User talk:Digi Wiki

Kven
Please stop the revert war and explain each addition/deletion. In particular, the seection "Kven language" is not necessary: we have a separate article. Please follow other wikipedia traditions, if you want to contribute. `'mikka (t) 23:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Kven. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Telex 00:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, the rule has already been violated, but I don't block you, hoping that you start normal, detailed discussion, item by item. You must understand that you have to comply with community guidelines, if you want to be treated with respect. `'mikka (t) 00:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for you accusations ?? + You contradict yourself anyway !

 * The Kven article as well as its talk page at Talk:Kven clearly show the contrary about the providing of details, sources and discussion, lack of which you were complaining about: You yourself do not appear to have a single source or reference brought to the Kven text.  If you disagree, we hereby suggest for you to show evidence of you having provided a single source for the Kven article, please.  The users opposing the views sponsored by you are totally different in this respect.  Their multiple sources can be found from the Kven article and its talk page.


 * The talk pages reveal, that prior to you taking the ill-fated blocking action now under review, you discussed the matter with User:Fred chessplayer. With him we have continued having exactly the same above problem.  Despite of numerous pleas for him to provide sources for his claims, he has declined to do that.  A quick look at Talk:Kven clearly shows that.  This is the reason why we have come to dispute your actions.  There really is no reason or bases for you to take such action !  The valid and correct information - backed by credited sources - ought to be left standing - naturally, do you not agree ?  That is the most important matter here.


 * You said the following: "The multiuser in Kven article did not violate wikipolicies that warrant blocking. Sockpuppetry is strongly frowned upon, but not totally forbidden, see Sock puppetry. Of course, Checkuser request is a good idea, just in case, but blocking is not warranted so far. mikka (t) 20:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)".


 * There is no evidence of any wrong doing by me, unless the few reverts to the correctly referenced text are seen as such.  Why do you want to set yourself above the three revert rule, especially when you have not provided any sources at all ?


 * Art Dominique talk, May 5, 2006 - 4:34

Request for comment page
Your edits in Requests for comment/Kven users RfC are reverted. Please DON'T mess with the format of the page. Please look at the format carefully and follow the rules. Any discussions belong to the talk page. `'mikka (t) 04:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your talk as required in wikipedia. A simple way of doing so is to type four tildas: ~. They will be automatically converted into your signature (user name + date). `'mikka (t) 05:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your tactics fight against the Wikipeia policies, mikka (t). Here is a prove how you mix me up with a friend of yours, unpurposely, or perhaps intentionally, to further confuse things or to prove me wrong.  No wonder things seem confusing to some:


 * As I've stayted, I had to sign in with a new user name yesterday, due to your blocking. Any computer where Art Dominique currently signs into Wikipedia, becomes totally blocked of any Wikipedia editing.  Thus, after trying to enter Wikipedia by my normal user name today, the computer became fully blocked from editing Wikipedia by any user name.  Therefore, I currrently cannot respond to your accusations anywhere else but on the user page, i.e. here.  I will therefore have to stay put and enjoy the sunny outdoors for the time being.


 * Just for the starters let me state, that yours and your partners' accusations are false and foundless. For instance, in the beginning of your Requests for comment/Kven users RfC page you discuss the government site reference at the Kven talk page.  In the past you had asked, where that particular site talks about Kvens.  I ask you, what in the world are you after there ?  I was merely answering to a related questioning of the Finnic/Finnish people and the prehistoric burial sites, etc.


 * I did not claim that the site talks about Kvens, especially not by that term. That sort of claim was not made by me.  Thus, you are merely confusing elements of the conversation topics that were taking place at that very stage.  Unfortunately, somewhat unrelated claims, inquiries and/or questions of your partners' had to be responded to, and not everything in the comments therefore necessarily and/or provenly was directly material which - as such - could be used at the Kven text page itself.


 * Your attempt seems to be to make it look as if I am hard to talk to, because - according to you - my responses are hard to understand and because I don't sign my messages. Do I read you right ?  As an example of this behavior/style of mine you offer the above mentioned government site reference commentating of yours from the Kven talk page, which is followed by a confusing and unsigned comment by someone.  By the first look, it may appear - to an outsider - to be written by me, perhaps, and you appear to make it seem as if this sentence indeed was written by me:


 * "Nowadays prehistoric sites are not attributed to any modern ethnic categories."


 * However, the fact is, that the above sentence was written by your partner, 130.234.75.181, who uses various IP addresses, signing his comments with them. Furthermore, he sometimes does not sign his comments at all, and neither does he give the date nor the time of the posting of his comments.  You are now purposely or unporposely confusing this friend of yours (your friendly cooperation is revealed by the talk page comments and compliments to him by you) with me.  The following history page shows that the above sentence was made by this friend of yours, and not by me:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kven&diff=43573659&oldid=43176785


 * The comments of this badly behaving friend of yours are also used against me at the following "request for comment" page of yours (here he has been referenced as two separate individuals): Requests for comment/Kven users RfC


 * That particular user has admitted for instance to misquotations and bad language use in Wikipedia at the Kven talk page, Talk:Kven. There he has also been proven to having used misrepresentations, by for instance claiming that someone has proposed that the early forefathers of the (historic) Kvens spoke Finnish.  There he has also been proven to having offered as a source of information a text, which he at a later stage admits to having written himself.  All this problematic behavior of this user can be viewed at the Talk:Kven page.  Why are you not blocking this badly behaving user, who - on top of all - refuses to provide sources, as the most recent Kven talk page comments reveal.


 * This user in question has used for instance the following user names (at the Talk:Kven page he also has admitted to using a couple of different user names):


 * 130.234.75.181
 * 130.234.75.167
 * 130.234.75.183
 * 217.30.179.130


 * When the above partner of yours often does not sign his comments at all, and when he often also leaves out the date and the time from his comments, it indeed can be confusing. He even confused you, unless you purposely used him as an example of my behavior.  Now, who really is trying to confuse things ?


 * ''Art Dominique, May 5, 2006, 12:55

Account unblocked
Since you insist on using the name "Art Dominique", I am unblocking this account. The IP address of your computer will be blocked again, if you attempt to create/use multiple user names to be used in the Kven article. `'mikka (t) 19:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

About the article: I don't have any knowledge about kvens, neither I am interested in them. I don't know how many of you are pushing this particular story. The only thing is that you have lost credibility by insisting on a number of highly disputable historical claims. A revert war will bring you nothing. You must comply with requirements: when you are asked about a quotation, please provide it.
 * When you are asked a simple question, answer it in a simple way.
 * Now, about your "details of old sources": unless you provide exact quotations of what was written about kvens there, sorry, I have no reasons to believe you that they write about kvens not finns.
 * Who of modern reputable historians and in which books writes about kvens of ancient times? Example quotations, please.
 * Who of modern writers and how claims that "old" and "new" kvens are the same people?

You cannot write a wikipedia article in the way as a blog post, journal article or personal book. `'mikka (t) 19:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Not correct: The sources have been given
However, as the Kven talk page reveals, Fred Chessplayer has not responded to the pleas for sources. He refuses to give even a source for his ridiculous claim that the Kvens only inhabited areas that a part of today's Finland. Historians on a wide scale claim differently, Swedish ones including. Fred Chess says: "..., part of today's Finland. If he studied history, he knows that the areas on today's Swedish side were "Bothnian" areas as well (please, see old maps for instance), and the Kvens inhabited areas that are part of today's Northern Sweden.  How many times have we asked for a source from him for his counter claim (Pls., see talk page) !

My sources have included Vahtola, Julku, Zetterberg, Tiitta, etc., as well as others listed on the Kven article and its talk page (Not onlu Julku, as your Finnish friend claims). So, your concern is not valid. However, Julku represents higly valued view. He correctly sees the first reference to the Kven people in literature the one from 98 AD. I've provided that source. Where is the source for the counter claim ? Even the Finnish fellow with multiple IP addresses has declined pleas for sources, except for Mikko Häme.

Art Dominique, 16:30, May 9, 2006

Mediation Request on Kven
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Kven, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Fred-Chess 15:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Notification that you have been reported
I am posting this as a courtesy. You have been reported to the admin courtesy board here. I would encourage you to engage in a constructive discussion on the Kven article. --Leifern 22:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Kven
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Kven. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Kven/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Kven/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --FloNight 23:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Kven
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Kven-user limited to one account and is placed on probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing. The Kven-user is banned from editing articles related to Kven or making any edits regarding the topic. Should Kven-user edit under any username or IP prior to selecting a username any edit made may be removed on sight and the account indefinitely blocked. Should Kven-user violate any ban, he may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. All blocks to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Kven.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srik e it (Talk 00:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)