User talk:Igny/EE Battleground

Spasibo
Hello Igny, I just wanted to express my gratitude for your effort to normalize the conversation here. I’ve seen it before on that page and I really appreciate that. Thanks, Kober 19:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Stalingrad documentary film
If you wish to see the two other parts of the documentary film you can find them here. http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Stalingrad+osa The narrator speaks Finnish however, so I belive that the only thing you can understand are the interviews of Soviet veterans. Also, the documentary lasts nearly three hours, so you better reserve some time if you are planning to "take a look". Regards, --Kurt Leyman 05:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on 2008 South Ossetia war. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place below. Tiptoety talk 03:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You may like to note
User_talk:Tiptoety --Tovarishch Komissar Dialogue Stalk me 01:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions
Notice: Under the terms of Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

Tiptoety talk 02:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits at 2008 South Ossetia war
Could you please leave an explanation for this edit at the talk page? As discussed there, the version you reverted to is not backed up by the sources given. Additionally, you reverted to a version with double citations. --Xeeron (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I just undid an unexplained revert of my edit by an anon. (Igny (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Well, you reverted not only that part but a huge part further down in the article as well. I'll change it back now. --Xeeron (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you ever check your talk page?
Почему не ответил на мою реплику? Делать ошибочные правки в статье про войну с Грузией ты готов, а до собственной talk page руки не доходят?

Ты понимаешь, что участие абхазских военных в войне с Грузией - это самая настоящая fringe claim не поддержанная никем, кроме русских пропагандистов? Я написал, что Итар-тасс сообщило об абхазских солдатах в Кодорском ущелье - разве этого недостаточно?Keverich1 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Абхазская военщина
Технически, не существует такой вещи как Вооруженные Силы Абхазии, поскольку не существует такого государства. Статья в википедии с соответствующим названием сама по себе не является доказательством обратного

...И почему вы отменили все мои правки. У меня ушло немало времени, чтобы их сделать. Вы взяли и перечеркнули мой труд. Я категорически против!Keverich1 (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war
Please avoid removing edits which are properly quoted and sourced, as you did with this edit. We should avoid original research and peacock words, especially when direct quotes are available and were sourced. Frank |  talk  15:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you also violated WP:3RR rule in this article. Please be more careful in the future.Biophys (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This Igny guy continues to remove properly quoted and sourced edits in the article about South Ossetia war.Keverich1 (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. CIreland (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on November 23 2008 to 2008 South Ossetia war
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I did not realize that I did another revert in that 24h period, oh well.(Igny (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

Digwuren is back!
I see that you have had an encounter with User:Digwuren at Allied occupation of Europe. He has been away for a week, but is now back at disrup doing constructive edits. The only solution to this "dispute" I can see is a community ban. -- Petri Krohn 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been having problems with this guy too!! Shotlandiya (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look?
Could you take a look at this and drop your opinion there: Articles_for_deletion/Phone_Call_to_Putin_(2nd_nomination) Offliner (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion of article
this your edit is a deletion of valid WP:BLP article. If you have any concerns about content forks, etc., you are welcome to nominate this article for deletion. Unilateral deletions is not the way to deal with controversial articles. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Phone call to Putin
Hi Igny, you may want to list the move request over at WP:RM so that it receives wider visibility than the usual editors in this area. And your previous move was not unilateral as is claimed, it has the support of numerous editors. --Russavia Dialogue 23:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't be lazy please
Digwuren did the right thing and separated his potentially controversial and the un-controversial edits. All with proper comments. Yet you reverted all of them together. I would not make a big deal out of that, had the same thing not happened before (maybe by different editors, I don't recall) and always in the context of POV wars. So please have the curtesy of reading the edits you revert and keeping your reverts to what you really want to revert. Don't create extra effort for other editors by being lazy. --Xeeron (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah the old make a legitimate edit after a controversial edit which looks like a futile attempt to escape detection by the watchlists. Not the first time either. May be I was not clear in my summary, but I did not think that his "un-controversial" edit was correct either. (Igny (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC))


 * What is wrong with the "had"? --Xeeron (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with just "left"? (Igny (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Check Past tense. When 2 events occured in the past, one before the other, the first is described in Past perfect simple, not simple past. So simply left is grammatically wrong. --Xeeron (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply
I can tell you only one thing. Reporting someone to WP:ANI is not a good way of resolving disagreements. I wanted to retire from political subjects as I explained on my talk page (because of problems at work). But you just do not let me. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This particular issue has nothing to do with politics, and actually has little to do with your personally. I raised the question of making unnecessary edits to redirect pages at where I think was an appropriate place after I asked an advice from Tiptoety. It only affected you simply because you were the one who was doing this particular trick, which, I admit, annoyed me at some moment. If you notice I did not participate in your edit wars on the article about apartment bombings. The only thing I did was to split the conspiracy theories, and I actually care less about the subarticle title. However, I honestly asked you to stop this trick with redirect pages, and when you continued, I felt I had to take some action to stop you and others who abuse this trick.


