User talk:Vecrumba

You deserve this to balance out Anonimu and Anittas. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Odds and ends

• Limited Wikitime owing to family circumstances, ongoing
• Archived January 8th, 2008
• Archived May 1st, 2008
• Archived Christmas, 2009

Re : Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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:Biruitorul, User:Dc76, User:Martintg, User:Miacek, User:Radeksz, User:Vecrumba, User:Tymek

• 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 17:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - Discuss this

A little bit of advice

Using italics, bold, and underlining in the same paragraph is generally frowned upon. It is considered acceptable to choose one form of emphasis and stick to it, but only if you use it sparingly. Mixing and matching all three is like wearing a plaid shirt with plaid pants. Viriditas (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I only emphasize in plaid when it appears I need to when individuals are missing the point. (I use wikEd precisely because it supports all the nuances of plaid I employ.) Besides, those who have known me longer have come to expect it. Alas, it appears my shortcomings as a fashion plate not only extend to my literary style but are likely to continue. Enjoy the holidays.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  14:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I'm glad you took my criticism in stride, as it was meant to be somewhat humorous. As for your "literary style", I find your prose quality to be second to none, and greatly admire it. You're an excellent writer. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Hopefully you'll find that if you consider what I have to say and why and less on labels others have chosen to stick on my forehead to further their editorial agenda you'll find I'm not here to "push" anything. More generally speaking, as when I was at times "outnumbered" ("consensus"-wise) editing on Transnistria where two paid sock-puppeteering propagandists were involved, it doesn't matter how many of some so-called consensus show up as long as you focus on the editorial position being espoused and deal with the interpretation and presentation of sources: is the source reputable? is it being represented fairly and accurately? :-)  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Jstor

I noticed you said you pay for Jstor articles. I have access to Jstor and could help with research if you need it. MBisanz ^talk 21:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically I have access too, but only at NYPL in the city, not at my local Brooklyn library, and at NYPL I can only get printed (paid for, I think it was $1/page) copies. I'll definitely keep your offer in mind, much appreciated!  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  21:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

I have made a request for clarification about whether Mass killings under Communist regimes and similar articles are included under the EEML topic ban. If you would like to reply, my query is posted at [1]. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Belated Happy New Year!

Belated Happy New Year 2010 to You and Yours!

^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 16:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits to EE-related topics

Vecrumba, it has been brought to my attention per e-mail that you have arguably violated your arbitral topic ban from Eastern Europe-related subjects and discussions (WP:EEML#Vecrumba topic banned) by your recent edits at [2], [3] and [4]. I would appreciate any statement that you might want to make about this.  Sandstein  22:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein:

1. I corrected a mistake of my own which had Kaupo on the wrong side based on a source which was erroneous. The dawn of the 13th century is far removed from the area of EE geopolitical conflict, and the correction was completely unrelated to anything Russian/Soviet, or indeed Russian contemporary with that time. If this edit is strictly off limits, my sincerest apologies, it did not even cross my mind that a simple fix to my own mistake on an 800-year-old event unrelated to Russian-Baltic relations (of any manner) posed an issue.
2. I thanked an editor generally perceived to be an antagonist of mine for following up on my question on an article which has clearly been an area of bad blood. Note that I indicated the information would assist (other) editors (as I would not be participating at the article). I do not expect my ban to mandate rude conduct on my part, that is, to forbid expressing thanks to an editor. I have always stated I am glad to engage in good faith with any editor based on a discussion of reputable sources. That includes publicly thanking those editors when they contribute positively regardless of perceptions of "sides." I believe positive public communication and courteous conduct across the alleged battle lines is in keeping with appropriate collegial Wiki-conduct. I should also make it clear that, obviously, I did not consider Pantherskin's answer as baiting me in any way to elicit a response. I strongly feel my public expression of goodwill was not only appropriate but necessary.
3. Another change had been made to Aspic and I had not noticed that I had not put in the Latvian name for it, which is very similar to Polish. I'm quite flummoxed that someone has complained about this although Russavia did immediately accuse me of gross violation of my topic ban. (Of course, anyone could have contacted you regarding my conduct, I'm not speculating it was Russavia.) When Russavia did accuse me, I did ask in that same thread if this could possibly be a violation. It has/was not been identified as such, so I had considered it closed. Indeed it was suggested, not by myself, to Russavia that it would be better for them to drop the topic. So, again, I'm rather taken aback as this was already publicly discussed and settled.

You will note I've been keeping busy at Soon and Baliunas controversy and Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. Controversial topics can always benefit from an editorial perspective based on representing reputable sources in a fair and accurate manner. I hope this suitably addresses your concerns.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I detest doing diffs as I associate them with attempts to control content by attacking editors. That said, if you do require diffs to anything I've mentioned, please feel free to ask and I'll insert the appropriate Wiki-links.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your statement. Nonetheless, regardless of their nature or subject, or the reason you had for making them, the edits relate to the topic of Eastern Europe (which is what you are banned from, not just Russia-Baltic relations) and violate your topic ban. I'd appreciate a link to the discussion that you say has taken place regarding the Aspic diff, and I'd like to know whether you intend to continue making similar edits.  Sandstein  06:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(od) Hello Sandstein. I apologize in advance for the bad mood I find myself while doing diffs.

First of all, if an editor has an issue with me, I request they file an enforcement request and not solicit admins off-Wiki to act as their proxy to lodge their complaints. We had Dojarca lobbying Hiberniantears as their proxy, then Offliner lobbying Jehochman as their proxy. I have the utmost respect for your own conduct in this brouhaha, I would prefer not to consider you as acting as proxy on behalf of a combative complainant who wishes to stay out of the limelight and to put the stamp of admin approval on their complaint regarding my conduct. (And I believe you were picked with an agenda in mind based on perceptions of your even-handedness, not to mention the whole Offliner and my Email to you unpleasantness.)

In reviewing past threads, I would also request that when I ask questions of ArbCom that I not be lectured as to appropriate conduct going forward by editors who filed evidence against me which, IMHO, only substantiated their own disruptive conduct in terms of provocative, insulting, and otherwise disruptive edits.

Working backwards:

Regarding Aspic

• Russavia responds to my queries as if they are in charge and accuses me of violating my ban at Aspic
• my terse response
• Carcharoth provides a constructive and helpful response and, to Rusavia: "Russavia, I would suggest not getting involved in this."
• Note Carcharoth's additional clarification that any questions are to be handled through clarification/enforcement
• I thank Carcharoth, noting that I still require some clarification
• And I ask for clarification on the Aspic article, as it is a food article and not about EE (this is December 29th)

There's been no response from Arbcom, so, as I indicated, being that a week has passed, I thought it was closed.

Regarding Lia Looveer and my thanks to Pantherskin

I am sure they woulld confirm that we tend to see things more different than alike—nevertheless I respect their editorial POV because it tends to be based on sources which can then be discussed. I considered thanking them off-Wiki, however, that was not plausible as that might lead to discussion of article content off-Wiki which I have taken as being discouraged, so at that point, whether I responded to them at the article talk or on their user talk, it was likely I was going to be accused of violating the ban. If you believe I should be pilloried for an act of good faith, I would hope you nevertheless respect my position on this.

On the article correction. I re-read Carcharoth's helpful response and reverted my correction as I can see where, even though unrelated to the area of conflict, this falls under widely construed.

Finally, you already informed me you consider all three edits to have violated my topic ban. I do not, but that is not material at this point. That was quite sufficient. And so I find your subsequent inquiry as to "I'd like to know whether you intend to continue making similar edits" both derogatory and insulting as it implies I'm a disruptive asshole intent on pushing the limits of my topic ban. If you did not mean it that way, my apologies that it is the way I take it after the manner in which I have been treated.

