| Revision as of 13:55, 11 September 2009 view sourceEzhiki (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators165,314 edits →Warning: requested comment from Sandstein (after edit conflict)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:10, 13 February 2020 view source JIP (talk | contribs)Administrators68,762 edits removed obsolete messageTag: Replaced | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT] | |||
| {{busy}} | |||
| <center>]</center> | |||
| <BR> | |||
| <center> | |||
| {| | |||
| |align="center" style="font-size:36pt; font-color:red; font-weight:bold"|] | |||
| |} | |||
| </center><BR> | |||
| {| id="toc" style="margin: 0 2em 0 2em;" | |||
| ! align="left" style="background:#fff022" width="100%" | Welcome to my talk page. Please leave me a ''', alternatively you are welcome to . If you leave a message here for me and it requires a reply, I will reply here, so you may want to add my talk page to your watchlist. '''All users''' have my permission to remove any bot messages from my talk page at any time. | |||
| |} | |||
| <br clear="all" /> | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 50K | |||
| |counter = 12 | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Russavia/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Archive box|auto=yes| | |||
| |1. ]}} | |||
| == notes to self - nothing to see here == | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| == FYI == | |||
| I don't know if you are going to (or can) do anything with this, but I thought it'd be something interested to track: . Just what "interests" does this primarily target, I wonder ;)—] • (]); 13:39, May 21, 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like ] pretty badly...—] • (]); 14:33, May 21, 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Some time ago you asked == | |||
| ] (Russian consulat in Gdańsk photo). --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 21:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == == | |||
| Why did you revert that change? The version you reverted to has non-working code, check footnote 28. --] (]) 22:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Any reply here? --] (]) 09:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Soviet Story == | |||
| Hi, Russavia{{ndash}}since you've made an edit to Soviet Story just now, do you have any opinions on this? . It seems there's a concerted effort on the part of ''some'' users of Misplaced Pages to paint the critics of the film as liars, without even any attempt to include sources or anything such. Really stupefying. ] (]) 09:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah it is absolutely stupefying. It even extended after I uploaded ], which an editor attempted to speedy delete, both here on en:wiki, and also on commons after I uploaded it there. Frankly, I think it's actually quite funny - editors "fighting" over articles which are rubbish to begin with, and which any reader with half a brain will realise is a piece of crap and will go elsewhere to get their info. Makes one wonder why we bother sometimes, I guess. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed Removal of all non de jure Diplomatic Missions == | |||
| I would like to seek your view as to whether we should eliminate from the lists of diplomatic missions by sending/recieving countries all references to representative offices of sending states that do not have formal diplomatic missions with the host states. This would affect a large number of articles which relate to Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo and other states. Please provide your views ]. Thank you. ] (]) 06:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Speedy deletion nomination of AIM Ad Hack == | |||
| It is considered common courtesy to ]. Also, AIM Ad Hack has already gone through ] and the consensus was keep. '''<font color="blue">]</font>''' <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup><sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> 03:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :What templating of regulars are you talking about exactly? In regards to the AfD, I'll take it back to AfD now. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit summaries == | |||
| edit summary is unacceptable. Please refrain from such ] actions in the future. Regards, ] | <sup>]</sup> 05:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit warring on Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brześć == | |||
| {{3RR}} | |||
| == Topic ban == | |||
| Russavia, for the reasons given at , under the authority of ], you are '''topic-banned from all edits or pages related to the history of the Soviet Union and its successor states (including Russia and the Baltic states), broadly construed and extending to all pages in all namespaces, for the duration of six months.''' I will consider imposing an indefinite block in the event of any violations. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps I will start a new account, and use it to spread accusations of people being murderers, paedophiles and shit like that. But of course, the people will be Russian. What will that get me? Oh, don't worry, I know that already...a medal. You are topic banning me because I said on the talk page of an article '''Propagandic Republic of Latvia'''? That has gotta be the most sorry and pathetic excuse for a banning I have ever seen. | |||
