User talk:RJ CG: Difference between revisions
Utgard Loki (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
::Would it have ben bannable offence, neither of your guys (Korps!Estonia) with your repeated POV-pushing and false accusations of anyone who have misfortune not to share your POV would survive on wiki past mid-May. [[User:RJ CG|RJ CG]] 17:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
::Would it have ben bannable offence, neither of your guys (Korps!Estonia) with your repeated POV-pushing and false accusations of anyone who have misfortune not to share your POV would survive on wiki past mid-May. [[User:RJ CG|RJ CG]] 17:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
::: I don't think your personal attacks help with your unblock request. [[User:Suva|Suva]] 17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
::: I don't think your personal attacks help with your unblock request. [[User:Suva|Suva]] 17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
Uh, aren't most of those cited things rationales from the ''deletion guideline'' and not from the blocking policy? I mean, blocking for 3RR is fine and all, but OR? NPOV? Those are reasons for deleting an article, not blocking a user. Weird. [[User:Utgard Loki|Utgard Loki]] 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:19, 16 July 2007
This user was formerly User:206.186.8.130 (talk, contributions). Digwuren 14:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- So if it is? So if it isn't? Does it affect something? RJ CG 14:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Your contributions to Rein Lang so far have been anything but constructive. You should refrain from disruptive editing in the future, lest the Mighty Hammer of Wikipedian Justice fall upon you with all its political gravity. Digwuren 21:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
July 2007
Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Rein Lang, you will be blocked from editing. Digwuren 21:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Your bans did not teach you anything. It is you who repeatedly blanked sourced content I added to this page and replaced it with unsourced POV statements. Let's present both Russian and Estonian viewpoints here, shall we? By the way, if you insist on your illiterate statement about "Dozor", I'm cool with that. If you want to make it look like rant of illiterate politically motivated author, let's leave it as it is. RJ CG 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- One more question. Is opposition to Bronze Soldier's relocation and grave-digging a crime in your eyes, so you repeatedly mention it every time Dozor iz mentioned? RJ CG 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on User talk:Lysy. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Also, do not accuse other editors of vandalism. Lysy's reworked whole article as you can see from history, he did not just remove material. And, vandalism accusations are considered personal attacks. Sander Säde 19:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I tried my best to assume it, but failed. Lysy (who very rarely participate in topics I am interested in) popped up on the "cyberattack" page hours after I changed Russophobia page not to his liking and started to remove the referenced and relevant info from cyberattack page. He did not add a single source, just rearranged existing data and carefully removed everything not in sync with the "Blame Russia" tone article had before. I can not see it as anything but vandalism. RJ CG 19:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict with Lysy)I don't know about your relations - and actually, I support yours/current version more. But his edits do not look like standard hit&delete vandal actions - it is pretty clear that he tried to improve the article. And s/he is an established editor, far more edits then you and me together. Accusing another wikipedian of vandalism - whether in notice or edit summary - is a very grave accusation and in case of established editors should never be made lightly. That is why I removed that warning - you should have used some of the "lighter" templates or just left a manual message - actually, I recommend that you should do that now, explaining your side of the reasoning as well.
- With that I am off to sleep... which I should have done quite a while ago... Sander Säde 19:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Your message in my talk page
RJ CG, I do not appreciate the unfriendly message that you've left on my talk page as much as I do not appreciate your POV pushing. I'm putting Cyberattacks on Estonia 2007 back on my watchlist now to make sure that your POV pushing edits do not pass unnoticed. --Lysytalk 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- So message reached the addressee. Mission accomplished :) In the future, would you be so kind to explain removals of referenced info? If you noticed, I kept your (and other's) edits almost intact, with small exception of the wording regarding hacker's statement. RJ CG 19:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I apologize for calling your edits POV pushing. --Lysytalk 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize too. I was pretty angry at you for your initial edits, but you did right thing in the end by forcing me to rework the article. Cheers :) RJ CG 20:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
All's good that ends good. Peace. --Lysytalk 20:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rein Lang. 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 do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.
Sander Säde 14:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Attack of the Meatpuppeters? RJ CG
- No, just replying to attack by estophobe, who pushes that all estonians are fascists. Sander Säde 14:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Are you guys preparing ground for attack against me in ArbCom or something with your constant baseless accusations of racism? You are shameless liar if you say that I ever implied that all Estonians are fascists. I really have no more comments on your unfortunate statement. RJ CG 14:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, just replying to attack by estophobe, who pushes that all estonians are fascists. Sander Säde 14:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Rein Lang ([1]), you will be blocked from editing. Digwuren 16:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is bad faith warning from repeated name-caller who had been exposed as liar by me. I am wondering how low can you guys (Korps!Estonia) go in your Homo Soveticus-styled attacks against editors who happen to disagree with your narrow vision of this world. RJ CG 17:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Let's say that your attempt to support baseless accusations looks as lame as your childish namecalling and outlandish accusations. Quote from obscure website still does not mention "anti-fascist". I cut you some slack in order to avoid edit wars. RJ CG 19:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Russo-Estonian relations, you will be blocked from editing. Find a valid source - or even any source. Otherwise your claim does not belong to Wikipedia. Sander Säde 15:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Bad faith warning from person who is obviously aware of Estonian denial of automatic citizenship to the offspring of post-1940 migrants and tries to advance his politically motivated viewpoint by issuing false warnings.RJ CG 15:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article, as you did to Rein Lang, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Digwuren 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for tedious editing at Russo-Estonian relations while violating WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR
-- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
RJ CG (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like to see justification of the block, that is, if you don't count lies by members of Korps! Estonia as justification. Most of warnings of Korps!' members are not just in bad faith, they are plain lies.
Decline reason:
With a quick glance, I see you've reverted a HUGE number of reverts at that article, easily hitting or passing WP:3RR at least twice in the past week. Please take a moment to think of this as a wake-up call -- edit warring is very much frowned upon, we would much prefer that you build a consensus by the use of talk pages. Feel free to make use of Wikipedia's robust dispute resolution process; troublesome editors can be dealt with via the admin noticeboards and arbitration committee, if needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2007 (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.
RJ CG 16:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Luna Santin made an interesting accusation. The way I see it he chose to forget about [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:OR]] accusations as they would obviously generate a lot of unpleasant questions about editing styles of contributors who attacked me. Instead he recided to stick to 3RR. Let's take a look at page history [2]. Would Luna Santin be so kind to point out any sequence of events when I initiated edit wars? Edit wars and frivolous use of {{cn}}tags (as in case when citizen of Estonia nad one of main contributors in Estonian section of English wikipedia repeatedly denied something spelled out loud and clear in his own country Citizenship law) were started against me all the time, I never reverted anybody's edit. Each and every revert I made was to return sourced relevant information added by me and deleted by Korps!Estonia (Alexia Death, Colchicum, Sander Säde) in order to advance their politically motivated POV. But even with that (although it does not seem logical to accuse one of defending himself, but not much is logical in Estonian segment of en.wiki regardless), I would be interested in seeing proof for 3RR accusation against me. Aren't we confusing 3RR with 3 edits of same article? In this case Colchicum and Sander Säde should be banned too. RJ CG 18:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think FayssalF means tendentious editing (aka WP:TE), not tedious editing. Digwuren 17:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Would it have ben bannable offence, neither of your guys (Korps!Estonia) with your repeated POV-pushing and false accusations of anyone who have misfortune not to share your POV would survive on wiki past mid-May. RJ CG 17:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think your personal attacks help with your unblock request. Suva 17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Would it have ben bannable offence, neither of your guys (Korps!Estonia) with your repeated POV-pushing and false accusations of anyone who have misfortune not to share your POV would survive on wiki past mid-May. RJ CG 17:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh, aren't most of those cited things rationales from the deletion guideline and not from the blocking policy? I mean, blocking for 3RR is fine and all, but OR? NPOV? Those are reasons for deleting an article, not blocking a user. Weird. Utgard Loki 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)