Again, in the future, should anyone wish to accuse me of violations of conduct, I expect them to file an enforcement request as themselves and not shield themselves in anonymity. Your indulging such a request only encourages off-Wiki conflict waging in the future. As we are laying ground rules, what I would have expected is for you to respond to the complainant to tell them to file an enforcement request, where you could then respond appropriately. I trust that any future accusations and resolution thereof will be done in the open. Please do not take my response or tone personally, however, the way this accusation regarding my conduct originated and was handled tastes like a continuation of the conflict and not moving forward in good faith.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  01:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I would normally ask users to file enforcement requests instead of e-mailing me, but the user at issue has a legitimate reason for not doing so. Any conflicts you may have had with others, though, are irrelevant to my request for comment, which is only about your own edits. I take it that your correction [5] means that you will not make similar ban-infringing edits in the future, and so no enforcement is required at this time. You are warned, though, that all edits relating to Eastern Europe, not only those relating to Russia-Baltic relations, fall under your ban. This warning is logged on the case page. Please also consider that in the event of any uncertainty about the ban's scope, you should assume that the edit in question is subject to the ban, unless and and until you receive clear advice to the contrary from ArbCom through a request for clarification (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification); a request in any other forum or advice by anybody else (especially if the answer is not a clear "go ahead") may not be sufficient to prevent an inadvertent violation of the ban. Regards,  Sandstein  06:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein. Perhaps people might consider that Wikipedia editors such as myself might wish to communicate off-Wiki for legitimate reasons as well. As I indicated, I specifically asked about Aspic and received no answer, so I expect that your response here pointing me to clarification means that any such requests for clarification will be addressed in a timely manner; further, that editors who presented against me at EEML evidence will be discouraged from responding on the behalf of ArbCom/admins, such response constituting harassment. Lastly, while I am confident based on past conduct that you personally are objective in all of this regardless of means of contact, I am not at all sanguine regarding the prospects of no anti-"nationalist" anti-"plague" axe-grinding on the part of other admins. I regret my WP:AGF gas tank has run dry. Thanks for your timely response.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  14:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I am not authorized to speak for ArbCom, I cannot confirm that any requests for clarification will be addressed in a timely manner or that other editors will be discouraged from doing anything that is not disruptive. Only ArbCom may address such concerns.  Sandstein  14:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Noted. If I don't receive a timely response to clarification I'll contact an ArbCom member or Email ArbCom. Best regards, Peters  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  14:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to remind you that per WP:EEML#Editors restricted, you are prohibited from commenting on Russavia on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution. Your comments above, [6], are in violation of this restriction, insofar as they are not necessary to resolve any dispute between you and Russavia. Please do not repeat this as well.  Sandstein  14:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood. That means that Russavia responding to me on my questions regarding clarifications et al. is to be considered baiting and I need not/should not respond. You did ask ME for clarification. That Russavia's name came up is not my fault, it is theirs for harassing (my perception) me.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  14:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it was you who brought up that username in this thread. Your most recent comments, above, again violate your arbitration restriction from commenting on Russavia, despite my warning immediately above. In enforcement of that restriction, you are blocked for 24 hours. You may appeal this block using the {{unblock}} template, or to WP:AE; use the {{helpme}} template to ask an editor to copy any appeal to that board.  Sandstein  16:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference in question was inevitably part of the conversation, being integral to the Aspic thread. I thought we were done. I regret your general tone that I am dealing with my ban in bad faith, also that you felt it necessary to come back and issue an additional warning to which I responded. I did not mention that editor out of thin air regarding something not directly pertinent to your original inquiry or request for clarification thereof.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for unblock

I apologize for my mention of the editor in question above, which prima facie violates my ban. They were part of the clarification requested. I thought we were done. I believe my response stating that responses to myself by editors presenting against me at the EEML case when I am asking ArbCom for clarification constitute a form of unwelcome harrassment is appropriate. I did not request said editor to respond to my query. I have not brought up said editor in on-Wiki dialog except as prompted here. It would have been sufficient for Sandstein to state the three edits violated my ban. I would have apologized and we would have been done. I regret that I found continued harping (my perception) implying I am dealing with my ban in bad faith utterly offensive. That said, I am glad to apologize for any inappropriate conduct particularly as I respect Sandstein and do not wish this to go down the black hole of continued conflict and would like to move on.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Had I not been told that people accusing me of misconduct have legitimate rights which prevent me from knowing the identity of my accuser did not improve my attitude, and for that I do apologize.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I trust that you will not continue to make comments regarding that editor, except where directly necessary (as I strongly hope will not be the case) to resolve a dispute between you and he. Your block is lifted. I believe that moving on would be a very good idea. Regards,  Sandstein  17:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As I've mentioned I am considering appealing my topic ban, however, finding a way to do so without simply recycling the conflict (regardless of my personal views regarding disruption and responsibility thereof), that is, in a way which can be viewed as progress, presents a challenge.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that Sandstein used word "related", which was not in Arbcom ruling. This way you can not edit anything about Lion Feuchtwanger because he visited Moscow and wrote about this, and you can not edit Jack London because he was very popular in Russia. You can not edit Hugo Chávez or Kim Jong-il because they are friends of Putin. You can not edit Cayman Islands because Russian oligarchs keep their money there. You can not edit anything about drug or human trafficking, money laundering, or Middle East affairs, because Easter Block countries were active in this region during Cold War. Even music and art served political goals in the former Soviet Union. Do not even try to edit anything about Swan Lake ballet, because it was on the Russian TV during August Putsch. Everything is related to everything, and you know this well. Just do not waste your time here - this is my advice, and you know that I am your friend. I am not going to waste a lot of my time here as well.Biophys (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There are many other ways to explain the same. There was a play by Evgeny Shvarts about Lancelot who killed the Dragon but became a Dragon himself because killing others makes everyone a Dragon and because power corrupts. No, the play is not about you, me or Sandstein. It's about everyone. Speaking simple language, it's not a pleasure to edit on this site where people treat each other like shit (we treat them and they treat us). The battle comes from the fundamental problem. This site suppose to operate by consensus, which works just fine when all sides know the subject and agree to use good sources. But there could be no consensus between good sources and propaganda sources, just like between the science and pseudoscience. The middle ground (consensus) between big lie and the truth is ... lie (said Bukovsky). We do not want to be involved in lies.Biophys (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Language matters

With regard to someone we are not allowed to talk about and his favorite slogan "Preved, Medved!", do you know the etymology of Russian word "Medved'" (the bear)? Literal translation from old Russian means "someone who knows how to find honey". He was called this way (that is indirectly) because calling this dangerous animal directly was believed to attract the animal to the caller. So, let's not do it.Biophys (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Da, tovarishch! :-)  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

A week ago, you were briefly blocked for commenting on Russavia in violation of Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted. After undertaking not to do the it again, you were unblocked. I find this edit of yours disappointing given the above discussion, it is a flagrant violation. WP:AE is not dispute resolution (nor were you directly involved in the issue)

Given the unproductive heat in the topic area, and battleground behavior of both sides, the arbcom imposed rules will be strictly enforced until that subsides. Unfortunately, I have thus felt it necessary to reinstate the 24 hour block. Please stay well clear of that editor in the future. henrik•talk 15:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Only on WP is an act of good faith, that is, agreeing that my antagonist is a valuable contributor and should be allowed to do so in areas of expertise OUTSIDE THE DIRECT AREA OF CONFLICT a blockable offense. Really, is the point to punish me and to disaffirm the possibility of editors perceived to be antagonistic to each other acknowledging other's positive contributions to eventually (as I am topic banned) re-engage in the area of conflict in a more positive manner? Unfortunately I took "commenting on Russavia" as meaning a continuation of the gutter sniping that has been going on (that is, criticism). And my edit in no way interacted with Russavia.

   I'm not appealing the ban as it's been made quite clear that on-Wiki seeds of good faith which do not involve my contributing to articles or discussion of content thereof covered by my ban and which do not involve directly interacting with or criticising my alleged editoral antagonists are discouraged.

   Please let me know if it would have violated my ban to make the communication cited in private to ArbCom. I have not communicated privately because that can be (and I believe is guaranteed to be, should any whiff of it emerge) accused of being a cladestine act with ulterior self-serving motives on my part. I wish to plant seeds of good faith where possible while not violating my ban. Editing Tomato is not that. Please describe to me what are acceptable actions in that light and I will gladly commit to those. Thank you.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Had you not taken the route of damning with faint praise ("As Russavia recognizes their egregious behavior [...]", which is not something that I would consider the optimal way to reach reconciliation) or just had the discussion above, I wouldn't have felt it necessary to do anything but leave a reminder asking you to please play by the rules imposed. And that, while good faith outreach is appreciated, it may be a bit premature, so please respect it for the time being. henrik•talk 16:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not take my comment there as backhanded criticism. It was absolutely not meant as "damning," I believe there's a genuine realization a major line was crossed—and that such recognition represents major progress which deserves appropriate recognition. I can't represent progress without noting where we started from, and I wouldn't be supporting relaxation of the ban unless I felt there was real and substantial progress. That is, why would I be "damning" someone at the same time I'm supporting a major easing of their topic ban. THAT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!

   I regret that you took this as me gutter sniping. Consider that "damning" is your personal prejudice convicting me of what you interpreted as the intent of my response as opposed to taking what my communication stated and intended at face value.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the conversation above with Sandstein, I believe you could reasonably have predicted this result, even if your intent was conciliatory. Posting a message which had room for misinterpretation did not improve matters.

Look, I hope this is just a small bumb in the road, to be forgotten before long. Just play by the rules, and you can hopefully get the topic ban repealed before long too. henrik•talk 21:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And no, I don't believe that a single private note to arbcom or an admin acting as an WP:AE-patroller; saying something in the style of that you've previously had disagreements with the user, were forbidden from interacting or commenting directly, but nevertheless supported a loosening of restriction would have been a violation of the restriction. henrik•talk 21:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll consider updating my statement (and perhaps remove specific reference to a certain editor), hopefully that will not be taken as re-violating my ban. You do realize the system is broken in that you are telling me that good faith has to go underground.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, given the previous troubles, the irony is not lost upon me. But don't make a habit out of emailing people about that editor, I meant the part about a single message. Or better yet, remove the pages he frequents from your watchlist, forget about him and enjoy the calm and quiet of working in some non-controversial area. Think of it as a vacation. henrik•talk 09:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:JaakAaviksooUSArmy-cropped.jpg

File:JaakAaviksooUSArmy-cropped.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:JaakAaviksooUSArmy-cropped.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:JaakAaviksooUSArmy-cropped.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2

Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 01:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case amendment request

[7]

Thank you for your help

You have earned this 1956 Hungarian Revolution Barnstar! (I will understand if you are unable to comment further...) István (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Merely temporary. :-) Nagyon köszönöm!  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  05:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Soon and Baliunas controversy

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Soon and Baliunas controversy, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 17:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Igny (talk · contribs) has filed a checkuser investigation request. As he did not notify you of this, I am forced to do so myself. You can see the investigation and defend yourself here. --Sander Säde 07:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Your e-mail

I got your (quite hostile) mail, I also don't have the faintest idea what it is about. Best, MLauba (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vecrumba. You have new messages at MLauba's talk page.
Message added 12:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MLauba (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

EEML whitewash: warning

No, the point is not closed.

The EEML case was judged by ArbCom to be an unacceptable example of offiste coordination to push a partisan POV and canvass on related issues. This was the official finding.

Has the case been vacated? No. Has it been amended so that you were exempted of its findings? No. Last time I checked (a few moments ago), you were still under an admonishment for your participation with the list, and under a topic ban.

The evidence you presented does not matter unless you appeal, and neither I nor anyone on this site has any responsibility to check your viewpoint before mentioning a high profile arbcom case. I'm shocked that you would attempt to silence persons you never interacted with but who never called you out personally in the manner you did.

So let me be perfectly clear. Mentioning the EEML in the context I did is a perfect example of the kind of offsite canvassing from a team of people with the same POV what a community deadminship should be immune against.

And let me even drive another point home. While you may not agree with the ArbCom ruling that adminished you, your venue to express that is the BASC, or request an amendment to the case. Should I ever find you again trying to intimidate, threaten, bully or harass any user here over the mere mention of the EEML case in a context that is, until the case is vacated, exactly in line with ArbCom's finding, I will block you for harassment. Your interaction with me, in this specific context, both by e-mail and on my talk page, is completely over the top and out of line. Consider that an official, and only, warning. MLauba (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You invoked EEML, I contacted you off-Wiki to express my concern and alarm in private--yourself, myself, and EEML having never crossed--and you have made this into a public circus accusing *****me***** of attacking you? We were done on your talk page as far as I was concerned and now you plant a diatribe on my talk page threatening me?

   Consider I was contacting you in good faith over genuine concerns.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  00:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Poeticbent

Poeticbent knows all to well what his offense was, and if not it reaffirms my point that mentorship would be one way out of the hole he dug himself. If this would be the first canvassing offense I would have taken my time to write a nicer notice, but as he is a repeat-offender who does not show any signs of being willing to improve... Anyway, I understand where you are coming from but believe it or not I think over a beer Poeticbent and I could easily resolve our differences. Pantherskin (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the latter would be the better initial approach, no? WP:ALPHABETSOUP lecturing is not the way.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  00:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, Vecrumba. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Evidence

Ignoring the question of whether or not you should be actively participating there, your evidence is by my count a few hundred words over the 1000 word limit. Please shorten it, or a clerk will do so for you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to reduce to shorthand, it's mainly showing all the dates and times without which the sequence of diffs loses its meaning. I can't stay away when someone who has no interest in enabling me to contribute to WP pretends (my opinion) that they are working to exonerate me of their suspicions of my wrongdoings. That I am mentioned at all should be evidence enough.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  14:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You could move this to the Analysis of evidence, which it is, instead. Colchicum (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I cut it down, if it's still too large I'll take up your suggestion. Unfortunately, the whole point is that the analysis IS the evidence as it proves intentional and gross misrepresentation of Biophys' activities to paint him out to be the villain.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  14:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, that was a good idea as it allowed me to focus my evidence on what's going on without having people's eyes glaze over. I did a quick cut and past into Word of the redone section and am now showing 607 words total.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for providing the evidence! Please remember two things. 1. Never ever mention R. Talk about me and others. Otherwise, this may be interpreted as your topic ban violation. 2. Section "Evidence" exists to present the evidence itself, that is the diffs. Section "Analysis of Evidence" exist to provide your and other's interpretetions (analysis) of the evidence. You did this in an opposite way. Best wishes, Biophys (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Biophys. Had you actually done a 3RR I would have chided you mightily (!). I entered my review of diffs with no preconceptions. While I've presented backwards, if you will, the evidence is my summary (in your case) of a classic example of diffs grouped and picked to convict you of behavior which you were in no manner guilty of—in fact, all I saw was a pattern of yourself attempting to maintain balance while moving toward a more pro-Russia POV-ish presentation without unreasonably hampering objectivity (e.g., replace "conspiracy" theory for "evidence").

  Since I only have 1,000 words for evidence, the current structure will have to do. While I am banned from engaging Russavia, it is unless necessary. As I've indicated, I would not be participating had Russavia not (a) named me by name and (b) indicated he had "all but cleared" me of wrongdoing, both of which indicated to me that I had been a target of his latest witch-hunt. (So you should thank him for inspiring me to waste a day of my time on yet another arbitration when I had finally gotten back to working on new materials for my own Baltic heritage web sites.)  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I see. That was brave. I am not sure if you ever read "In the underground one can meet only rats" by Pyotr Grigorenko. Highly recommended.Biophys (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

NOTICE

Please note, if you wish to Email me my Email address is available publicly, all the more so since the EEML proceedings. I have turned off WP Email as I do not trust WP to act in the interests of preserving the privacy of any communications which may come into its possession.

Re: reply at Jimbo

You're right here about "condoned by Jimbo (a regular victim of rudeness)". I think he's too soft and not tough enough and that sets the examples for every one else across the whole site and ultimately it results in people being rude and aggressive and no one being willing to do anything about it because the founder doesn't care or think its that important. I gave the links out before on Jimbo's page but here's one person who should have been blocked indef. That whole block log is a joke. So he continues today making personal attacks, rude and aggressive comments ([8],[9]) and he's allowed to roam free - all because the founder isn't tough enough. In addition to that of course other users ([10]) and so on. In trying to tolerate dissident voices as you said, we're now in a situation where other editors have to take in abuse from trolls who are well aware of the power they command here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, it's a ballet of pretend tolerance that stinks from the top as Jimbo tolerates abusive comments and even personally unblocks Giano. Promoting diversity of backgrounds and opinions does not mean tolerating a diversity of proper and improper behavior. Some snippets from the circus better known as WP:EEML:

• See mention of Giano in this section, followed by
• next two (Giano returns from the wilderness)
• sections (Threats and intimidation)

No one can "take" power. Power is created only when individuals cede their own power to someone else.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  14:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as Giano has Jimbo to abuse and to unblock him, the ballet will continue. Since Giano = Teflon® (as we are well aware, possible only through the enabling acts of others—including Jimbo) the only way to break that cycle is to for Jimbo to self-de-sysop.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  14:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

With your "evidence" section on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Evidence, you have rather blatantly breached both your no-interactions ban with regard to Russavia, and your topic ban on commenting on process discussions relating to Eastner Europen topics (both according to WP:EEML). Even in light of the relatively permissive attitude regarding these bans expressed the other day by Shell Kinney [11], I can see nothing that would allow you to launch such a general attack there. For all I can see, Russavia did nothing here that created a dispute with you. Nor were your comments directed at solving any such dispute between you and him. Instead, they were an out-and-out attack on his whole presence and activities in this project, and extremely inflammatory.

I cannot imagine how you could seriously have believed such a posting was legitimate for an editor in your situation. Since the EEML case you have had several blocks for breaching your topic bans. In light of these prior incidents, and the severity of the attack, I have blocked you for three weeks.

I do not expect this block to be overturned except by a formal decision of the committee. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)