| And the diffs that were shown, you have to be kidding me? Did you actually read the '''ENTIRE''' talk page of the diffs that were shown, or did you look only at the diffs themselves? This was months and months and months ago, and I am being topic banned now for daring to challenge editors to provide information. Editors using figures from the 1940s and 1950s to portray what "most countries" think, when "most countries" did not exist at that time in the form we have today...and I pressured them to answer the questions, which they refused to do. And yes, when I said something was humour, it was meant as such. I don't bullshit, that is for sure, so basically you are banning me coz you don't know how I operate. | |||
| Oh, and by the way, let's see how pathetic this really is. Take a look at ]. ], ], ] and ] all edit warred to include information which 1) the editors had not even cited and 2) totally failed verification and 3) re-included after it was made clear it failed verificaton. What was the information? Oh, just that the memorial, wrongly, is called the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist. Where's their blocks for the same things? ] being the main thing. Of course, you won't ban them. Maybe just give them all a bloody prize why don't you? | |||
| Oh, and also, I have a shitload of materials written up for articles in ]. But hey, this has to do with the history of Russia, broadly construed, so I will wait with baited breathe for one of the adolescent children to come running to you to ban me. | |||
| But of course, I will also come running to you the very instant that a single one of them accuse anyone in Russia of engaging in propaganda -- they do this all the time, so your talk page will be chockers, and I will ask that they receive the same topic ban. I will also come running to you the very instant that a single editor accuses someone of refusing to answer questions, or other such things. What's good for the goose, and all that. | |||
| Oh and hey, take a look at ]. The talk page is being used, at my instigation in order to raise concerns regarding the article. One editor ridiculously suggesting that we don't use Russian sources, and ] and ] have now gone in an removed any mention of any dispute relating to this from the article - and you know what -- this is typical behaviour from such editors - and my comment in the edit summary, was spot on, wasn't it? These editors continually argue to exclude Russian POV from articles -- whether that POV is correct or not -- it is POV which deserves to be in such articles. Or do we want articles on Russian history made up from sources exclusively from Tonga? What an absolutely-fucking-exciting article that would be to read, I can hardly wait to read it. Or do we want articles on subjects which involve conflicts involving Russia made up entirely from sources which support the "opposition" side? Well, that is what such editors advocate, and which they clearly do, and will continue to do. What's gonna happen about that? Don't worry, I know the answer to that also. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Russavia, be advised that your topic ban includes edits to your talk page. Any further edits in the vein of the above will be deemed violations of the topic ban (as well as potentially blockable personal attacks), except for any edits strictly necessary to undertake an appeal of the sanction as provided for in ]. To the extent that your comments above constitute such an appeal to me, it is declined, because to the limited extent you address the edit for which you were banned, you claim that it was meant humorously, which is not credible because it is at odds with the serious and combative attitude displayed by you in this conflict, and also because your comments above are further examples of battleground-like behaviour. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Edits to my talk page are included in part of the ban? I will fight you on that. I will wait for someone to ask me a question on some part of Russian history, and for me to provide them information and a link, and then let's see you block me for good for that. And like I said, you are going to do absolutely f' all about ] (look at page history), ] (look at page history, and Martintg's own admission on talk page that he had not even cited the sources), ] (, , , and ] , using of Misplaced Pages as a battleground to insert information into ] which 1) they had not even cited and 2) TOTALLY failed verification. Or is it totally ok with you for editors to call Russians "rapists"? What ya gonna do about that? I await your (probable laughable) answer to the question on those editors using WP as a ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, and by the way, if Sandstein does nothing, which he won't, I will take this further to have the above editors blocked from the same subject area. More egregious than my using '''Propagandic Republic of Latvia''' on a talk page, and my inserting of sourced information into an article (with edit summary which indicated that I would ''fight'' its removal, due to the history of these editors in using Misplaced Pages at a battleground to call Russian rapists and other such shit) is things such as what these editors did on the Soviet War Memorial article. There is also Biophys' use of article talk pages to call Vladimir Putin a paedophile . What kind of sick shit is that? You condoning such things Sandstein? If you don't ban these editors from these topics, it is clear that you agree with these editors calling Russian rapists in articles without viewing sources, and when those sources are proven to not include their claims for these editors to reinsert accusations of Russians being rapists into the same article using the same sources which have been proven not to include said information, and it is also totally ok for editors to use talk pages to accuse a ] of being a paedophile. Oh yeah, you'll notice that one of my blocks for edit warring was because of Biophys re-inserting poorly sourced information of Putin being a paedophile into the ], i.e. removing information that called the claims wild and unsubstantiated, and also a scholar's opinion on Litvinenko being a one man disinformation bureau. Of course, nothing happened to him for this. Where is the ] ban under ] for these editors? Is this type of behaviour being condoned by the community? One can only say that it is as nothing is ever done about it. So if Sandstein does nothing, I will ask at the same noticeboard, that these editors also be banned, because I have let such stuff slide in the past, but no longer will I. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, and what do we have here. Totally ignoring ], and consensus on the talk page, Biophys has taken my 55 hour banning as an opporunity to revert to his favoured version of ], with the always laughable and pathetic "compromise version". Of course, Biophys' compromise version includes removing sourced information which is critical of Litvinenko, deliberately misrepresenting sources in an attempt to use WP as a tool of advocacy and propaganda, the continued reinsertion of ], deliberately poisoning NPOV (changing section heading "Dismissal from the FSB" to "Persecution" ), and a whole host of other things. Who exactly is using WP as a battleground here? Sandstein, you had better blanket ban Biophys from ALL articles on the same area. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Missed the whole story, WTF is happening? It appears that now you even cannot sign with your own name. Sandsteins must be proud of themselves. ] (]) 16:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|1=Comments hidden, because broadly construed a certain editor is in breach of a certain ridiculous topic ban by even discussing this....shhh....don't tell a certain admin it is here...but I needn't worry, given his doing nothing about ]-like actions on other articles, perhaps he has bad eyesight and will miss this altogether anway :) }} | |||
| ::::Basically, Martintg (an editor who repeatedly edit warred at ] to include that it is known as the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist without even sighting sources which turned out to absolutely false) (] actions for which he was never banned for...surprise surprise) from ]. Given his history on articles such as ], and the fact that Russian opinions in that article were being labelled as "False Accusations", even though many things insinuated were never at any stage specifically said and/or taken out of context, and also the fact that there are multiple quotes giving this documentary praise, and given the fact that Dyukov is prominent in sources relating to the documentary, stating that I would fight him on this. This is after , and after I ]. It was also after ] ignored the talk page discussion (he has a history of this as per ] as a prime example) and blindly reverted , and before he also ('''note my edit summary'''). ] took issue with my writing '''Propagandistic Republic of Latvia''' on the talk page, and . Remember Vecrumba is also an editor who inserted false information in a ]-like manner in ] basically labelling all Soviet soldiers rapists (his excuse below is laughable, as my response to him will show). After perusing a document by Dyukov, ], which demonstrated in a visual sense falsifications by the documentary maker. Martintg then engaged in battle conditions in a disruptive manner to have it speedied using reasoning which did not correlate with the PD tagging used. This occured both and . All of that is ignored, but because I use in an edit summary that I will fight them on this, I get banned for six months for engaging in battle conditions. | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| === ] === | |||
| For the record, my editorial contentions at that time were good-faith based on online content I had retrieved, including searching phrases before and after the passage in question, which all appeared to substantiate the claim. Subsequent research I've done indicates that "''Tomb of the Unknown Rapist''" ''is indeed closely associated with a specific Soviet war memorial in Berlin'', however, it is to the slightly smaller one in the Tiergarten. ] ]</font> 18:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Question for NVO === | |||
| NVO, as you know, I have been doing work on articles relating to the foreign relations of Russia, broadly construed. In the coming weeks I will be finishing off completely ] -- I am just waiting for a few bits and pieces of info and materials. As this is, broadly construed, relating to the history of Russia, and because broadly construed, it would be in breach, broadly construed, of a broadly construed ban placed on me, would you mind if I messaged you, so that when it is ready to be placed into mainspace, broadly construed, I can email it to you so you can place it in namespace for me. The reason I would have to email it to you, is that if I do a single edit to this article in my userspace, which broadly construed is considered part of the history of Russia, I would hate for an editor with a broadly construed bug up their ass to bitch to a broadly construed admin to have me permanently banned. My broadly construed thanks to you if you can help with that? --] <sup>]</sup> 18:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. I hate to have to think what I will have to do when I create ] as part of a complete rewrite of ]; after all, broadly construed it is a part of the history of the Soviet Union and Russia. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == You are indefinitely blocked until you agree to abide by your topic ban == | |||
| Russavia, by you violated the topic ban imposed at , as you yourself admit in the edit at issue. As announced in the message imposing the topic ban, I have indefinitely blocked you in enforcement of, and under the authority of, ]. I will unblock you if you convincingly agree to abide by your topic ban, which I might add has general support at ]. Should you want to contest this block, which you may do by following the instructions at ], I would like to note that this block is an arbitration enforcement action and as such may not be lifted except through the appeals procedure set forth in ]. As to any complaints you may have with respect to other editors, you may raise them in any appropriate forum, including ], after the expiration of your topic ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You have now overstepped the mark Sandstein, and I will '''never''' agree to the draconian ban that you have placed on me; a ban which even forbids me from questioning the ban, and the actions of other editors. Sorry, but no, I will not agree. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :And answer the question. '''Do you condone the actions of other editors above'''? --] <sup>]</sup> 19:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are of course not banned from questioning your ban; my message above explicitly allowed any edits required to make an appeal. But your topic ban does cover allegations of improper editing by others in the area you are topic-banned from. As to the conduct by others you refer to, I have not looked at it. I prefer to deal with one issue at a time, and that issue is currently your conduct. Once the problems with your conduct are resolved, I will be amenable to examining whether administrative action is needed against others, provided any requests are made in an actionable form, such as through a {{tl|arbitration enforcement request}}. Though such a request cannot come from you during the next six months because of your topic ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well here we go. I am fucked if I do, and I am fucked if I don't. You say that I am supposed to take issues to ], but at the same time you say that I am banned from even alleging improper editing from others, thereby meaning that I can't even go to ]. Can someone else please explain to me this ridiculousness? --] <sup>]</sup> 20:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''You'' can take your issues to AE in six months after your topic ban expires. ''Other people'' can do it now. If nobody else is bothered by the conduct of the editors you complain about, it is likely that the problem is not very grave or urgent. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh and answer this. You are also telling me that if an editor places on a talk page their belief that Barack Obama is a paedophile, and I alert you to this you would take action, but if an editor places on a talk page their belief that Vladimir Putin is a paedophile, and I alert you to this, I will be seen to be in violation of the topic ban? Please, do not make up the rules as you go along. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, such BLP violations with respect to Vladimir Putin have nothing to do with the history of the Soviet Union. Alerting admins to them does not violate the topic ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Sandstein, you're making a huge mistake here by banning one of the best editors of the Russia-related articles! ] (]) 20:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Example of others ] - topic ban be damned == | |||
| So-called topic ban be damned. I will place details here for Sandstein to ignore and for others to read, so that they can see why one would pop a blood vessel at times. | |||
| * I place a message on ] talk page . ] posts a message to Digwuren stating "'''I stronly suggest you not collaborate with Ru]avia.'''" | |||
| * An admin alerts Colchicum to this and Colchicum replies "'''No apologies from me, feel free to block if you wish. I don't really care much about blocks, DYKs, barnstars, fame and so on. For sure this wouldn't cause me "to pop a blood vessel or two". I did what I did, and a spade is a spade. It is not clear what you would prevent with this, though.'''" | |||
| Is this not a huge personal attack and major incivility? And given Digwuren's decision not to help, based upon Colchicum's comments, this is hardly helping to build collegial editing. If I fuck up, I apologise. But to fob it off, I want action on Colchicum, for a major personal attack and for engaging in ] conditions. He has a history of this....including referring to ] as ] | |||
| * ] : "# Oppose The war was not confined to South Ossetia, it involved Abkhazia as well. I oppose the canvassing campaign by HystoricWanker007. Colchicum (talk) 6:53 pm, 10 March 2009, Tuesday (6 months, 4 days ago) (UTC+9) | |||
| * ] : "* Comment The Hwanker is back at canvassing :) Colchicum (talk) 12:47 am, 9 June 2009, Tuesday (3 months, 4 days ago) (UTC+8)" | |||
| The first time Colchicum called him a '''WANKER''', the editor posted this ]. (Trollfest is what Colchicum named it to). No apology from him there either. | |||
| Sandstein is going to sit idly by and allow this editor to refer to others as Nazis and Wankers. And I will get megapermabanned for even mentioning this. There's more to come. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Russavia, if somebody else makes a proper ] request about this, I will look at it, as will other admmins, but you are currently topicbanned and not helping yourself. If you continue in this vein, I will remove your ability to edit your talk page. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are going to sit idly by and let these editors get away with such things. Surely calling one a Nazi is worse than telling editors that I will fight them on something they have a history of doing. And since when has others calling me a fucking Nazi part of any topic ban? I don't recall you banning me from the topic area of "lets call Russavia a Nazi and HistoricWarrior a wanker" - can you show me the article that goes along with that? What a fucking joke. --] <sup>]</sup> 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Russavia, I suggest you ] and maybe wait a few days before responding. you're obviously agitated by your ban but continually swearing and being aggressive and blaming others for it is not helping. ] (]) 07:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am not blaming others, but I am saying that there are factors which contribute to such things, and that it is only fair that those factors be investigated also. Sandstein refuses to do this, which can only be seen as implicit approval of the behaviour of others as I have raised here. It's about being equitiable and making '''all''' editors responsible for their own edits, instead of using carefully selected diffs in order to get rid of a content opponent. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well perhaps wait for a few other admins to view this. ] (]) 07:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::'''Sandstein''': I don't have a clue what is going on here, I just saw the edit war block, which may not be related. That said, if Russavia is collecting evidence, about real or imagined conflicts here on his talk page, I think he should be able to do this without warnings about his talk page being protected. If Russavia is not abiding by his topic ban, I support your decision to block him until he abides by it, but allow him to express his perceived injustices on the only place he has left on wikipedia. | |||
| :::::::'''Russavia''': I suggest that you stop blaming your captors, and instead try to convince other editors why you should be allowed to continue to edit here. What pages have you created, what pages have you improved? | |||
| :::::::Part of surviving on wikipedia is trying to forget past injustices. Sometimes you are able to correct those past injustices, sometimes you are not. '''Bide your time Russavia.''' Tell these editors you will abide by the topic ban, and abide by it. '''This is the only option you have.''' These editors are more powerful than you, they know the rules better than you, and they hold all the cards. | |||
| :::::::To help forget this happened, blank your talk page after you are unbanned, and avoid contact with these editors for now. That may include sacrificing articles, but remember, everything is stored in history, and can later be recovered if needed. | |||
| :::::::Shetsliva drog. ] (]) 11:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for your message Ikip. I'm not blaming my captors, don't get me wrong on that. I take responsibility for my actions, and part of my problem is that I have let things just slide in the past and have moved onto other articles. But I am arguing that my inability to bring these injustices to the surface due to this topic ban is wrong, and you appear to agree with me on that. Honestly, what is the point of my bringing these to ] in six months time, by which time they will be old news. I also fail to see how my being called a Nazi by an editor would be covered by this ban, when it was done on a user talk page, and was done after I asked an editor for help with photos for ]; this has nothing to do with the history of the Soviet Union. Sandstein does not, or refuses to, recognise that point, and this is why I said that he is being draconian in his enforcement of the topic ban into areas which are not specifically covered by it. | |||
| As to examples of my work | |||
| '''DYK articles''' | |||
| * ] - an expansion of this small airline from ]. It is, in my opinion, only a smidgen away from being a featured article, just requiring a few extra details which I will eventually get around to | |||
| * ] - a new article on the consulate | |||
| * ] - a new article on a historic building in Saint Petersburg | |||
| * ] - a new article on one of the ] | |||
| * ] - a new article which myself and ] developed | |||
| * ] - a new article, for which I obtained photos with CC3.0 permission from the Russian Embassy in Vienna, which is now a ] | |||
| * ], a new article on a famous Russia fashion designer, for which I received photos with permission from Zaitsev's personal assistant. | |||
| * ], an article which several editors claimed was not a notable relationship as attempts were made to merge it. I whacked this one together in 2 or 3 days. | |||
| * ], an article which I expanded, and managed to have appear on the front page on the 1st anniversary of Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia. This survived what was deemed by broad consensus as ] in order to prevent it appearing on the front page. | |||
| * ] - a new article on a relationship which although minor in stature is still a notable ] | |||
| * ] - a new article on a famous Soviet diplomat. This was started by myself as part of developing ] so that it could too be taken to ] at some stage in the future. | |||
| * ] - a new article on ]'s famous dog. | |||
| '''Russian diplomat articles''' (all new articles) | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| '''Lists of Ambassadors''' (all new articles) | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| '''Other articles''' | |||
| * ] - whilst there are some problems with the displaying of this list at present, it will be completely revamped in order for it to be displayed correctly, and for it to be eventually taken to ] standard in the future. I have discussed this list with numerous editors, and several have offered to help me to create the almost 700+ articles in order to make sure that every single one of these Heroes has an article on WP. This collegial co-operation will help to take the list to featured list standard. | |||
| * ] - I managed to save this from deletion by removing the quotefarm, and providing fresh material. Note that my edits have information which take both negative and positive stances on the issue - this is something I always do - other editors since then have expanded the article further | |||
| * ] - I wrote a lot of the Russian response section, and also provided the background info, along with information from other countries. I also uploaded ] for use in the article. | |||
| '''Project maintenance''' | |||
| * I have been quite active as part of normal editing procedure in the categorisation of articles relating to Russia. This involves categorising articles in relevant categories, and creating them where needed. Examples of this are ], ]. It also involves searching WP on a regular basis to find articles which belongs in various categories. | |||
| * Nominating divisive and battleground templates for deletion. A prime example of this is ] - note one editor claimed it was humourous. And note that it appeared on several Latvian articles which are under general sanctions, and after I removed it from the article talk pages, these were reverted by said editors. The consensus from editors who are not involved in this area of editing, is that such templates are personal attacks/battleground, attempts to use ] to make POV statements, and are already covered by {{tl|controversial}}. | |||
| '''Currently working on''' | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - this will be an expansion | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - this will be an expansion | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - this will be an expansion, that I will take to ] soon after placing it. | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - a new article, which is already in namespace, but which will be further expanded in userspace | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - a new article | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - a new article - the embassy in Canberra is going to supply me with photos and information from their archives. | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - an expansion of the current article, which I hope to take to ] soon after placement, which isn't far away | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - a new article | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - an article I have been working on for a long time, and will eventually complete | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - a new article | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - a new article | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - a new article I will put up for April Fools DYK in 2010 | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - a new article I may or may not finish. | |||
| *] - for placement at ] (this will be a complete list with a separate list for every letter of alphabet) - articles on each deputy will also need to be created. | |||
| *] - for placement at ] | |||
| *] - for placement at ] | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - a new article on a famous lake in Kyrgyzstan | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - a new article | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - a new article | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - an expansion | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - a new article | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - an expansion | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - a new article. Seeing as it was Natalya Alexandrovna who granted me permission to utilise Kremlin.ru materials, what the hell, she deserves an article. | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - a new article | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - a new article | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - an expansion | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - an expansion | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - a new article | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - a new article, part of a long planned overhaul of ] | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - a new article | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - an expansion | |||
| *] - for placement at ] - a new article | |||
| If editors look at the articles I am responsible for writing, I always write in a neutral tone, and will always ensure that if there is two sides of a story, that it is covered in articles -- in an NPOV way of course. I will also go thru articles and if there information which can be added, which isn't in the article, be it negative or postive, I will add it. My editing really does speak for itself; it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I am '''not''' a POV-pusher who is using WP for advocacy and to undo perceived wrongs in history; I am here to help build an encyclopaedia. | |||
| Having said that, I will abide by the topic ban...the history of the Soviet Union isn't really an area that interests me anyway---articles are so biased, that anyone with half a brain who should read them will know that they are biased and will take the article for the joke that they usually are. | |||
| Now a question for Sandstein, which needs to be answered. Above, you mentioned that a BLP violation on Putin is not covered by this ban, because it has nothing to do with the history of the Soviet Union. So having said that, can you please explain to me WHY on the other hand you claim that I am unable to seek redress against any editor who has called me a Nazi on several occasions -- the one link shown above was on a users talk page where I asked for help in sourcing a photo for ], and why in seeking redress mentioning that same said editor called another user a wanker on several occasions on the talk page for ]. Neither the users talk page, nor the war article have anything to do with the history of the Soviet Union, yet for some reason you are trying to block me from even seeking redress which I am entitled to do as it is a clear violation of ], ] and ] -- all things which you used against me in your 6 month ban from history of the USSR articles. This needs an answer from yourself, as it could seem to anyone reading this that you have clearly overstepped the mark, and it could also be seen that you are protecting certain editors by placing a draconian and incorrect interpretation of your own ban on myself. Thanks --] <sup>]</sup> 12:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Since you agree to abide by your topic ban, I am unblocking you. Should you violate the ban, you may be re-blocked or your topic ban may be extended. As to your question, I cannot usefully answer it, since it seems to be some sort of accusation in the form of a question. Let me only note that no editor is "entitled" to redress or to anything else on Misplaced Pages. To clarify any ambiguity that may exist, you are topic-banned from the subject of Soviet (and Russian, Baltic, etc.) history. That means that you may pursue ] with other editors, except where such dispute resolution concerns content related to Soviet history. You may certainly object if others make personal attacks against you, and request appropriate admin action. However, I strongly advise you not to do this with respect to any such attacks that may have been previously made in the context of Soviet history articles, so as to avoid violating your topic ban inadvertently. Any wikilawyering about the ban will also not be tolerated. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Request === | |||
| Can someone please file the request against Colchicum at ], as it is in violation of ]. All of the diffs are presented, and it is an open and shut case of severe incivility and engaging in battle conditions. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : this is a most unusual request. and I must say reinforcing want to battle. Requesting others to edit or comment on behalf of you whilst blocked is not really recommended. ] (]) 07:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::If another editor makes an AE request in their own words, I will not consider this to be forbidden proxy editing (but other admins may disagree). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I would not press the charges against Colchicum as his personal attacks are months old, he stopped them voluntarily and because Colchicum is generally very prolific and helpful editor. On the other hand, I feel Russavia is owed a "Get out of jail free" card for not pressing charges at that moment. He is usually on the opposite side of Colchicum in POV conflicts and the attack was quite poisonous. Russavia is also very prolific and helpful user and I feel it is wrong if he is topic banned from almost every topic he developed before even such noncontroversial as Russian and Soviet aviation, diplomatic relations of Russia, missing Duma members, etc., while his opponents were not subjected to similarly harsh sanctions ] (]) 07:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :If Russavia wants to contest the ban, he may do so through an appeal as explained above. But overturning it would require sustained on-wiki admin consensus, which is unlikely as long as Russavia insists that everybody else is the problem. No matter how productive Russavia may be, battleground-like conduct of the sort that led to his ban is not tolerated. Everybody is dealt with on their own merits; if any other editor with a similar history of disruption commits similar misconduct, they may get a similar sanction following an AE request, but Russavia is not entitled to demand that others are sanctioned just because he has been. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am not demanding that others be sanctioned. I am asking that others conduct also be looked at; it is just that their conduct deserves sanctions. After having given the evidence to you on several occasions, you refuse to do that, and claim that I am unable to raise others conduct for discussion due to a topic ban, which even bans me from discussing the topic ban in a fair fashion, because others conduct is also a problem. I am not blaming everyone else at all; I am responsible for my own edits, and cop things on the chin. But what I have not done is run like a school kid to admins everytime someone has done something to offend me (and I am thicker skinned than those who reported me...I would never run to an admin to ask that others be blocked for saying "Propagandic Russian Federation" - that in my mind is just childish and pathetic reason to ask for a ban). And I certainly wouldn't use other editors pushing me for answers to questions raised on a talk page as evidence of battleground conditions - ] is a key condition of WP, apparently. But I am now going to ask for ] for editors using a talk page to accuse Putin of being a paedophile, admitting on ] that they want to make a "grotesque article" (this is pure abuse of WP as a tool to advocate), inserting information into articles calling Soviet soldiers '''rapists''' after using sources which turned out to be completely false (this means no sighting of sources took place), calling myself a Nazi and another editor a wanker, and other things. The biggest mistake I have made is not raising these things officially at ] officially and asking for sanctions, because according to Sandstein, he who bitches first, bitches last, and even if the people who bitched first have done things which are worthy of sanctions, I have no right to address a single thing, even though I have been involved in witnessing their actions (and often been at the end of their actions)...] that his legacy of ]s is alive and well. --] <sup>]</sup> 08:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Russavia, you need to understand that your topic ban is because of your own battleground-like behavior, and the behavior of others has absolutely nothing to do with your ban. Your topic ban would also have been imposed if your perceived opponents were the worst sort of vandals one can imagine. You are best served by agreeing to abide by your topic ban in order to be unblocked, demonstrate for a few months that you can contribute non-aggressively, and then maybe ask for a lifting of the ban based on your good conduct. Continuing to frame the issue as a conflict between you and others will not help you at all; indeed, this pattern of behavior is the reason why you were topic-banned in the first place. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Sorry to see this == | |||
| I just saw this: Sorry to see this. Is there anything I can do to help? Email me if you feel like you want to talk privately. ] (]) 11:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Warning == | |||
| Russavia, this is your only warning. Immediately after your unblock, you began editing articles such as ], ] and ], which pertain at least in part to the history of Russia and/or the Soviet Union, topics from which you are currently banned. If you continue to violate your topic ban, you will be sanctioned without further warning. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Sandstein, you stated above '''No, such BLP violations with respect to Vladimir Putin have nothing to do with the history of the Soviet Union. Alerting admins to them does not violate the topic ban. Sandstein 4:48 am, Yesterday (UTC+8)''' If Vladimir Putin has nothing to do with the history of Russia and the Soviet Union, then it is only natural to say that neither does Medvedev, nor Litvinenko. And ] is a program instigated only a couple of months ago. You need to explain this bloody ban, because honestly it has me dumbfounded, because of conflicting information from yourself, which appears to me to be a changing of the goal posts? --] <sup>]</sup> 13:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Requesting comment=== | |||
| As an independent observer, I am having hard time understanding just exactly ''which'' articles he would be allowed to edit under this ban? Every single article in the scope of ] can be "broadly construed" as pertaining to the history of the country, yet Russavia is not banned from editing articles about ''Russia/Soviet Union'' per se, but only articles about their ''history''. A clarification of the practical applicability of this ban would be much appreciated at this point. If something as current as ] is a no-no, then what is a yes-yes, so to speak? Examples would be most helpful. Thanks.—] • (]); 13:55, September 11, 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:10, 13 February 2020
Redirect to: