of Doroshenko, the Ottomans directed their thrust further west against Kamianets’, the magnificent fortress that guarded some important routes into both Ukraine and Poland." (Page 145)

According to you, it is fairly obvious that the Hetmanate was a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire. Let's have the book speak for itself again: "So to what degree was Cossack Ukraine an Ottoman entity in this period? Since Islamic-style tribute (harac) was never imposed and scarcely discussed, technically speaking, we cannot call the hetmanate an Ottoman tributary. This is, of course, why we have preferred the term “vassal,” of course not in the original Western medieval sense, but in the sense of the relationship between a subject state and a suzerain, a state in which there are mutual obligations—mainly non-aggression and protection of the subject by the suzerain in exchange for, when needed, military service by the subject on behalf of the suzerain, and possibly rendering tribute."--BoguSlav 22:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Boguslavmandzyuk: Perhaps you could add this to the article (complete with citations)?-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Toddy this guy doesn't know what he is talking about and the more talks the more it seems he is the one cherry-picking, in what universe does he think he lives in
>Mr Ivanov, you have cherry-picked it is very easy to prove. In the infobox you are using the book, The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries to say that the Cossack Hetmanate was a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire. I will let the book speak for itself to show that the Ottomans did not defend the Cossack land: "Rather than occupying and defending the Cossack land of Doroshenko, the Ottomans directed their thrust further west against Kamianets’, the magnificent fortress that guarded some important routes into both Ukraine and Poland." (Page 145)
They did the Cossacks in the Polish–Ottoman War (1672–76)
>According to you, it is fairly obvious that the Hetmanate was a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire.
Yes it is obvious based on the agreement in 1655 and the agreement in June 1669, you can ignore it if you want, but as Toddy request we will bring the truth outside.
>Let's have the book speak for itself again: "So to what degree was Cossack Ukraine an Ottoman entity in this period? Since Islamic-style tribute (harac) was never imposed and scarcely discussed, technically speaking, we cannot call the hetmanate an Ottoman tributary. This is, of course, why we have preferred the term “vassal,” of course not in the original Western medieval sense, but in the sense of the relationship between a subject state and a suzerain, a state in which there are mutual obligations—mainly non-aggression and protection of the subject by the suzerain in exchange for, when needed, military service by the subject on behalf of the suzerain, and possibly rendering tribute."
Some Ottoman vassals are not required to pay a tribute like the Crimean Khanate and the Kurdish tribe in Safavid and the Ottoman borders and not once did I call the Cossakcs a tributary. The book prefers to use the word vassal and I have used that. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I have begun adding it to the page and this happens. .--BoguSlav 04:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe try not to remove the infobox information, you intentionally did that and you knew I will being it back, so why act dumbfounded. Are you looking to good your good boy points here? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov My editing has nothing to do with you. I'm just expanding the article. It's time for you to get over yourself and your WP:POV. You have also reverted twice. Keep in mind that 3 reverts lead to a block.--BoguSlav 15:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Boguslavmandzyuk I love how you act like an innocent little baby, you remove my edits and hide behind "your own edits", can you stop acting like a snake moving and slithering in the grass and man up for once, and stop with accusation that have no grounds, it just shows you how childish you are, if you think I was being POV, please provide your evidence and let's discuss it. Until then better shut your mouth boy. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)