|
Against you, and me, at User_talk:Sandstein#I_noticed_that_Matthead_could_be_a_sockpuppeteer. -- Matthead Discuß 12:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything I can do about that? I can't post on his talkpage because it is semi-protected and I'm a new user. Varsovian ( talk) 13:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
yes "Varsovian", you are a new user. right. just an advise next time you try the new user thing try to behave like one, you might look more convincing. Loosmark ( talk) 15:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you please stop leaving me messages on my talk page? You already noticed that I do not wish to continue this conversation since in my opinion you are trying to provoke me. Thank you and good luck.-- Jacurek ( talk) 16:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you please stop reverting[ [1]] the London Victory Parade article??-- Jacurek ( talk) 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
A brand-new user who is bothering Jacurek might become the subject of scrutiny. Jacurek has been making special efforts to stay out of trouble, so bothering him might be viewed unfavorably by admins. If you could somehow manage to stay away from articles frequented by Jacurek for one week, you might be on safer ground. As you might have heard, admins can use discretionary sanctions on this kind of issue, and brand-new users with your type of behavior could be among the candidates for these sanctions. EdJohnston ( talk) 21:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I am a bit busy ATM, may I suggest you take this point to the talk of that article? I and others users will try to review it there. PS. Please don't fight with Jacurek. He is a good editor and if you give him a chance I am sure you'll see it. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop harrasing me on my talk page by repeatedly[ [9]][ [10]] inserting this message:
I love how you think you can just delete 16 sources which don't suit your point of view. You've just signed a ban for yourself with that pathetic effort. Say hello to a complete ban. You want to edit? Bring the sources.
Thanks--
Jacurek (
talk) 01:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on London_Victory_Parade_of_1946. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please self revert ASAP to avoid being reported. Thanks -- Jacurek ( talk) 02:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Due to your behaviour I reported you here:[ [11]] Hope it will be not necessary in the future. Repeated reverting and leaving threatening messages[ [12]] is not the way to go. Sorry.-- Jacurek ( talk) 02:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Someguy1221 (
talk) 03:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)With edits like this [13] and this [14] you have been engaging in tendentious "original research". You have also been aggressively edit-warring on multiple pages related to Polish WWII history. In addition to the block mentioned above, I am therefore also giving you a warning under the terms of the Arbcom discretionary sanctions rules that you may be topic-banned and/or placed under a revert limitation if you continue disruptive editing in this area. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthead for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Stop poluting my talk page. Thanks. Loosmark ( talk) 13:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Varsovian (a person from Warsaw, hope you know what it means) please do not leave any more messages, requests, notices etc. on my talk page either. Please discuss everything on the articles talk pages. Thanks-- Jacurek ( talk) 15:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Varsovian. In the talk page of the London Victory Parade 1946 you said: Yes I am aware of what Varsovian means, I have lived in the city for more than a decade and have written a book about it. Could you please tell me what M-ka is? You should know the answer right away. I'm just trying hard to convince myslef that you are a real account. Please help me by quicly answering this quiestion. Thanks and regards.-- Jacurek ( talk) 19:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm an old hand with this article and wrote the draft that passed FAC. The trouble is that these days I haven't much time for Wikipedia and I'd forgotten what it felt like to have a whole evening's work reverted. My work on that article was generally considered by all nationalities not to favour their own POV enough, which I took as a compliment. qp10qp ( talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I have reported you: [17] Loosmark ( talk) 13:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks you for your input on my suggested change to this article. As stated for now I am dropping out in the hope other editors will work with you on a better wording. Jniech ( talk) 20:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Since I have not accused anybody of racism I request you withdrew the accusation. Dr. Loosmark 01:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Why have you added a COI template? I have removed it, it is totally unnecessary, everyone knows about the issue and it is referenced all over the talkpage. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have strong indications that the admin who edit protected the Tylman article and harassed me, User:Malik Shabazz is coordinating with User:Poeticbent via back channels. Could be a coincidence, but not very likely. Just to make sure that you know what you got yourself into. One editor in good standing got already burned in the past by trying to ensure basic Wikipedia principles such as verifiability in this article. Pantherskin ( talk) 20:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
As I said it is a direct translation in polish english, it is not a blp issue to leave it, ask for a RFC bio if you think there is some need to change it, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Your edit warring over wanting to insert Magisters is extremely petty and tiresome. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Nie rozumiem dlaczego revertujesz osoby z mojej kategorii, jak Darwinek napisal, to nic nie daje trzeba dyskutowac na ten temat w Wikiproject poland, a nie od razu usuwac. Zastanawia mnie twoja znajomosc historii Polski i Litwy, przypomina mi sie nacjonalizm litewski, w ktorym uczestniczysz bo widzialem co wypisujesz na wikiproject lithuania na mnie. Bede obserwowal co robisz, bo to podchodzi pod WRR. -- marekchelsea ( talk) 16:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I asked in the past to stay off my talk page, I will assume good faith in that perhaps you have missed that. So I am politely asking you again to stay off my talk page. Dr. Loosmark 14:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I probably have this Skrzydlata Polska and could scan a letter and send you, so mail me. I have no article by J. Alcorn. Pibwl ←« 16:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a sandbox we can use to work up a section we both agree on? Varsovian ( talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for drawing my attention to RFC. Will comply. Communicat ( talk) 12:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on London_Victory_Parade_of_1946. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please self revert ASAP to avoid being reported. Thanks-- Howelseornotso ( talk) 19:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Mowisz ze jestes zainteresowany historia Polski, a dlaczego zmieniaz w Wikipedii nazwisko Jan Dzierzon na Johann Dzierzon. To jest niemiecka pisownia. W Britanica ( http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/175400/Jan-Dzierzon) pisza Jan Dzierżoń i tak powinno byc. -- Soujdspo ( talk) 22:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Bierz zawsze pod uwage ze: 1) w okresie Bismarck'a zniemczano imiona celowo 2) Poszukiwania liczbowe zapisu imion na internecie sa falszywka - autorzy wtedy i dzisiaj powtarzaja to co zostalo zniemczone i wprowadzone w pismie, clowo, przez nieuwage lub niewiedze. Jedyna droga czy jego imie powinno byc pisane Jahann czy Jan jest stwierdzenie ze Dzierzon uwazal sie za Polaka i kultywowal polskos, i tak jest zgodnie z dokumentami opisanymi w pracach Brozka, Gladysza i ks. Mazaka etc. -- Soujdspo ( talk) 02:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
If this popular name is a result of enforced germanization it should be changed, and it is done in serious scientific world. Example given above. The wrong unjust name can be given as additional with explanation)
The tombstone is historical piece and was funded by Austian Beekeepers association before Poland recovered independance. We Polish (you are probably not a Pole) respect history and facts. This is unfortunately used by german chevinists. We consider you act as wrong moraly. You do not know Dzierzon biography and his strugle with Germans but doing thinks on base of unresponsible imagination. Please read scientific and true books not a internet junk and fix you error. You sell Polish heritage.
Varsovian ( talk) 12:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
You have a change to withdraw you action. It is just requested delite what you did in "Jan Dzierzon" article. In this way you will proof you good will. If not you will be marked as you deserve. -- Begasnui ( talk) 01:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm hereby notifying you that I have posted a new entry at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 14:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Varsovian. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 02:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm hereby notifying you that I have complained about your behaviour at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 11:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision.
This concerns this discussion on WP:ANI. Sandstein 16:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
You have made repeated accusation that I called other people racists. I have not done anything like that. I suggest you either report me for that and prove your accusations or immediately stop throwing such uncivil and defamatory accusations around. And please read WP:CIV, WP:BATTLE and WP:AGF. Thank you and have a nice day. Dr. Loosmark 14:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I find it hard to see how this edit is not describing another editor as "racist". Certainly it is describing another editor's actions as "racist". JamesBWatson ( talk) 19:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
huh? I have not reverted you even once. Please stop making bogus accusation. Dr. Loosmark 21:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Varsovian, this concerns this and this edit by you. It is unacceptable to make accusations of substantial misconduct without diffs. Please add a statement to your AE comment in which you provide the diffs of any current edits by which Dr. Loosmark (in your view) calls you a racist, and also diffs for the edits by which Piotrus (according to you) engages in discussion about whether the subject of an article should be described as wholly or partly Polish. If you do not do so within an hour of your next edit, I intend to ban you from EE-related AE discussions to which you are not a party, and possibly apply further sanctions. Sandstein 17:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I have made an AE filing on you here: [21] - Chumchum7 ( talk) 01:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, unfortunately your recent behavior left me no other option but to report you here. [22]. Dr. Loosmark 21:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This is to inform you that you are banned from interacting with Loosmark ( talk · contribs) for two months, for the reasons given and under the conditions described at this AE thread. This sanction may be appealed as described at WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, subsection "Appeals". Sandstein 21:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
This is in reaction to your violation of your ban from interacting with Loosmark, which you did by undoing their edit [23] at [24]. Sandstein 15:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Varsovian ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Block was given for "undoing an edit". I did not undo an edit, I corrected an inaccurate addition. WP:MOSBIO states that nationality should be included in the opening sentence and that ethnicity should not be. Before the edit which I corrected, there was no statement regarding nationality.