 * I regret about your situation at work. I can only think that you are not in academics, otherwise you would have tenure by now, although tenure does not always stop troubles at work. (Igny (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Yes, I work in one of US Universities. I used to do research rather than teaching. Hence no tenure. Are you a student or a teacher at Moscow State University?Biophys (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I am in one of US University too. Slowly working on my career, far from tenure yet. (Igny (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Good luck! I have seen your notice that you came from the MSU. Splitting off this article was logical. However you should be really familiar with the subject beyond reading the newspapers. One thing I disliked most was this your edit - let's not debate formalities and WP policies; this is all about our different personal values. I do agree that you think as a majority of Russians. That is why I am more happy in the US.Biophys (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That was american MSU not МГУ.(Igny (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Sorry. I see. That was Michigan State University.Biophys (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Biophys' move trick
Looks like Biophys did his move trick again:. Note that the disambig page is completely incorrect as well: how could "Soviet Union and state terrorism" refer to "Terrorism in Russia"? Offliner (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * While I am not surprised, I want to give him the benefit of doubt. This particular edit, if Biophys' history of edits is set aside, looks like a legitimate one. (Igny (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC))


 * If you believe that was a trick you should try to speedy delete the disambig page, citing your reason. (Igny (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

Historical Truth Commission
Certain editors at the Historical Truth Commission article want to use the formulation "in conjunction with the creation of the Commission, the Kremlin is drafting legislation that will criminalize criticism of the Soviet Union" in the article as a fact. But this is not true. What the law criminalizes is falsification of history. The formulation they want to use is obviously biased, especially when stated as a fact and without attribution (or a source.) What do you think of this? Offliner (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude you are like so provocative
I mean damn, you actually want logic to prevail in article instead of mob rule. Dude, that's like so uncool. You gotta go with mob rule, I mean the mob knows what's best for itself, look how well Somalia is doing! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration
I don't know if you should be listed as "involved party", but you might be interested in this: Requests for arbitration. Offliner (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous
Take a look at this nonsenseWP:AE Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

1RR limit
Thatcher 03:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Vacated. Thatcher 10:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Igny, thank you for noticing wrong diff. Congratulations! Do not you feel great not to be restricted and labeled as a "violator"? I am sure you was not the one. I also feel much better. Thanks to Thatcher.Biophys (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I think it is less about being a violator of some ambiguously phrased policy/rule, it is more about individual responsibility of the group actions. Clearly WP lacks individual accountability but I have no idea if there is anything what can (should?) be done about that. (Igny (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

Cheer Up
Наше имя - короткий удар штык-ножа, Что вгрызается в тело упруго... Бээмдэшки взревут на крутых виражах, Прорываясь сквозь слякоть и вьюгу.

Наше имя - "спецназ" - словно трассеров свист В южном небе над городом спящим. А восход над хребтом так обманчиво чист, Что не верится пулям свистящим.

Залит кровью поэтом воспетый Кавказ, В сердце ненависть врезалась жалом. Но дорогу ей грудью закроет спецназ - От беды нам бежать не пристало.

Здесь забыта любовь, и лишь кровная месть Распаляет безумием души. Президенты всё лгут, прочь отринута честь... Что им стоит присягу нарушить?!

Но последние силы собрав, мы идём - Трижды прокляты, преданы всеми... И в руках пулемёт захлебнётся огнём, Разрывая пространство и время.

Здесь без права на жизнь, без пощады война. С грязью смешана дружба народов... Но однажды - очнётся родная страна. Только мы не придём из похода.

1992.

There are times when everything seems hopeless. But if you keep on fighting, you will win. It was written in 1992. It was published after the 2008 South Ossetian War. Things change. Don't give up. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Response
At the article talk page you asked: "What do you think?". I do not "think", I know. How do I know? Because I study. As a professional scientist, I can tell after a critical study of the relevant materials that theory is proven. This is very simple.Biophys (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Did you study this question? What did you read about this?Biophys (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not studied that topic at all. I have studied the statistics enough to spot a flawed argument regarding the majority claims. Did you conduct a statistical study on the topic? (Igny (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Unfortunately this has nothing to do with statistics, but it has everything to do with Russian history and politics, with standard KGB/FSB tactics, and with a lot of literature, including several books written about these events.Biophys (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Naturally, this attitude about the "standard KGB tactic" caused significant bias in the western publications, don't you think? (Igny (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Sure, there is an anti-KGB bias in right-wing western media. But people like Satter (who spent 10 years in Moscow), Felshinsky, Pribylovsky, Yushenkov and especially Litvinenko know this subject first-hand.Biophys (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you dismiss the majority of ex-KGB/FSB officers who don't agree with their negative views? Such a small sample, a few individuals, versus thousands and thousands of officers who don't seem so disgruntled. How do you know these individuals aren't just being payed to say things like that by people like Berezovsky, who has boasted of trying to destabilize "Putin's regime" and discredit him? You have to admit that there is still no hard evidence to support these conspiracies. Just individual claims and circumstantial evidence. LokiiT (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Civility
Igny, please comment about content, not about contributor as you just did.Biophys (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just welcomed a new contributor to the article but questioned his motivations for his controversial edit. Obviously I commented on his edit, specifically his edit summary, not on his personality. How is it not civil? (Igny (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think that was fine, I am not going to argue. Just be very careful please in light of the recent sanctions.Biophys (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith move protection
My apologies but I am unfamiliar with this term. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now read about this. I was unaware of the problem, although I think that had the re-direct page been deleted as I requested that the problem would not have occured.  In any case I have responded on the article talk page.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you email me
Igny, I tried to contact you via email but you don't seem to have email enabled. Would you be able to send me an email, as I would like to discuss some things in private in relation to the AN/I thread with you. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 19:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You are receiving this notification as you participated in the administrators' noticeboard thread on the issue.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Donald Duck
Seriously, you are going to defend a guy who did a 17-revert spree? After multiple warnings? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't he plead temporary insanity? :) What you attribute to malicious intent could be explained by a psychological break down. But I did not look into his other edits, did he "vandalize" any other article? (Igny (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC))
 * I think what this secret group did can be described by Gaming the system - they were deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship.DonaldDuck (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba
How about posting this on your talk page? Great stuff.

Personally, I think Vecrumba's rant on the evidence page is pretty much irrelevant to the case.

Quote: ''As I had based my edit on an extensive book review of D&W which specifically discussed the Stalin passage, but did not have the source itself, I could not dispute him. $140 later to buy the text, and there it was, exactly what I had written, and what Irpen had deleted as an outright lie because it appears on page 218, not 217...''

