| Revision as of 11:31, 2 January 2010 editScooter20 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,268 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:03, 2 January 2010 edit undoScooter20 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,268 edits →I demand an explination: spellingNext edit → | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| Care to explain why do you keep removing (, , ) my ] which is sourced and quite accurate, based on Census data from Romania, Moldavia and nearby countries?<br> | Care to explain why do you keep removing (, , ) my ] which is sourced and quite accurate, based on Census data from Romania, Moldavia and nearby countries?<br> | ||
| I do not understand why you are removing that perfectly good map while an outdated map like ] seems to be staying just fine on a lot of articles despite being ].<br> | I do not understand why you are removing that perfectly good map while an outdated map like ] seems to be staying just fine on a lot of articles despite being ].<br> | ||
| If you'te talking about ], then I must mention that this is not relevant here |
If you'te talking about ], then I must mention that this is not relevant here since all the sources refer to the same thing (proportion of Romanians, Vlachs or Moldavians). | ||
| <br>It is the same thing as on the ] article, you have '''n''' sources, each stating the number of Romanians in a country and the article then shows a total of the Romanians in the world. Does that violate ]?<br> | <br>It is the same thing as on the ] article, you have '''n''' sources, each stating the number of Romanians in a country and the article then shows a '''total''' of the Romanians in the world. Does that violate ]?<br> | ||
| This makes me think that you have something against me and/or try to get on the good side of Hungarian users like ].<br> | This makes me think that you have something against me and/or try to get on the good side of Hungarian users like ].<br> | ||
| I await your explinations!<br> | I await your explinations!<br> | ||
Revision as of 15:03, 2 January 2010
Re
That matter is between me and Dahn so i would appreciate if you would stay out of it. Mario1987 17:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- What are you suggesting? Sounds very familiar to a threat, or what you said mobtalk. Mario1987 17:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Monica Macovei
I found some dubious use of sources in that article, and looking at the article's history I see that you found some too before me. So, I've put a {{POV check}} at the top of the article. If you have some time please take have a closer look; I'll do what I can, but I'm not going to have a lot of time on my hands in the upcoming days. Pcap ping 06:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Re : Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.
- User:Piotrus resigned the administrator tools during the case proceedings and may only seek to regain adminship by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
- User:Piotrus is banned for three months. At the conclusion of his ban, a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed, shall take effect.
- User:Digwuren is banned for one year. He is directed to edit Misplaced Pages from only a single user account, and advise the Arbitration Committee of the name of the account that he will use. Should he not advise the committee by the end of the one year ban, he will remain indefinitely banned until a single account is chosen.
- User:Digwuren is placed on a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed. This shall take effect following the expiration of both above mentioned bans.
- The following users are topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year:
- User:Jacurek is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months.
- User:Tymek is strongly admonished for having shared his account password. He is directed to keep his account for his own exclusive use, and not to allow any other person to use it under any circumstance.
- The editors sanctioned above (Piotrus, Digwuren, Martintg, Tymek, Jacurek, Radeksz, Dc76, Vecrumba, Biruitorul, Miacek) are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia on any page of Misplaced Pages, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.
- All the participants to the mailing list are strongly admonished against coordinating on-wiki behavior off-wiki and directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public. All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Misplaced Pages itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 17:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - Discuss this
- "Rejoice! Rejoice!" Ironic, too, coming as it does on December 22. - Biruitorul 19:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year
There, I said it :). Things get tense, but there's no hard feelings, and I sincerely wish you a good coming year. Let's agree to disagree on the rest. Dahn (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I demand an explination
Care to explain why do you keep removing (, , ) my new map which is sourced and quite accurate, based on Census data from Romania, Moldavia and nearby countries?
I do not understand why you are removing that perfectly good map while an outdated map like this seems to be staying just fine on a lot of articles despite being unsourced and heavily disputed.
If you'te talking about this, then I must mention that this is not relevant here since all the sources refer to the same thing (proportion of Romanians, Vlachs or Moldavians).
It is the same thing as on the Romanians article, you have n sources, each stating the number of Romanians in a country and the article then shows a total of the Romanians in the world. Does that violate the rule?
This makes me think that you have something against me and/or try to get on the good side of Hungarian users like User:Hobartimus.
I await your explinations!
Scooter20 (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