Decline reason:
As block was pursuant to an Arbcom remedy, I see no grounds to unblock at this time. SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Can I butt in and suggest, since clearly this specific situation is going to keep coming up and causing problems, that there needs to be some kind of specific restriction (either on named editors, or on everyone who's been made aware of it) against making knowingly contentious assertions of nationality without citing explicit sources (or something like that). Being realistic, if you just ban two editors from reverting each other, without addressing the underlying issues, then the effect will be that one of them gets to write certain articles to his POV, the other gets to write other articles according to his, and Wikipedia will suffer both ways.-- Kotniski ( talk) 15:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This diff [25] is a clear violation of the DIGWUREN restriction [26]. For this edit (where I remove the link to Category:Polish bishops) I give the edit summary "Subject may be Polish but he is not a Polish bishop, he's a bishop in Belarus in the Catholic church of Belarus". Loosmark then inserts into the article the claim that the subject is a "Polish bishop" ( [27]). If going into an article which Loosmark has never edited before, changing my "Belorussian" into "Polish" is not a violation of the "stay out of each other's way" then I don't know what is.
It possible that Loosmark made a deliberately provocative edit purely so that he would have something to try to have me blocked over after he was blocked previously for violating his interaction ban ( [28]).
[29] - I notified FP@S since he recently dealt with a similar (though more blatant) case. radek ( talk) 00:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
[30] -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
You have my answer on my talk page. Please act by science and historical fact not by "rules". -- Showasw ( talk) 18:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
In the future, when responding to my comments on talk pages, would you please make your responses in your own section, below the comment you are responding to as is standard practice on Wikipedia, rather than arbitrarily breaking up my comments and responding to them piece by piece. If I wrote a series of sentences as a single comment then I intended for them to remain a single comment, not several disjointed sentences. Thank you. radek ( talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Varsovian, unless I'm missing some big elephant in the room or something, your AE report seems rather groundless to me. I just commented on it. Would you perhaps consider requesting closure yourself, to avoid unneeded drama? Thanks, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Because both you and Loosmark ( talk · contribs) have now been blocked for violating your mutual interaction ban in connection with the article Johann Dzierzon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it is apparent that both of you are not able to work on this article without getting in each other's way. Consequently, in application of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, you are hereby both banned from that article, i.e., you may not edit it, its talk page, or discuss this article on other pages. This ban lasts as long as your mutual interaction ban. In the event of any violations, both of you may request enforcement by an uninvolved administrator under the same terms as with respect to your interaction ban. Sandstein 17:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein#I.27m_sure_you.27re_sick_of_hearing_about_this radek ( talk) 18:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
This message is addressed to Loosmark ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Varsovian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and copied to both of your user talk pages.
I know I said that I've tired of AE, but since you both had the bright idea to come to my talk page and continue your mutual aggressive drama there, I'll make an exception for you. As an administrator who has been taking part in trying to moderate the disruptive environment surrounding Eastern European topics for what must be years now, I've seen both of you take part in nationalist dramafests time and again, notably at London Victory Celebrations of 1946. Both of you have, by your persistent POV-pushing pursuit of your silly causes and your animosity towards each other, contributed measurably to the disruption of the disruption of Wikipedia's editing environment. Now, as soon as your mutual interaction ban has ended, you are back to reverting each other at Jaroslaw Bilaniuk and Jakiw Palij, and having at each other at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland.
This will stop now. Since the interaction ban clearly did not make you reconsider your approach to editing, you need a longer opportunity to distance yourself from the topic and from each other. It may well be that one of you is more to blame than the other for this development, but because your disruption appears to be mutually reinforcing because of your conflict, the distribution of individual blame is not of great importance to me. In application of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, you are both hereby topic-banned (as defined at WP:TBAN) from the topic of Eastern Europe, broadly construed, for the duration of six months. For the sake of clarity, this topic ban also prohibits you from making enforcement requests against each other. Please do not make any appeals on my talk page or via e-mail; use WP:AE instead. Sandstein 22:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
[31]-- Jacurek ( talk) 00:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Pursuant to the discussion on AE:
Please contact me with any questions or clarifications. -- WGFinley ( talk) 03:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to go running to the admins asking for a block, but your edits here [32] are a clear and straight up violation of your topic ban. This is particularly worrisome since this is a page on which you edit warred extensively before. Please stop. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I've given you a fair good faithed warning, to which you chose to reply with personal attacks. All I can do. Now don't violate your topic ban again. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
SarekOfVulcan (
talk) 16:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Varsovian ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'm banned from discussing Eastern Europe: Germany is not part of Eastern Europe. My edit clearly states "a German". I have been banned for arguing 'over nationality' but a) there is no argument over the nationality of this German and b) I am not banned from discussing nationality (apart from the nationality of people from Eastern Europe (which this German is not) and Eastern European nationality: Germany is not Eastern Europe). I have not edited the article in question because it could have been interpreted as being covered by my topic ban. It is astounding that I have been blocked but an editor who repeatedly removes ([37]) sourced information I put into an article ([38])is permitted to do just that. Varsovian (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I don't quite get how insisting that a person is not Polish would be avoiding writing about eastern Europe. Avoiding writing about eastern Europe would take the form of writing about unrelated topics, like Australian football, or jazz music. If you have to make arguments to try to explain why a subject doesn't really count under your topic ban... it probably does. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 16:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Varsovian. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Against you, and me, at User_talk:Sandstein#I_noticed_that_Matthead_could_be_a_sockpuppeteer. -- Matthead Discuß 12:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything I can do about that? I can't post on his talkpage because it is semi-protected and I'm a new user. Varsovian ( talk) 13:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
yes "Varsovian", you are a new user. right. just an advise next time you try the new user thing try to behave like one, you might look more convincing. Loosmark ( talk) 15:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you please stop leaving me messages on my talk page? You already noticed that I do not wish to continue this conversation since in my opinion you are trying to provoke me. Thank you and good luck.-- Jacurek ( talk) 16:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you please stop reverting[ [1]] the London Victory Parade article??-- Jacurek ( talk) 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
A brand-new user who is bothering Jacurek might become the subject of scrutiny. Jacurek has been making special efforts to stay out of trouble, so bothering him might be viewed unfavorably by admins. If you could somehow manage to stay away from articles frequented by Jacurek for one week, you might be on safer ground. As you might have heard, admins can use discretionary sanctions on this kind of issue, and brand-new users with your type of behavior could be among the candidates for these sanctions. EdJohnston ( talk) 21:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I am a bit busy ATM, may I suggest you take this point to the talk of that article? I and others users will try to review it there. PS. Please don't fight with Jacurek. He is a good editor and if you give him a chance I am sure you'll see it. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop harrasing me on my talk page by repeatedly[ [9]][ [10]] inserting this message:
I love how you think you can just delete 16 sources which don't suit your point of view. You've just signed a ban for yourself with that pathetic effort. Say hello to a complete ban. You want to edit? Bring the sources.
Thanks--
Jacurek (
talk) 01:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on London_Victory_Parade_of_1946. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please self revert ASAP to avoid being reported. Thanks -- Jacurek ( talk) 02:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Due to your behaviour I reported you here:[ [11]] Hope it will be not necessary in the future. Repeated reverting and leaving threatening messages[ [12]] is not the way to go. Sorry.-- Jacurek ( talk) 02:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Someguy1221 (
talk) 03:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)With edits like this [13] and this [14] you have been engaging in tendentious "original research". You have also been aggressively edit-warring on multiple pages related to Polish WWII history. In addition to the block mentioned above, I am therefore also giving you a warning under the terms of the Arbcom discretionary sanctions rules that you may be topic-banned and/or placed under a revert limitation if you continue disruptive editing in this area. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthead for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Stop poluting my talk page. Thanks. Loosmark ( talk) 13:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Varsovian (a person from Warsaw, hope you know what it means) please do not leave any more messages, requests, notices etc. on my talk page either. Please discuss everything on the articles talk pages. Thanks-- Jacurek ( talk) 15:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Varsovian. In the talk page of the London Victory Parade 1946 you said: Yes I am aware of what Varsovian means, I have lived in the city for more than a decade and have written a book about it. Could you please tell me what M-ka is? You should know the answer right away. I'm just trying hard to convince myslef that you are a real account. Please help me by quicly answering this quiestion. Thanks and regards.-- Jacurek ( talk) 19:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm an old hand with this article and wrote the draft that passed FAC. The trouble is that these days I haven't much time for Wikipedia and I'd forgotten what it felt like to have a whole evening's work reverted. My work on that article was generally considered by all nationalities not to favour their own POV enough, which I took as a compliment. qp10qp ( talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I have reported you: [17] Loosmark ( talk) 13:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks you for your input on my suggested change to this article. As stated for now I am dropping out in the hope other editors will work with you on a better wording. Jniech ( talk) 20:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Since I have not accused anybody of racism I request you withdrew the accusation. Dr. Loosmark 01:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Why have you added a COI template? I have removed it, it is totally unnecessary, everyone knows about the issue and it is referenced all over the talkpage. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have strong indications that the admin who edit protected the Tylman article and harassed me, User:Malik Shabazz is coordinating with User:Poeticbent via back channels. Could be a coincidence, but not very likely. Just to make sure that you know what you got yourself into. One editor in good standing got already burned in the past by trying to ensure basic Wikipedia principles such as verifiability in this article. Pantherskin ( talk) 20:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
As I said it is a direct translation in polish english, it is not a blp issue to leave it, ask for a RFC bio if you think there is some need to change it, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Your edit warring over wanting to insert Magisters is extremely petty and tiresome. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Nie rozumiem dlaczego revertujesz osoby z mojej kategorii, jak Darwinek napisal, to nic nie daje trzeba dyskutowac na ten temat w Wikiproject poland, a nie od razu usuwac. Zastanawia mnie twoja znajomosc historii Polski i Litwy, przypomina mi sie nacjonalizm litewski, w ktorym uczestniczysz bo widzialem co wypisujesz na wikiproject lithuania na mnie. Bede obserwowal co robisz, bo to podchodzi pod WRR. -- marekchelsea ( talk) 16:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I asked in the past to stay off my talk page, I will assume good faith in that perhaps you have missed that. So I am politely asking you again to stay off my talk page. Dr. Loosmark 14:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I probably have this Skrzydlata Polska and could scan a letter and send you, so mail me. I have no article by J. Alcorn. Pibwl ←« 16:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a sandbox we can use to work up a section we both agree on? Varsovian ( talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for drawing my attention to RFC. Will comply. Communicat ( talk) 12:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on London_Victory_Parade_of_1946. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please self revert ASAP to avoid being reported. Thanks-- Howelseornotso ( talk) 19:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Mowisz ze jestes zainteresowany historia Polski, a dlaczego zmieniaz w Wikipedii nazwisko Jan Dzierzon na Johann Dzierzon. To jest niemiecka pisownia. W Britanica ( http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/175400/Jan-Dzierzon) pisza Jan Dzierżoń i tak powinno byc. -- Soujdspo ( talk) 22:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Bierz zawsze pod uwage ze: 1) w okresie Bismarck'a zniemczano imiona celowo 2) Poszukiwania liczbowe zapisu imion na internecie sa falszywka - autorzy wtedy i dzisiaj powtarzaja to co zostalo zniemczone i wprowadzone w pismie, clowo, przez nieuwage lub niewiedze. Jedyna droga czy jego imie powinno byc pisane Jahann czy Jan jest stwierdzenie ze Dzierzon uwazal sie za Polaka i kultywowal polskos, i tak jest zgodnie z dokumentami opisanymi w pracach Brozka, Gladysza i ks. Mazaka etc. -- Soujdspo ( talk) 02:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
If this popular name is a result of enforced germanization it should be changed, and it is done in serious scientific world. Example given above. The wrong unjust name can be given as additional with explanation)
The tombstone is historical piece and was funded by Austian Beekeepers association before Poland recovered independance. We Polish (you are probably not a Pole) respect history and facts. This is unfortunately used by german chevinists. We consider you act as wrong moraly. You do not know Dzierzon biography and his strugle with Germans but doing thinks on base of unresponsible imagination. Please read scientific and true books not a internet junk and fix you error. You sell Polish heritage.