What does Giano or Irpen have to do the secret list? Offliner (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Vecrumba
In reply to this.

Attention attention, breaking news report...

In a sudden and unexpected development, Russian parliament had closed hearing as some sources say over possible Putin's impeachment. Just recently a top secret of FSB fighting the freedom of speech on the popular project WIkipedia was revealed by a team of free and watchful thinkers. In an interview in the article, which became front page news on all Russian newspapers, V., one of the leaders of the "Cabal to Free Wikipedia from All Cabals", jubilantly proclaimed "This was a victory for democratic movement. Finally we have the definitive proof that Wikipedia was infiltrated by the FSB agents. Finally the Big Brother, suppressing freedom of information, was busted!" Neither the head of FSB nor Putin were available for comment at this moment. However one top ranking FSB officer asking to remain anonymous nervously said that the media got it all wrong. "Of course we monitored all communications of everyone, including the Wikipedia editors. And as soon as Digwuren founded his club we infiltrated the group within weeks and planted our agent there. But we immediately realized the dangers of reporting activities of Digwuren's group. We could not do that for fear of being discovered which would be fatal for our despotic leadership and for our neo-Stalinist movement. But Digwuren's cabal had a devious plan from the beginning. I mean just look at the timing. As soon as our top secret Wikipedia agent was banned, Digwuren and his team organized the leak of their archive, which became the damning evidence of our wrongdoing."

Stay tuned for more news about this stunning development.

Holodomor
You might want to take a look at the article that you've asked me to take a look at. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually like the general direction where the article is going. The scope of the article has changed with the article renaming, and it now focuses on actual mass killings which undoubtedly took place in the communist history, and less on the genocide claims. Pity my writing was significantly cut out, but it belonged to holodomor or the holodomor genocide question (as background section) anyway. Besides, the mass killing article is far from being done, I am watching the progress and may come back to it when VK is done with his job (which I like so far). (Igny (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

Tsarist autocracy
Please comment on that article's talk or even better, edit it to make it even more clearly why the usage of despotism in this context is incorrect (I agree it is not correct, but it is also used in this context and we should discuss why it is used and why it shouldn't be, rather than censor the usage out). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Btw, what do you think about byzantism - that's an article that I see as a spin-off from my work on the tsarist autocracy. I was trying my best to keep it neutral, but if you think it could use some polishing, please feel free to comment on it or edit it. I think that it is overall a better piece than tsarist autocracy (as it is relatively comprehensive, where tsarist autocracy needs much more content). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Which one do you think is better? Mediation or RfC? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't you unlock horns without such drastic measures? If not, RfC seems like the usual first step in resolving a dispute, which is basically asking for a third opinion. Do not expect much to come out of this as one has to be an expert in SO WAR or military history to successfully propose a good solution. I have seen many RfC going unanswered. Mediation may be an overkill, it deals more with personal conflict rather than the dispute itself. It would require more time, and I'd expect them to say what I am saying, that is step back, calm down, take a breath, try to resolve it peacefully... Next levels are ANI and Arbitration Enforcement (AE), which is to put out a case that your opponent violated some of the previous ArbCom rulings or something. Likely it would be dismissed as insignificant case for AE. (Igny (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I'm up for trying, but Xeeron requested it, and I don't want to look like the person who is running away from a potentially peaceful solution. BTW this is the quality that I can produce if no one bugs me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia#Demographics HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom clerk warning
Your recent comment on an Arbcom page was nothing other than an attempt to discredit another editor. This is a breach of the rules of behaviour that have been repeatedly laid down at those pages. A further breach (of any kind) will result in a topic-ban from ALL pages related to the EEML case. Manning (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Igny, thank you very much for your post on my talk page. I am getting very busy in real life, and I apologize if I would miss something. About what you said: I actually did apologize much along the lines you just said, in an email to ArbCom several weeks ago. I even went into more detail, perhaps too much detail. Now, understand me, please, if I post that on-wiki now (even abridged to remove personal info), it will be only increasing wiki drama (sure, somebody would say this is not enough, sure others would say "wait, wait, where's that, how did we miss it"), it would force the hand of other people investigated by the ArbCom (including time-wise; also I am not better than the average, and it would be indeed a sicophancy on my part to pretend I was), it would obviously violate the framework set forth by the ArbCom for this case, and frankly, it would require me to spend on it much-much more time than I can afford. You know that of the 3,500 or so emails (I never counted them), none of us ever read more than 1,000. Some of the very curious guys know us much better than we do ourselves. (If you want, I can lobby for you to join the mail list. It is not closed. It only requires that nobody from already existing people explicitly opposes.) So I said myself, let me just be honest to ArbCom, and I'll see what else after the case is closed (when the case would be closed, the get-them guys won't be interested, so I could frankly answer without generating drama) I just said to myslef quite similar to yours: Пусть будет как будет. Ведь как-нибудь да будет. Ибо никогда так не было, чтоб никак не было. (I believe this was from a cartoon, but I forgot which one.) For what it is worth, I am sincerely sorry for the whole affair, especially since I have contributed directly to setting people into a battleground mentality. At the time I thought of it as a kind of soothing, encouragement to each other that we were not alone in the wild, but now I see we made a pretty serious pack, which in the form it was could have eventually caused more damage to WP. I am extending this apology to all good faith editors. This is not to absolve me of anything. (This is strictly about off-wiki activity and its real or perceived influence on wiki. My on wiki activity is always open to revision.) Dc76\talk 15:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Happens to all of us
this can happen to all of us, myself included. As it did. But as long as I can, I will try to moderate others and ward them off that path. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On the subject of moderating influence, perhaps you could help moderate some editors attitudes at the Proposed Talk? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

re:Is Wikipedia broken?
Glad you enjoyed my morsels. Feel free to comment on their talk if you have specific remarks on any of them.

