Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Irpen (talk | contribs) at 20:59, 27 January 2007 (→Arbitration regarding []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Nug, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  User:Advocatus diaboli

Hi

Hi, could you please set an e-mail (Special:Preferences), so that you could be contacted. Thanks.

As for Occupation of Latvia: considering the fact that the third opinions , Request(s) for comment have not calmed down the Soviet POV promoters, I think Arbitration must be started. But I can join only on next week. And I do think that adding a neutrality dispute tag is considered vandalism, in case no sources are given on the talk page Constanz - Talk 11:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Occupation of Latvia

As you see, this is a hopeless case - I mean to argue with such users. The whole talk page is full of proof why Latvia was occupied, and proof that the side which says L. wasn't occupied ... has no sources. I'll try Arbitration. Constanz - Talk 07:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration regarding Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945

I hereby notify you, that I started the arbitration case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Occupation_of_Latvia_1940-1945. Constanz - Talk 10:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense arguing on arbitration page, or, when there's much to say, on corresponding talk page. Latvia article talk seems to be useless. Best regards, Constanz - Talk 09:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Advise

As I wrote, I would welcome the acceptance of the case by the ArbCom although I suspect if the ArbCom will restrict the case to the user conduct the only party that may be punished will be Constanz himself for the fierce revert warring and incivility. But as for me personally, I have a very thick skin and much higher tolerance than many, so this is not my concern.

I came here merely to give you an advise in connection to your comparison of myself with the hypothetical Holocaust deniers in the Holocaust article. The Holocaust article achieved the current stage through the participation of the multitude of editors. If the denier is faced with the multitude of users convinced in the lunatism of the denier's stance, his position will be indefensible and he will have to either desist or be blocked for revert warring.

The problem with this article can be solved by attracting the outside observers. Such observer brought in by the article's RfC also suggested the same thing I was suggesting all along, to rename the article into the History... " title as the first step. You flatly refused the proposal from an unbiased observer though. You should attract more people to gauge the consensus, preferably from different regions of the world. You may want to wait for more visitors generated for RfC or you may want to contact editors who have interest in historic articles directly.

That you instead rant and compare your opponents to the Holocaust deniers is counterproductive and will not help you achieve your goal. Happy edits, --Irpen