Varsovian ( talk) 12:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
You have a change to withdraw you action. It is just requested delite what you did in "Jan Dzierzon" article. In this way you will proof you good will. If not you will be marked as you deserve. -- Begasnui ( talk) 01:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm hereby notifying you that I have posted a new entry at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 14:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Varsovian. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 02:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm hereby notifying you that I have complained about your behaviour at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 11:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision.
This concerns this discussion on WP:ANI. Sandstein 16:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
You have made repeated accusation that I called other people racists. I have not done anything like that. I suggest you either report me for that and prove your accusations or immediately stop throwing such uncivil and defamatory accusations around. And please read WP:CIV, WP:BATTLE and WP:AGF. Thank you and have a nice day. Dr. Loosmark 14:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I find it hard to see how this edit is not describing another editor as "racist". Certainly it is describing another editor's actions as "racist". JamesBWatson ( talk) 19:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
huh? I have not reverted you even once. Please stop making bogus accusation. Dr. Loosmark 21:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Varsovian, this concerns this and this edit by you. It is unacceptable to make accusations of substantial misconduct without diffs. Please add a statement to your AE comment in which you provide the diffs of any current edits by which Dr. Loosmark (in your view) calls you a racist, and also diffs for the edits by which Piotrus (according to you) engages in discussion about whether the subject of an article should be described as wholly or partly Polish. If you do not do so within an hour of your next edit, I intend to ban you from EE-related AE discussions to which you are not a party, and possibly apply further sanctions. Sandstein 17:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I have made an AE filing on you here: [21] - Chumchum7 ( talk) 01:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, unfortunately your recent behavior left me no other option but to report you here. [22]. Dr. Loosmark 21:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This is to inform you that you are banned from interacting with Loosmark ( talk · contribs) for two months, for the reasons given and under the conditions described at this AE thread. This sanction may be appealed as described at WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, subsection "Appeals". Sandstein 21:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
This is in reaction to your violation of your ban from interacting with Loosmark, which you did by undoing their edit [23] at [24]. Sandstein 15:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Varsovian ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Block was given for "undoing an edit". I did not undo an edit, I corrected an inaccurate addition. WP:MOSBIO states that nationality should be included in the opening sentence and that ethnicity should not be. Before the edit which I corrected, there was no statement regarding nationality.
Decline reason:
As block was pursuant to an Arbcom remedy, I see no grounds to unblock at this time. SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Can I butt in and suggest, since clearly this specific situation is going to keep coming up and causing problems, that there needs to be some kind of specific restriction (either on named editors, or on everyone who's been made aware of it) against making knowingly contentious assertions of nationality without citing explicit sources (or something like that). Being realistic, if you just ban two editors from reverting each other, without addressing the underlying issues, then the effect will be that one of them gets to write certain articles to his POV, the other gets to write other articles according to his, and Wikipedia will suffer both ways.-- Kotniski ( talk) 15:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This diff [25] is a clear violation of the DIGWUREN restriction [26]. For this edit (where I remove the link to Category:Polish bishops) I give the edit summary "Subject may be Polish but he is not a Polish bishop, he's a bishop in Belarus in the Catholic church of Belarus". Loosmark then inserts into the article the claim that the subject is a "Polish bishop" ( [27]). If going into an article which Loosmark has never edited before, changing my "Belorussian" into "Polish" is not a violation of the "stay out of each other's way" then I don't know what is.
It possible that Loosmark made a deliberately provocative edit purely so that he would have something to try to have me blocked over after he was blocked previously for violating his interaction ban ( [28]).
[29] - I notified FP@S since he recently dealt with a similar (though more blatant) case. radek ( talk) 00:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
[30] -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
You have my answer on my talk page. Please act by science and historical fact not by "rules". -- Showasw ( talk) 18:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
In the future, when responding to my comments on talk pages, would you please make your responses in your own section, below the comment you are responding to as is standard practice on Wikipedia, rather than arbitrarily breaking up my comments and responding to them piece by piece. If I wrote a series of sentences as a single comment then I intended for them to remain a single comment, not several disjointed sentences. Thank you. radek ( talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Varsovian, unless I'm missing some big elephant in the room or something, your AE report seems rather groundless to me. I just commented on it. Would you perhaps consider requesting closure yourself, to avoid unneeded drama? Thanks, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Because both you and Loosmark ( talk · contribs) have now been blocked for violating your mutual interaction ban in connection with the article Johann Dzierzon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it is apparent that both of you are not able to work on this article without getting in each other's way. Consequently, in application of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, you are hereby both banned from that article, i.e., you may not edit it, its talk page, or discuss this article on other pages. This ban lasts as long as your mutual interaction ban. In the event of any violations, both of you may request enforcement by an uninvolved administrator under the same terms as with respect to your interaction ban. Sandstein 17:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein#I.27m_sure_you.27re_sick_of_hearing_about_this radek ( talk) 18:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
This message is addressed to Loosmark ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Varsovian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and copied to both of your user talk pages.
I know I said that I've tired of AE, but since you both had the bright idea to come to my talk page and continue your mutual aggressive drama there, I'll make an exception for you. As an administrator who has been taking part in trying to moderate the disruptive environment surrounding Eastern European topics for what must be years now, I've seen both of you take part in nationalist dramafests time and again, notably at London Victory Celebrations of 1946. Both of you have, by your persistent POV-pushing pursuit of your silly causes and your animosity towards each other, contributed measurably to the disruption of the disruption of Wikipedia's editing environment. Now, as soon as your mutual interaction ban has ended, you are back to reverting each other at Jaroslaw Bilaniuk and Jakiw Palij, and having at each other at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland.
This will stop now. Since the interaction ban clearly did not make you reconsider your approach to editing, you need a longer opportunity to distance yourself from the topic and from each other. It may well be that one of you is more to blame than the other for this development, but because your disruption appears to be mutually reinforcing because of your conflict, the distribution of individual blame is not of great importance to me. In application of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, you are both hereby topic-banned (as defined at WP:TBAN) from the topic of Eastern Europe, broadly construed, for the duration of six months. For the sake of clarity, this topic ban also prohibits you from making enforcement requests against each other. Please do not make any appeals on my talk page or via e-mail; use WP:AE instead. Sandstein 22:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
[31]-- Jacurek ( talk) 00:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Pursuant to the discussion on AE:
Please contact me with any questions or clarifications. -- WGFinley ( talk) 03:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to go running to the admins asking for a block, but your edits here [32] are a clear and straight up violation of your topic ban. This is particularly worrisome since this is a page on which you edit warred extensively before. Please stop. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I've given you a fair good faithed warning, to which you chose to reply with personal attacks. All I can do. Now don't violate your topic ban again. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
SarekOfVulcan (
talk) 16:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Varsovian ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'm banned from discussing Eastern Europe: Germany is not part of Eastern Europe. My edit clearly states "a German". I have been banned for arguing 'over nationality' but a) there is no argument over the nationality of this German and b) I am not banned from discussing nationality (apart from the nationality of people from Eastern Europe (which this German is not) and Eastern European nationality: Germany is not Eastern Europe). I have not edited the article in question because it could have been interpreted as being covered by my topic ban. It is astounding that I have been blocked but an editor who repeatedly removes ([37]) sourced information I put into an article ([38])is permitted to do just that. Varsovian (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I don't quite get how insisting that a person is not Polish would be avoiding writing about eastern Europe. Avoiding writing about eastern Europe would take the form of writing about unrelated topics, like Australian football, or jazz music. If you have to make arguments to try to explain why a subject doesn't really count under your topic ban... it probably does. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 16:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Varsovian. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)