Nitpick: editors matter, particularly (or only?), the active ones. If they didn't, why would be keep bringing up names of editors active years ago (case in point: Irpen - need I name more...?). Yes, they don't matter in the macroscale, but they do matter in our microscale words of specific topic arenas and wikiprojects and such.

One of the things to consider, in wiki philosophizing, is how much Wikipedia is in fact a collection of thousands of small wikiworlds (wikiorganizations), each interacting with others, and quite different from another. An editor can be a part of many such wikiworlds. How important some editors can be to some of those wikiworlds? How important am I to WPPoland? How important is WPPoland to Wikipedia?

Back to your question. Claim of Wikipedia being broken (or eternal) should not be taken seriously, other than as in what they are saying about the editors who make them. They are likely based on illogical idealism and/or personal experiences (positive or negative). Now, we can (are are - that includes scholars - see WP:ACST) trying to analyze parts of Wikipedia. Some (most?) parts function very well (or we wouldn't be here...). Others seem to be having problems (ditto :D). What will be the eventual outcome? Prediction is a tricky business, and Wikipedia is a very novel project in many regards. Still, it has lasted well for almost 10 years, and doesn't show signs of imminent collapse, so I am somewhat optimistic - although much less so that few years back (for example, I used to argue that Wikipedia is one of the few organizations resilient to the iron law of oligarchy; I don't think this is the case anymore).

As for my thoughts on macroscale, I don't claim to be a genius that can understand what hundreds if not thousands cannot. Why Wikipedia still works? Will it keep on working? I try to look at various meso levels, and hope that they can contribute to the larger macro puzzle. So far, my largest macro argument has been an article arguing that Wikipedia may be a social movement, part of the FOSSM (the article has not yet been published, but is accepted). Even if I am right, it is certainly not the full story.

I hope that I will be able to do more research on this issue, although recent events, while on one level quite fascinating, are also not encouraging me to dedicate as much time as I used to to this project. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mass killings under Communist regimes
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mass killings under Communist regimes. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI (EEML case)
I'd appreciate your comments in this thread. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh
I was in the process of dropping you a note to ask you to look at that article. Weird.radek (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That happens :) (Igny (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

On that subject, I want to thank you for your moderating comments there; could you comment here? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Which subjects to work on in WP?
From your userpage, I see that your field is mathematics. However, I think most of your WP contributions are in the field of (Russian) history and politics. Why is that? I'm asking because I have a similar situation myself: my "field" is actually Computer Science, but in WP, I mostly edit political, military and economy subjects (related to Russia). I guess it's mostly because editing CS subjects feels too much like "work", while other interests are "free time." Lately, I've been thinking of switching focus more on CS (and maybe other subjects), rather than working on Russian company articles, etc., which no one seems to read according to statistics :). And to be honest, scientific, technical (and maybe geographic) articles are the ones most useful to me as a reader, so I guess working on those subjects would be more "valuable" than politics and so on. Maybe you have some thoughts on this? Offliner (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One professor said to me "The best way to learn something is to teach it", and then proceeded to organize and teach a course on financial mathematics after losing a lot of money in market crash in 2000/01. In fact, most of my contributions to mathematics are only tangential to my actual research area. I mostly made contributions to articles I wanted to understand better myself because I read an interesting book or attended an interesting lecture/seminar. Since history/ politics of Russia/USSR interests me as well, I often edit articles which I read. Here I am driven by two things. First the BS POV detector. Even though I am not a big fan of current political system in Russia, mostly due to the rampant corruption of the government officials, I could not help but notice the amount of drivel about Russia/USSR added to Wikipedia by the mudslingers. Sometimes the mudslingers were so incompetent that I thought they were juveniles. But sometimes my opponents (who in my opinion trash Russia for the sake of trashing Russia) appear quite intelligent and I get engaged in interesting debates. Secondly, I have some interest in sociological part of the collaboration at Wikipedia (I once studied applications of math to sociology, hence the interest). (Igny (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

Your unconstructive edits
Do not revert edits without discussing them. Also, do not use false edit summaries.

The version of the lead section that you reverted to is unencyclopedic, badly worded, and does not comply with the manual of style either. As for the tags, 3 similar maintenance tags is unnecessary. One of these tags is enough. Virgil Lasis (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your good faith concerns were addressed at the article talk page by other editors. (Igny (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC))

About the article "Occupation of the Baltic states"
Hi! About your views in the article Occupation of the Baltic states. I think your arguments are very much based on your personal views, than academic and/or western literature. If I have understood correctly, the WWII issues are sensitive in Russia (due to historical and current political reasons). Still as I edited a lot of Winter War articles, I found out that there is a a lot of serious, academic research and studies in Russia, which are not maybe popular but very helpful and rational. Anyway, it would much appreciative to handle these issues in rational way. Thank you. Peltimikko (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If I did not try to handle this the rational way, I would insist on use of liberation and elimination of occupation throughout the article. I, being rational and looking for a compromise, try to combine and reconcile both POVs here. At the same time you, pushing the Western/ Baltic POV (which is admittedly prevalent in Western/Baltic literature), thoroughly eliminate liberation and keep readding reconquest or similar words, ignoring all the arguments posted by me at the talk page. I think it is not an issue of me being emotional, but rather that your strong opinions on the matter do not let us find a compromise. (Igny (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

Please stop pushing your personal POV. I do not understand why do you want to remove well-referenced content and replace it with highly dubious unsourced views ("Baltic nationalists considered the Soviet rule as reoccupation" etc etc). It is best not to edit such articles unless you can follow WP:NPOV guidelines. Alternate views are present in the article already, as it has been demonstrated rather clearly by now, they are fringe views. There is no point to push Soviet views against consensus and common sense; Soviet Union and its lies are thankfully gone now. -- Sander Säde 07:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing about what happened in 1940, occupation or legitimate annexation, I have long conceded that point. I just keep increasing the visibility of a particular POV with regard to what happened in 1944-45. If you do not see any difference between what happened in 1940 and in 1944-45, that is your problem, not mine. (Igny (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

