Revision as of 03:46, 22 March 2011 editVolunteer Marek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers94,133 edits →Appeal: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:16, 22 March 2011 edit undoM.K (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers13,165 edits →So...: rplyNext edit → | ||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
:::::Agree completely. It's depressing to see how much energy has been expended for claiming the guy for one or the other nation, and how little for writing a halfway decent article. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC) | :::::Agree completely. It's depressing to see how much energy has been expended for claiming the guy for one or the other nation, and how little for writing a halfway decent article. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
::::::I also agree with Ed here. However, the details (''For example, did he only write works in Polish?'' - mostly, he tried his hand at writing a few a few short pieces in Belarussian, none in Lithuanian, ''Who can source that?'' - I already did, on the talk page, ''Did he speak Lithuanian?'' - no) should be taken to the article's talk page rather than here. Short answer is that in virtually all sources he is called "Polish", even (or especially) by Lithuanian writers like ]. If we want to be multicultural and get a bit ORish, then Belarussian-Polish makes a lot more sense than "Polish-Lithuanian" ("Lithuanian" by itself is not found in any sources). If we're looking for an article where Polish and Lithuanian editors could demonstrate their willingness to cooperate there's probably better examples, like ] (same problems).] (]) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC) | ::::::I also agree with Ed here. However, the details (''For example, did he only write works in Polish?'' - mostly, he tried his hand at writing a few a few short pieces in Belarussian, none in Lithuanian, ''Who can source that?'' - I already did, on the talk page, ''Did he speak Lithuanian?'' - no) should be taken to the article's talk page rather than here. Short answer is that in virtually all sources he is called "Polish", even (or especially) by Lithuanian writers like ]. If we want to be multicultural and get a bit ORish, then Belarussian-Polish makes a lot more sense than "Polish-Lithuanian" ("Lithuanian" by itself is not found in any sources). If we're looking for an article where Polish and Lithuanian editors could demonstrate their willingness to cooperate there's probably better examples, like ] (same problems).] (]) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
:I regard this user: Volunteer Marek complain as continuing campaign to damage my reputation. This editor claim: ''“M.K's edits are not based on any sources“'' is this completely '''false''' – ''''''. While Volunteer Marek made ZERO edits in the main space so far yet he is making complains, this reminds me . | :I regard this user: Volunteer Marek complain as continuing campaign to damage my reputation. This editor claim: ''“M.K's edits are not based on any sources“'' is this completely '''false''' – ''''''. While Volunteer Marek made ZERO edits in the main space so far yet he is making complains, this reminds me . | ||
:Now, regarding so called edit war – , made by IP is a clear form of vandalism, and reverting vandalism , more: . Yet for this I got that notorious threat for blocking me! Great! | :Now, regarding so called edit war – , made by IP is a clear form of vandalism, and reverting vandalism , more: . Yet for this I got that notorious threat for blocking me! Great! | ||
:Finally, is it not curious that IP removes sources about nationality and Volunteer Marek rushed here with “complains “ about edit warring and “edits which are not based on any sources”? ] (]) 23:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC) | :Finally, is it not curious that IP removes sources about nationality and Volunteer Marek rushed here with “complains “ about edit warring and “edits which are not based on any sources”? ] (]) 23:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::I'd be quite happy to address these statements on the article's talk page - that's why I tried to initiate discussion there in the first place.] (]) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC) | :::I'd be quite happy to address these statements on the article's talk page - that's why I tried to initiate discussion there in the first place.] (]) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::: and why are you in tune with notorious Australian sock IP, . I have to admit that this Australian IP issue is not isolated issue one, , which of course tried to stalk me and provoke me, yet the main masters accounts are still at large. ] is full of "how to" recruit anonymous socks for slaking their opponents. And it seems nobody cares here about that. ] (]) 07:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Would you (Sandstein or EdJ) be willing to mediate at the article? Or talk some other people into participating? Yes, this might mean you'd feel that you couldn't do sanctions for that article; do you feel you'd then be inhibited from all related sanctions, leaving AE in the lurch? Because we are in dire need of outside views that could suggest compromises at these sorts of articles, involving complex national and ethnic identifications, and talk people down before the edit wars get ugly. ] (]) 23:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC) | ::Would you (Sandstein or EdJ) be willing to mediate at the article? Or talk some other people into participating? Yes, this might mean you'd feel that you couldn't do sanctions for that article; do you feel you'd then be inhibited from all related sanctions, leaving AE in the lurch? Because we are in dire need of outside views that could suggest compromises at these sorts of articles, involving complex national and ethnic identifications, and talk people down before the edit wars get ugly. ] (]) 23:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::M.K., the reference link you added does eventually load if you wait long enough. It is a Lithuanian encyclopedia. Per Google Translate, the entry does say that Syrokomla's work appeared in Lithuanian *in translation*. Why would you draw the conclusion that he is a 'Lithuanian poet' if his poems were written in Polish? Though the weighing of sources is up to the editors on the talk page, not the admins, some of Volunteer Marek's helpful sources are not quite as decisive as they appear. The Cambridge History of Poland (page 332) calls ] the 'supreme singer of Lithuania.' The editors should consider if a section such as ] might be needed in Syrokomla's article, to qualify his ethnicity with enough details. Another option is not to 'award' Syrokomla to any one nation, but just describe each individual thing that he did. ] (]) 02:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC) | :::M.K., the reference link you added does eventually load if you wait long enough. It is a Lithuanian encyclopedia. Per Google Translate, the entry does say that Syrokomla's work appeared in Lithuanian *in translation*. Why would you draw the conclusion that he is a 'Lithuanian poet' if his poems were written in Polish? Though the weighing of sources is up to the editors on the talk page, not the admins, some of Volunteer Marek's helpful sources are not quite as decisive as they appear. The Cambridge History of Poland (page 332) calls ] the 'supreme singer of Lithuania.' The editors should consider if a section such as ] might be needed in Syrokomla's article, to qualify his ethnicity with enough details. Another option is not to 'award' Syrokomla to any one nation, but just describe each individual thing that he did. ] (]) 02:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::::I will respond to you latter (I am extremely busy, and instead for spending my limited free time to improving article, I have to defend my good name as certain activists cant stop following me and reporting me) , but plz look more detail in the article there that link was placed. ] (]) 07:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::Ed, again, this belongs on the article's talk page. Why are we having this conversation here? Cambridge History of Poland calls '''Adam Mickiewicz''', "supreme singer of Lithuania", not Kondratewicz, who we are discussing (he was influenced by Mickiewicz). There is also the issue - which is sort of fundamental to a lot of these disputes - that Poles who lived in Lithuanian used to (and still do) call themselves "Lithuanian" ("Litwini") as well, but that doesn't meant they were "Lithuanian" in the modern sense or in a linguistic sense or in any sense except for that they felt an attachment to the place where they were born. Same true for a lot of Belarussians actually. It's sort of like calling ] a "Mexican" just because he was a ].] (]) 03:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC) | ::::Ed, again, this belongs on the article's talk page. Why are we having this conversation here? Cambridge History of Poland calls '''Adam Mickiewicz''', "supreme singer of Lithuania", not Kondratewicz, who we are discussing (he was influenced by Mickiewicz). There is also the issue - which is sort of fundamental to a lot of these disputes - that Poles who lived in Lithuanian used to (and still do) call themselves "Lithuanian" ("Litwini") as well, but that doesn't meant they were "Lithuanian" in the modern sense or in a linguistic sense or in any sense except for that they felt an attachment to the place where they were born. Same true for a lot of Belarussians actually. It's sort of like calling ] a "Mexican" just because he was a ].] (]) 03:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 07:16, 22 March 2011
Welcome to my talk page!
Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:
- Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.
- Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.
- If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].
- If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.
AE
About the disputes and btw could you please wait until the afternoon for the Yanya Vilayet assessment, because I haven't replied yet?--— ZjarriRrethues — 09:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think I am done with reviewing the evidence now. Sandstein 21:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
FYI
As a courtesy, I wanted to let you know that I had mentioned you here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a note
I hope you didn't see my comment in the workshop as an exercise in "Sandstein bashing". I think you have a tendency to adhere very rigidly to "The Book", which isn't always a good thing, I have great admiration for the work you do and have done at AE. It's not an easy area to work in and you seem to handle the toxicity better than most. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, I don't think of it as bashing, but thanks for the message. I think we just disagree about some aspects of relevant policy; in particular about what "discretionary" means. I am by the book, because, well, that's who I am. It works for the purpose of AE; at least it's predictable. And I have a near-zero capacity for empathizing with people who break clear and common-sense rules such as, do not swear at each other, ever. That may be a deficiency for some purposes, but I prefer to think of it as an asset at AE. Sandstein 21:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Topic ban
Hi, You summed up here, but you left out how long this ban is for. Blackash have a chat 12:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is of indefinite duration, that is, it lasts until the Community or the Arbitration Committee lifts it. Sandstein 12:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Fictional coaches
About four years ago, there was a collection of deletion discussions on lists of fictional characters. Most of the articles survived, but you closed List of coaches in fiction as a Delete. I'd like to address the issues and revive the article, but it is not clear to me what was special about this one article that led to its deletion, except perhaps that some of the 'Keep' voters missed this one and so their arguments were not taken into account, or that the article title was unclear, per the last poster. I'd appreciate your clarification. Machups 19:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, AfD is not a vote, so we do not talk of "voters". We look whether there is consensus to delete, and in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of coaches in fiction I apparently (long time ago, so I don't remember) found that there was such a consensus. I assume that I discounted the two "Speedy close, no rationale" because it turns out that there was a rationale for deletion, so these opinions became inapplicable. Sandstein 20:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have written "commentors," not "voters." Given that there doesn't seem to be a specific reason identified in the discussion to delete this article, I am going to assume it was something in the content, which should be fixable. Would you be able to restore the article into my userspace, or temporarily into article space for me to copy, so that I can clean it up and hopefully avoid AFD this time? Machups 21:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hm, the entire unsourced content is:
- "This is a list of fictional coaches.
- Coach Ernie Pantusso, from the television series Cheers
- Coach Oleander, from the video game Psychonauts
- Coach Quintero, from the Nickelodeon television series Romeo!"
- "This is a list of fictional coaches.
- Pretty useless, IMHO, so I recommend that you start from scratch if you want to write an article about this topic. Sandstein 22:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I agree that it's not much of an article as it was, but I might well have missed these, so it's still good info. Machups 23:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hm, the entire unsourced content is:
- Sorry, I should have written "commentors," not "voters." Given that there doesn't seem to be a specific reason identified in the discussion to delete this article, I am going to assume it was something in the content, which should be fixable. Would you be able to restore the article into my userspace, or temporarily into article space for me to copy, so that I can clean it up and hopefully avoid AFD this time? Machups 21:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Old "friend" Marquis de la Eirron
I know you have had dealings with banned sockmaster Marquis de la Eirron (talk · contribs). He is back using one of his old IP addresses, making the same sorts of unsourced changes that he did before to the exact same articles. Is there an easy way to deal with this? See 81.110.220.68 (talk · contribs). Kind regards. --Simple Bob (Talk) 21:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The reason I am using my IP adress is because my ban has ended and I thought that I was allowed to edit once the suspension has gone?? Simple Bob says that I am making "unsourced" edits as usual but the edits that I have made to an article refer to the person being either Jewish or an ethnic minority and i'm hardly going to make up a lie that someone is Jewish when they are not, and it says on all of these peoples wiki pages that they are Jewish so the source is on the page. 81.110.220.68 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- He just got another 6 month block so no need for action on your part. --Simple Bob (Talk) 22:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Unblocking my account please
Due to the arguement above I was wondering if you could please unblock my Marquis de la Eirron account so that I am able to edit legitimatly as atm I make an edit which is clearly right yet it gets reverted because I stupidly did sockpuppetry months ago for which I was suspended and I have learnt my lesson and so I am only trying to clear up mistakes on wikipedia but I keep having my edits reversed by Simple Bob who says that due to me having been a sockpuppet means I cannot edit and then claims that I have no sources yet surely the fact that it says so on a wiki page is a good enough source?? So please could I have my account unblocked to prove to you that I can be a great asset to the wiki community and not a hinderance with my edits! 81.110.220.68 (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- How do you explain this edit? Why did another editor revert all these edits? It looks like you have learned absolutely nothing from your time away from Misplaced Pages and continue to be disruptive and see absolutely no fault in your actions. --Simple Bob (Talk) 22:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- To be entirely fair (I'm not sure why, as the other edits look inappropriate), I reverted the UK election edits as I saw this diff appear in my watchlist. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- In reply to the original question, block evasion is never allowed. You need to appeal your block or ban with your original account, and if that talk page is blocked, e-mail WP:BASC. Sandstein 22:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- To be entirely fair (I'm not sure why, as the other edits look inappropriate), I reverted the UK election edits as I saw this diff appear in my watchlist. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
FYI
As a courtesy, I wanted to mention that I quoted you in an AN/I here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Huda Ben Amer
On 21 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Huda Ben Amer, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that "Huda the executioner" was recently deposed as mayor of Benghazi, Libya? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Tree shaping
I find the topic ban decision extremely clownish and poorly thought out for reasons explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Tree_shaping#Topic_ban
The proper course of action would be to ban them from any edits (mainspace or talkspace) related to the name. However, I understand that you are simply reflecting the community so I don't really blame you. AfD hero (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
So...
... on the article on Władysław Syrokomla, User:M.K and User:Egisz have been edit warring (perhaps mildly) with some IPs. M.K's edits are not based on any sources. Three days ago I posted to the talk page of the article where I listed over 15 sources to back myself up. I plan on undoing this edit of M.K's based on these 15+ sources (I can find another 15 if need be...) and on the fact that there has been no reply on the talk page from anyone involved for three days. This would be my first ever edit to the article, and it does not fall under the naming sanction you've imposed.
However, this situation is pretty similar to the one at Vilnius University, where I also initiated discussion, the discussion was ignored, hence I made a single edit three days later, and that became one of the (two) instances that you accused me of "edit warring" in. So I want to know if making this particular edit is also going to be seen as "edit warring" - though I'm following WP:DR to the letter. Just trying to cover my butt here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I appreciate that you asked rather than reverting outright...
- I find edit-wars about this sort of stuff profoundly disgusting and unworthy of encyclopedists, based as it is on a sort of "my nation is better than yours because it has this great artist!" approach completely at odds with our basic mission. This war seems to have been going on for years. There appear to have been a zillion reverts about this guy's nationality already, so if you were to make another one, and anybody took this to AE, I'd have to block you as well as most other recent editors of this page for continuing a long-term edit-war. Remember, how right you are, or how many sources you have, or how many talk page comments you have made, or whether others have also misbehaved, does not matter. WP:EW does not care about any of this. It just wants people to stop reverting and start talking.
- So I recommend that you do it the hard way. Start a WP:RFC on the talk page. Make a statement to the effect that this guy should be described as whatever based on the sources you found. After 30 days, ask for an admin to close the discussion and to determine consensus. Then, and only then, would I consider any edit that changes the article in accordance with the RFC consensus not to be edit-warring.
- As an admin, I can't make a ruling on content issues and tell you "your sources look fine, go ahead and revert". I can only issue some edit-warring and WP:DIGWUREN warnings to all recently involved editors, so that they know (as you do now) that blocking might ensue if the reverting continues. Sandstein 22:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, I will start an RfC. But a couple of points. First, I believe that WP:EW does in fact care whether or not somebody is discussing the issue on talk, per WP:DR. Of course that's not a sufficient condition for "not edit warring" but it is a factor. In fact WP:EW has an explicit section on the matter which is what I usually try to follow (here as well as on the Vilnius University and Bernardine Cemetery articles). Second, while this may seem "lame" to many, the fact is that whole lot of people care about this stuff, books are written on these subjects, and pretty much in any history book the introduction is usually precisely about this kind of stuff (which shows that professional historians tend to take these kinds of issues far more seriously) and if you're gonna have it in an encyclopedia, it SHOULD be based on sources. Turning away in disgust just lets less scrupulous editors to get their way. Third, while doing it "the hard way" is often the way to go, there's simply way too many articles and disputes of this nature on Misplaced Pages and doing an RfC on each of them would be a tremendous waste of editor time and resources. Just saying. Thanks for the recommendation though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, talking and making only a single revert is much better than blindly reverting, but after dozens of reverts, even a single revert is one too many. No objection to your second point, although there are many more important things to be said about people than an often somewhat arbitrary assignment to an often not very clearly defined "nation". With respect to your last point, it's normally less of a waste than the energy expended in edit-warring and administrating the resulting drama. Sandstein 22:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Władysław Syrokomla looks to be an excellent test of the abilities of editors with two different ethnic interests to work out a compromise article. I assume that one side of this dispute can read Polish sources, and the other side can read Lithuanian sources. He is buried in Rasos cemetery, and our article on that cemetery says, "After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Lithuanian and Polish authorities collaborated in an effort to restore the cemetery." Why should the two countries want to work together? Doesn't that hint at some overlap of ethnic identities for the people in the cemetery? This man could have a hybrid nationality for all we know, and the article is very weakly sourced. We do have an article called Polish-Lithuanian (adjective). It's hard to see why placing the stamp of ethnic ownership on the clearly-Polish or clearly-Lithuanian poet Syrokomla is a rational activity. We do have an article on Nicolaus Copernicus which manages to say where he was born without giving him a nationality. Perhaps this article needs an unusual discretionary sanction that says, nobody can add an ethnic claim to this article without also providing a source, and stating what that implies specifically about his ethnicity. For example, did he only write works in Polish? Who can source that? Did he speak Lithuanian? Who can source that? The list of his works includes no citation templates and we don't have ISBNs or anything with which to look them up in libraries. The source link added by M.K. does not work. There are no other sources actually in the article. At Talk:Władysław_Syrokomla Volunteer Marek has listed some books but it would be even better if he could develop some of the material from these books and add it to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Link added by me works just fine, it is in webarchive so loading may take time. M.K. (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agree completely. It's depressing to see how much energy has been expended for claiming the guy for one or the other nation, and how little for writing a halfway decent article. Sandstein 23:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I also agree with Ed here. However, the details (For example, did he only write works in Polish? - mostly, he tried his hand at writing a few a few short pieces in Belarussian, none in Lithuanian, Who can source that? - I already did, on the talk page, Did he speak Lithuanian? - no) should be taken to the article's talk page rather than here. Short answer is that in virtually all sources he is called "Polish", even (or especially) by Lithuanian writers like Tomas Venclova. If we want to be multicultural and get a bit ORish, then Belarussian-Polish makes a lot more sense than "Polish-Lithuanian" ("Lithuanian" by itself is not found in any sources). If we're looking for an article where Polish and Lithuanian editors could demonstrate their willingness to cooperate there's probably better examples, like Laurynas Gucevičius (same problems).Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Władysław Syrokomla looks to be an excellent test of the abilities of editors with two different ethnic interests to work out a compromise article. I assume that one side of this dispute can read Polish sources, and the other side can read Lithuanian sources. He is buried in Rasos cemetery, and our article on that cemetery says, "After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Lithuanian and Polish authorities collaborated in an effort to restore the cemetery." Why should the two countries want to work together? Doesn't that hint at some overlap of ethnic identities for the people in the cemetery? This man could have a hybrid nationality for all we know, and the article is very weakly sourced. We do have an article called Polish-Lithuanian (adjective). It's hard to see why placing the stamp of ethnic ownership on the clearly-Polish or clearly-Lithuanian poet Syrokomla is a rational activity. We do have an article on Nicolaus Copernicus which manages to say where he was born without giving him a nationality. Perhaps this article needs an unusual discretionary sanction that says, nobody can add an ethnic claim to this article without also providing a source, and stating what that implies specifically about his ethnicity. For example, did he only write works in Polish? Who can source that? Did he speak Lithuanian? Who can source that? The list of his works includes no citation templates and we don't have ISBNs or anything with which to look them up in libraries. The source link added by M.K. does not work. There are no other sources actually in the article. At Talk:Władysław_Syrokomla Volunteer Marek has listed some books but it would be even better if he could develop some of the material from these books and add it to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, talking and making only a single revert is much better than blindly reverting, but after dozens of reverts, even a single revert is one too many. No objection to your second point, although there are many more important things to be said about people than an often somewhat arbitrary assignment to an often not very clearly defined "nation". With respect to your last point, it's normally less of a waste than the energy expended in edit-warring and administrating the resulting drama. Sandstein 22:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, I will start an RfC. But a couple of points. First, I believe that WP:EW does in fact care whether or not somebody is discussing the issue on talk, per WP:DR. Of course that's not a sufficient condition for "not edit warring" but it is a factor. In fact WP:EW has an explicit section on the matter which is what I usually try to follow (here as well as on the Vilnius University and Bernardine Cemetery articles). Second, while this may seem "lame" to many, the fact is that whole lot of people care about this stuff, books are written on these subjects, and pretty much in any history book the introduction is usually precisely about this kind of stuff (which shows that professional historians tend to take these kinds of issues far more seriously) and if you're gonna have it in an encyclopedia, it SHOULD be based on sources. Turning away in disgust just lets less scrupulous editors to get their way. Third, while doing it "the hard way" is often the way to go, there's simply way too many articles and disputes of this nature on Misplaced Pages and doing an RfC on each of them would be a tremendous waste of editor time and resources. Just saying. Thanks for the recommendation though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I regard this user: Volunteer Marek complain as continuing campaign to damage my reputation. This editor claim: “M.K's edits are not based on any sources“ is this completely false – I am perhaps the only one editor who introduced sources to this page, including the source for the subjects’ ethnicity. While Volunteer Marek made ZERO edits in the main space so far yet he is making complains, this reminds me behavior which I reported previously.
- Now, regarding so called edit war – this, and this and similar edits made by IP is a clear form of vandalism, and reverting vandalism is not a revert war, more: the same article was protected (by MY request) due to excessive use of socks by that notorious IP . Yet for this I got that notorious threat for blocking me! Great!
- Finally, is it not curious that IP removes sources about nationality and Volunteer Marek rushed here with “complains “ about edit warring and “edits which are not based on any sources”? M.K. (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be quite happy to address these statements on the article's talk page - that's why I tried to initiate discussion there in the first place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- So why are you stalking me all around? and why are you in tune with notorious Australian sock IP, which you so vigorously defended in the past. I have to admit that this Australian IP issue is not isolated issue one, there were much more socks, which of course tried to stalk me and provoke me, yet the main masters accounts are still at large. WP:EEML is full of "how to" recruit anonymous socks for slaking their opponents. And it seems nobody cares here about that. M.K. (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be quite happy to address these statements on the article's talk page - that's why I tried to initiate discussion there in the first place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Would you (Sandstein or EdJ) be willing to mediate at the article? Or talk some other people into participating? Yes, this might mean you'd feel that you couldn't do sanctions for that article; do you feel you'd then be inhibited from all related sanctions, leaving AE in the lurch? Because we are in dire need of outside views that could suggest compromises at these sorts of articles, involving complex national and ethnic identifications, and talk people down before the edit wars get ugly. Novickas (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- M.K., the reference link you added does eventually load if you wait long enough. It is a Lithuanian encyclopedia. Per Google Translate, the entry does say that Syrokomla's work appeared in Lithuanian *in translation*. Why would you draw the conclusion that he is a 'Lithuanian poet' if his poems were written in Polish? Though the weighing of sources is up to the editors on the talk page, not the admins, some of Volunteer Marek's helpful sources are not quite as decisive as they appear. The Cambridge History of Poland (page 332) calls Adam Mickiewicz the 'supreme singer of Lithuania.' The editors should consider if a section such as Adam Mickiewicz#Ethnicity might be needed in Syrokomla's article, to qualify his ethnicity with enough details. Another option is not to 'award' Syrokomla to any one nation, but just describe each individual thing that he did. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I will respond to you latter (I am extremely busy, and instead for spending my limited free time to improving article, I have to defend my good name as certain activists cant stop following me and reporting me) , but plz look more detail in the article there that link was placed. M.K. (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, again, this belongs on the article's talk page. Why are we having this conversation here? Cambridge History of Poland calls Adam Mickiewicz, "supreme singer of Lithuania", not Kondratewicz, who we are discussing (he was influenced by Mickiewicz). There is also the issue - which is sort of fundamental to a lot of these disputes - that Poles who lived in Lithuanian used to (and still do) call themselves "Lithuanian" ("Litwini") as well, but that doesn't meant they were "Lithuanian" in the modern sense or in a linguistic sense or in any sense except for that they felt an attachment to the place where they were born. Same true for a lot of Belarussians actually. It's sort of like calling Montezuma a "Mexican" just because he was a Mexica.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- M.K., the reference link you added does eventually load if you wait long enough. It is a Lithuanian encyclopedia. Per Google Translate, the entry does say that Syrokomla's work appeared in Lithuanian *in translation*. Why would you draw the conclusion that he is a 'Lithuanian poet' if his poems were written in Polish? Though the weighing of sources is up to the editors on the talk page, not the admins, some of Volunteer Marek's helpful sources are not quite as decisive as they appear. The Cambridge History of Poland (page 332) calls Adam Mickiewicz the 'supreme singer of Lithuania.' The editors should consider if a section such as Adam Mickiewicz#Ethnicity might be needed in Syrokomla's article, to qualify his ethnicity with enough details. Another option is not to 'award' Syrokomla to any one nation, but just describe each individual thing that he did. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Appeal
I filed the paperwork .Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)