Occupation of the Baltic states
Please don't attempt to move this page again. There was no consensus for the move. If you keep moving it without consensus, you're liable to get blocked. Ged UK  21:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

RE (Arb)
Please realize: I do not want anyone of you to be sanctioned, but I must prepare fair report (as I see it) for the reasons of integrity and for the good of this project. Yes, you are right in general: I am on a very wrong track here. This is something to be fixed righ now.Biophys (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia War title
I would like to know your opinion concerning a proposal I made, which I think represents a decent compromise.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

AE
I have filed an AE request concering your recent comments. It is here. Colchicum (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours
Comments such as this are unhelpful. Please do not make unfounded comments of covert collusion and other such nonsense. Doing so adds to the noise of the arbitration case and is inconsiderate of the other parties. In future, to avoid the assumption of bad faith, remember that only substantiated accusations should be made. If at any point you have a qualm with another editor's comment, whether it be directed at you or at another party, you are free to message or e-mail me; I or another clerk will do our best to ensure that the edit is fully scrutinised, and removed if necessary. AGK  12:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for wasting your time. (Igny (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

thanks
Thanks for the supportive comment at my request for amendment. If it's not too much to ask I was wondering if you could just note there that me and you were on the opposite sides of the issues prior and during the EEML case. Otherwise, since it's been several months since the case, people might have forgotten and think you're one of the "Polish editors" or something and discount your opinion unduly.radek (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes
There is a reply to your question Here thanks mark nutley (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

definition of "mass"
apologies for my confusing tag here. the quoted material is from the definition of the term "mass", not the outcome of the poison, which was always death, varying in suffering and time. The fact that poisons were tested on gulag prisoners resulting in death is not disputed. the previous undo made the comment "how is this relevant to the page?" my tag was to clarify the link was not in relevance to the 5-6 notable  victims killed by the poisons, but rather the "large number of people" killed in testing of the poisons. i think paul undid the previous link thinking 5-6 deaths did not qualify as "mass killing", which i agree. however the "mass killings" of those whom served as guinea pigs, should justify the link remaining. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC) the testing of the poisons in the gulag: "affecting a large number of people")

Why are you different? :)
Hi Igny,

I am looking at some current comments at Arbitration/Requests/Amendment, and I recall that in the past, you were the only editor (IIRC) who was able to apply WP:FORGIVE and say something nice about "the other side". I wonder: what makes you so different from many other editors? And more to the point: how can we make them behave more like you? Since I think you are one of the few editors respected by "both sides", could I interest you in launching some meditations? I am afraid that this topic area will not become peaceful till editors learn to forget and forgive. PS. Have you ever considered applying for an adminship? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been said that the message above was made in bad faith or with some strange agenda. I hope you do not think so, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not want admin tools at the moment for a number of reasons. First, I lack time to make that serious commitment, and I would need a lot of time to act in admin status in areas where I am uninvolved. Second, as history of my edits shows I am too easily provoked into confrontations. Third, there has never been a situation where I really needed admin tools.

With regard to your current amendment request, I will recuse myself from participation there. Personally, I would have supported at least narrowing the ban, because I have seen your positive influence on the hot heads in several unseemly but all too common for WP situations/conflicts. (Igny (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)) (Igny (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC))

Your wholesale revert
I don't appreciate your wholesale blind revert, I spent a lot of time reading and compiling sources. It is not very constructive of you, I am quite disappointed, I had expected better. The version you reverted to has some serious factual errors, as well as being a structural mess. --Martin (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes
please explain on the article talk page why you did this revert, thanks mark nutley (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not very funny, per the restrictions on the article you must explain on the article talk page when you revert, please do so mark nutley (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

See
Here mark nutley (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark Nutley
Can you please go easy on Mark? He is fairly boneheaded, and I basically never agree with him. However, it's my impression that he is editing in good faith, and would profit more from (careful, patient, repeated ;-) explanations than from sanctions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. I do not want sanctions either, just an appropriate warning of some sort. I think I just got irritated by the unjustified impersonal template warning he issued to me. (Igny (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC))
 * Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes talk page response
Igny, I belatedly responded to one of your posts about the POV template. TFD suggested that the way I did it might be easily overlooked, so here is the diff. Thanks. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning
Please be advised that WP:3RR applies to the article reverts you make on Communist terrorism. Collect (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR
Your recent reverts1, 2, 3 on holodomor violated WP:3RR. I'd recommend avoid edit warring in future.--Львівське (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Holodomor
Looking at the sort of behavior Lvivske exerts, namely the blatant accusation of whitewashing the Soviets, I suggest that you go to WP:RFCC next time. I guess you are sick and tired already of nationalists who ignore code of conduct as well as me. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-important stuff
- that sounds a lot like the Vysotsky quote you quoted at me during the EEML case. I think I'm beginning to see a pattern. Anyway, if you don't mind answering this, I was sort of wondering what kind of math you actually do. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In actuality, my specialization is differential equations with applications to physics, chemistry, biology, but recently (last several years) I became interested in statistics/theory of probability, that is why I sometimes try to contribute to probability related articles here on wiki in an attempt to understand this field better. (Igny (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Hmm, for some reason I though you were a topologist. How's your control theory? Like if you've got two state variables and one control variable when is the dynamic maximization problem solvable? You don't have to answer that, I'm just stuck on a particular problem at the moment and it's taking over all my thoughts. Wikipedia articles on math topics are surprisingly adequate. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am almost clueless about those, never studied these topics since my undergraduate years with an exception of hearing some of that stuff on seminars. (Igny (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Cheers, thanks anyway. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

This is a block for breaching WP:1RR on Mass killings under Communist regimes. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic states
Hi Igny, I don't think that adding a pre-dated POV tag to this article and disguising your action as a minor edit, and calling it "undo anon unsubstantiated edit" in the edit summary, constitutes good Wikipedia practice, see Help:Minor edit. Please be more careful in future. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand I find it unfortunate that someone could sneak in removal of the tag without resolving the underlying issues. Consider marking this edit minor as a protest against such actions, and I refuse to be more careful in demonstrating such a protest in future. (Igny (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

Notice
I see that you're on Wiki break so I hope it's ok to still post to your talk page. Anyway, you're being discussed here and, oh yeah, you're now banned from Mass killings under Communist regimes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not care about that article that much, although I do find that original sanction too harsh, and if needed I would simply ignore it. Joklolk must be laughing his ass off. (Igny (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC))

Occupation article title
Please see: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 19:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am awaiting for further comments from others. (Igny (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Igny, I seriously suggest you to forget for a while about renaming. There are more important problems with this nest of the articles, and we simply waste our time in the dispute that will lead to an impasse.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You've been reported for edit warring
Hello Igny. Please se WP:AN3. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's try something completely different
Taking a peek at your userboxes, do you know the proof for 1 = 2? I remember it was based on .9999 (repeating) = 1 but I've been unable to reconstruct it (after having not thought about it for many years...). P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * $$1-.99999=2-1.9999 = 2- 2\cdot .999... = 2(1-.999...)$$, hence 1=2

More generally, for arbitrary a and b denote $$c=a+b$$ then
 * $$c(a-b) = (a+b)(a-b)$$
 * $$ca-cb = a^2 - ab + ba - b^2$$
 * $$ca-a^2 - ba = cb - b^2 - ab$$
 * $$a(c-a - b) = b(c-b-a)$$

Hence a=b. (Igny (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC))


 * It just struck me that there are editors who would accuse both of us of attempting to do the same regarding historical cause and effect. :-) Cпасибо! P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR
You have broken it Self revert now. Tentontunic (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

See here Tentontunic (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kuru  (talk)  14:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this a joke? The first reversion is restoring the tag you've been edit warring over again.  I presume you're trying to be cute about the undo not counting since it is a reversion of a reversion of your own actions.  You are welcome to file a SPI when your block expires; I'm a little curious about that part as well.  Kuru   (talk)  20:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think those have anything to do with Digwuren, though they may be someone else's socks. Also that link does not show "confirmed socks of Digwuren" just a list of IP addresses. They're not even "alleged socks of Digwuren" - at least I don't see such an allegation actually made anywhere. What makes you think this?Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just searched for, and that talk page came up. Yes, that might not be Digwuren. (Igny (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC))
 * If you keep making unsubstantiated allegations against editors, it will catch up with you eventually and then we won't be able to have our debates. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"Whitewashing"
Please do not make uncivil charges of "whitewashing" again as you did: P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * here (edit summary) and
 * repeating here here (article talk) after I asked you (prior posting on talk) to stop.
 * I have no idea what is uncivil here. The edit made by Igny says:
 * "In November 2010, Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis, the Latvian Foreign Affairs Minister, became embroiled in a scandal with Aivars Slucis, a nationalist Latvian American after Email from more than a year prior was released by journalist Lato Lapsa on his web site, www.pietiek.com ("Enough!"). Lapsa brought attention to the part of their correspondence where Kristovskis "agrees with his assessment and vision" in reply to Slucis advocating denial of treatment or medicine to Russians in favor to Latvians in case of a shortage of medicines."
 * The source it cites says:
 * "The latter, in one of his e-mails to the Foreign Minister, said that he would not be able to treat Russians in the same way as Latvians and that in case of a shortage of medicines, he would deny Russians their right to them. In a return letter to Aivar Slutsis Kristovskis writes that he approves “both his assessment and vision of the situation”. In another message the American doctor speaks about Latvia’s national policy on the whole and voices his concern over the loyalty of some Latvian politicians towards Russians as “white and Christians”."
 * In connection to that, I would like to know what concretely is uncivil in the Igny's edit. I admit I can miss something, because this topic is not a subject of my keen interest, however, the edit seems to transmit the source adequately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I clarified per the releasing journalist being quoted exactly what it was that Kristovskis agreed with. Kristovskis agreed with Slūcis' comments on citizenship review and rescinding, per my edit which Igny changed with a charge of whitewashing. Kristovskis did not agree on withholding medical treatment for ethnic Russians . My change was not " whitewashing ," it was insuring that WP is not open to being liable for reproducing materials as fact which are not . Accusing me of whitewashing and repeating the charge ("pretending" I'm not whitewashing) after being asked to desist is more than uncivil. Is there a particular reason you are inserting yourself in a dispute between myself and Igny? P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I point your attention at the fact that it is not clear from the source the article cites that Kristovskis agreed with Slūcis' comments only on citizenship review and repatriation, not on withholding medical treatment for ethnic Russians. By contrast, the source says that (i) Slūcis "said that he would not be able to treat Russians in the same way as Latvians and that in case of a shortage of medicines"; (ii) "In a return letter to Aivar Slutsis Kristovskis writes that he approves “both his assessment and vision of the situation”."; (iii) "In another message the American doctor speaks about Latvia’s national policy on the whole and voices his concern over the loyalty of some Latvian politicians towards Russians as “white and Christians”." In other words, from this source is clear that Kristovskis specifically agreed with Slūcis' comments on withholding medical treatment for ethnic Russians, and not on citizenship review and repatriation. I admit that this source, as well as similar contemporary Russian sources, can be wrong, however, that is the problem with this source, not with Igny's edit. If you will be able to prove that the source was wrong, then your edits were not whitewashing, but just an attempt to fix inaccuracy. However, if you fail to demonstrate that, your edits is whitewashing, independently of your actual intents (which may be quite noble).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've already explained that I corrected inaccuracy, the " KasJauns " link includes Lapsa specifically indicating what Kristovskis agreed with . It was not withholding medical treatment for Russians.
 * The Russian press report cited prior does not indicate specifically what Kristovskis agreed with, implying it was pretty much everything Slūcis wrote (and then adding more of Slucis' commentary for good effect). The problem is both in the source and Igny's charges of whitewashing and that I know quite well that I'm whitewashing and pretending I'm not.
 * Really, what is the purpose for your escalating this? There's nothing further for me to "demonstrate" that I need to state to prevent you from piling on the "Vecrumba whitewashes Latvian Russophobia" bandwagon—or do I misunderstand "if you fail to demonstrate that, your edits [sic.] is whitewashing"? P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Question to Paul Siebert: you said you're not interested in this topic area. So why exactly did you arrive here? Nanobear (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Re N and V why.I did not ask Paul to participate in this discussion here. I am not particularly interested in this debate with Vecrumba over his removal of a sourced information in that article to begin with. However I can see perfectly well why Paul became interested in this discussion considering Vecrumba's history of unfounded accusation of his opponents in lack of civility while at the same time defending other editor's apparent rude behavior. I think Paul just investigated whether this particular accusation by Vecrumba's has any basis. Obviously it does not. (Igny (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC))
 * @Igny, just checking regarding "lacking basis". Do you mean
 * accusing an editor of "whitewashing" multiple times (including "pretending" not to be whitewashing) does not constitute grossly uncivil behavior;
 * you stand by your accusation of whitewashing that I am misrepresenting, not correcting, content to avoid BLP issues yet accurately reflect what the releasing source states was specifically in the correspondence (which is still unflattering);
 * or both.
 * I just want to know where we stand. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Vecrumba, Interestingly enough, you do not question why I am accusing you of the double standards with regard to your judging civility of others. (Igny (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC))


 * @ Peters. Again, if under "the Russian press report" you mean the source I quoted, this source specifically indicates that Kristovskis agreed with withholding of medical treatment. I admit that this source can be wrong, however, you haven't proved that so far. Unless it has been demonstrated, I see no problems with Igny edits.
 * @ Igny. I am not sure if "whitewashing" is totally appropriate term here. Please, focus on what concretely is wrong with Peters' edits. As a rule, people start to focus on the opponent's behaviour when their own arguments are exhausted.
 * @ Nanobear. I arrived here to leave some comments. If you found my answer too general, feel free to ask more concrete question.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, per the citation:
 * Lapsa arī vērsa uzmanību, ka ārlietu ministrs Kristovskis "piekrīt vērtējumam un redzējumam", kad Slucis ierosina "iesaldēt un pārskatīt visas pēc 1991.gada izsniegtās pilsonības ar domu lielāko daļu no tām atņemt".
 * Lapsa also directed (specific) attention (to the fact) that foreign minister Kristovskis "agrees with [his] assessment and vision" when Slūcis advocates "to freeze and to review all citizenships granted after 1991 with the thought to revoke the larger part of them."

There is no agreeing with withholding medical care for Russians. The Russian news story makes Kristovskis out to as agreeing with everything Slūcis advocates and with something in particular that Kristovskis did not agree with. Igny's source constitutes a BLP violation. If you want to write content that the Russian press has made the unsubstantiated allegation that Kristovskis agreed with denying medical care to Russians, that is all that is factual regarding Igny's source. I didn't think we were in the business of creating content with allegations against living individuals which cannot be substantiated. You find where Lapsa, the releasing journalist, states Kristovskis also agreed with denying medical care to Russians, please feel free to add that source at that time. WP is not a venue for republishing every Russian newspaper headline that screams invectives at Latvians.
 * @Igny, unless you respond directly to my inquiry I can only draw the conclusion that you believe accusations of whitewashing and then "pretending" not to on top of it are perfectly acceptable. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

In the paragraph you added and translated above I marked the key word
 * Lapsa also directed (specific) attention to the fact...

Thus you have so far failed to substantiate your opinion that There is no agreeing with withholding medical care for Russians.. Could you now provide your translation of the first paragraph please?
 * Atbildi uz minēto vēstuli PS un "Vienotības" priekšsēdētājs, pašreizējais ārlietu ministrs Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis sāka ar vārdiem: "Piekrītu tavam redzējumam un vērtējumam." 

If I understood Google's translation correctly, Kristovskis started his reply to Slucis with "I agree with your vision and evaluation." which pretty much supports the news report that
 * In a return letter to Aivar Slutsis Kristovskis writes that he approves “both his assessment and vision of the situation”

together with its conclusions. (Igny (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

Considering that we have reliable secondary sources reporting and commenting on the damning correspondence by Kristoskis, and there is an original (primary source) posted online. I now can respond to your question above, Vecrumba. I stand by my accusation of you whitewashing the event. And I do not think you can hide behind the BLP rules here because I was very careful to be as close to the RS as possible in my edit. (Igny (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Upon looking through the source Peters refers to (the Lapsa's website), I have to say that the source does not support Peters' conclusion. The first para (translated to English) says:
 * "Kā zināms, līdzšinējo skandālu radījuši partijas vadītāja Ģirta Valda Kristovska vārdi „piekrītu tavam redzējumam un vērtējumam” atbildē Sluča vēstulei, kurā ASV ārsts izsakās, ka „kā ārsts es nevarētu ārstēt krievus vienlīdzīgi latviešiem Latvijā”." (It is known that the current scandal led to the party leader Girts Valdis Kristovskis' words "I agree with your vision and evaluation" in reply to the letter, in which U.S. doctors are speaking out that "as a doctor I would not treat the Russians equally to the Latvian Latvians).
 * Probably, Peters can provide some additional explanations?
 * In addition, this incident seems to be extensively discussed in the Russian part of the .lv domain. It is highly unlikely that both Russian news agencies and Russian speaking Latvian citizens concurrently misinterpreted this information in the same manner.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

1R
Communist terrorism is on a one revert restriction, please self revert. first revert second revert Also as was pointed out on talk he is a historian, please do not enter the wrong information into the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

See Here The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR
You are now on 4 reverts on the Douglas pike article, please self revert. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

could you do me a favour?
Could you do me a favour? Have a look at my last edits on the Boris Berezovsky talk page, and the Aeroflot article, and tell me what course of action I am supposed to take here? If you look at the current arbitration amendment request, it is clear to see that I am being accused of still beating my wife by numerous editors, and look at the suggestions by Volunteer Marek, Colchicum, Vecrumba and Collect (who claims he is uninvolved and neutral still).

It is obviously I am being provoked, as seen by harrassment by User:Kolokol1 and User:Off2riorob in the last couple of days which administrators attended to), and now the latest provocation, which will duly be reported to AE I am certain. Isn't it very, very funny that I am editing the article on Berezovsky, and having to deal with an admitted associate of Berezovsky who is whitewashing the article, and when I bring up the issue of embezzlement by Berezovsky, the next thing to occur is Biophys comes along and makes that provocative edit, particularly after I have been working on the article, rewriting it, creating new material, User:Russavia/Aeroflot, User:Russavia/SU fleet, it is a provocation on his behalf, and I am certain it is going to be used against me, in order to show that I am a disruptive son of a bitch who needs to be removed.

Can you please look at this, and tell me what you think my course of action should be? I am thinking of just fucking off and leaving because of this bullshit. Advice appreciated. Russavia Let's dialogue 05:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @Igny. I am keeping very low profile in this area to avoid the trouble. I just made a few quick fixes in articles related to Berezovsky, after talking with Kolokol1. That was a legitimate edit, and I edited this article before. I do not mind if Russavia edits the same article; he only should not revert me like this (just as I never reverted edits by Russavia lately). Biophys (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning
You have reached 3RR at the Baltic states article with your latest replacement of the useless POV tag. I ask you to self-revert, as the rules on edit war are noted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Warning?
What exactly are you warning me about? Which revert today or yeterday or even the day before has gotten you so riled up? Do not leave random warnings on my talk page without the courtesy of explaining what it is that has offended you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism
I saw that you reverted another editor's removal of a POV tag. He removed the tag on the basis that there was no current dispute on the talk page. That is a valid basis for removal of the tag. However, the simple resolution is to simply state a basis on the talk page for the tag. If there is no current dispute, the tag doesn't really belong there. Mamalujo (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation
Dear Igny: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Steven Zhang, at their talk page.

AE request
The statement "I will add more comments here after the WP:EEML team rushes here for TLAM's defence and mud slinging." was uncalled for. What EEML team are you referring to? Who exactly? You should also not presume. It's probably not a good idea, in a request against a user about their battleground behavior to make battleground-y comments yourself.  Volunteer Marek  01:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not going to take these words back. Do you want me to provide diffs on how MArtin and Vecrumba defended appalling (to say the least) behaviour by TLAM, Tentontunic and others in the past? Not to mention all the mud slinging against Paul Siebert. What is it, EEML pressure tactic all over again? (Igny (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC))


 * That's two editors. Just like you and Paul are two editors. And people take sides. You're tag teaming with Paul across half a dozen articles from what I can see. Not saying you're coordinating it or anything but you are backing each other up and supporting each others' edits on these articles.  Volunteer Marek   02:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not just them, always uninvolved and always cheerful Collect comes to mind as well. When I mentioned EEML I meant their tactics rather than some specific editors, actual members of the mailing list. (Igny (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC))
 * At best, that's unclear.  Volunteer Marek   02:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with VM; I didn't not expect such poor wording from you :( You were always one of the more composed editors in the area, please, try to avoid mentioned the EEML epithet in the future discussions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * While I might have worded it differently, and probably should have done so, I am not taking my comment back for a number of reasons. First and foremost, do not pretend that EEML never happened. Even though most of the EEML members are no longer involved in such activities, I am sure that some still are. So there is no other way to refer to the EEML tactics still in use by Martin, Vecrumba, TLAM, and a number of others but by mentioning the EEML case. Second of all I am well aware of all the consequences of me claiming that the EEML tactics is still in force. I fully understand that such allegations may result in me banned from the Wikipedia. However, if anyone investigates the recent activity by Martin, Vecrumba, TLAM with respect to the content issues, with respect to each other and with respect to their opponents, they would notice the same tactics, the same patterns. Just look at how Martin and Vecrumba defended marknutley, TLAM and Tentontunic in the past, and how they threw mud at one of the most respectable WP editors, Paul Siebert. Also I am 100% sure that it was Martin, Vecrumba and may be others who appealed the TLAM's block and petitioned ArbCom behind the community's back and persuaded Arbcom lift the block. When things like that still happen, such as advocating political agenda at expense of scholarly approach, that really dashed my hopes of the better Wikipedia as an encyclopedia free of propaganda. I am about to give up on WP. Martin together with TLAM can chalk it up as score 1 for EEML for all I care. (Igny (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC))
 * Was Nutley even around during the EEML thing? I looked at his history, he seemed more into climate change denial at first then when banned from that moved across to articles related to communism. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Igny, as a result of this AE thread, you are banned from all articles which relate to Eastern Europe, (broadly interpreted, and including talk pages and other discussions about those articles) for a period of six months. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and keep up your good work. (Igny (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC))