User talk:Miacek/Archives/2009/July

UDSS
Sorry, I can't outright block a user whose interactions I did not get a chance to observe over a reasonable amount of time and whose contributions are not obvious vandalism. Yesterday was the first time I stumbled upon this user's posting (on the LDPR talk page), and while I do see a definite pattern of his/her contributions, the actual number of edits s/he made, in my opinion, is far from the disruption threshold. If anything, the user demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge/understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which is hardly a blockable offense (not without prior attempts to educate the user in these areas, anyway). However, if, based on your previous interactions with the user, you don't believe a content/policy-wise discussion with this user is going to lead anywhere, please escalate the matter to WP:ANI. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:42, June 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Exclave merger
Certainly I do not claim to have an authoritative vote on redirecting articles, but, seeing this, you could have tried to explore the situation yourself rather than simply reverting my (yes, overbold) edit. If I understand the matters right, exclave was merged together with enclave back in 2006 into enclave and exclave; the new article has substantially evolved since then, but not so long ago a user (not an IP, but with small edit count) decided to revive the old version. The latter consequently displayed some outdated arrangement in comparison to enclave and exclave and moreover promoted some forking etc. So what do you think? BTW, you should mind WP:BITE; maybe I'm only an IP now, but once I've been quite an active user... though now degraded to a wikiogre) 94.29.49.250 (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

-- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Our Lady of Kazan
I just discovered (because it's on the main page today) an edit of yours dating from December 2008. Because your addition was factual it has been allowed to remain. However, the result of your edit is to destroy the sense of two paragraphs which follow on from each other, because you haven't considered properly where the best place is, to put in your information. This is careless and obtrusive editting.


 * After the Russian Revolution of 1917, there were plenty of theories speculating that the original icon was in fact preserved in St. Petersburg and later sold by the Bolsheviks abroad. Although such theories were not credited by the Russian Orthodox church, one of several reputed originals (dated by experts to ca. 1730) was acquired by the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima and enshrined in Fátima, Portugal in the 1970s. Reportedly, an icon of Our Lady of Kazan was used in processions around Leningrad fortifications during the Siege of Leningrad.(your addition)
 * In 1993, the icon was given to Pope John Paul II, who took it to the Vatican and had it installed in his study, where it was venerated by him for eleven years.''

Which icon was given to Pope Paul II? The one enshrined in Fatima in the 1970s, or the one paraded around Leningrad in the 1940s? Amandajm (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your useless rhetorics aside, I agree that the distinction should be made between the copy that was used in processions during the war and the so-called Fatima one (my source mentions both http://books.google.com/books?id=FzCocsh3bQUC&pg=PA37&dq=leningrad+siege+icon&lr=&as_brr=3&as_pt=ALLTYPES). -- Miacek (t) 11:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Fatima icon = the one given to the pope (op cit, p. 38) Miacek  (t) 11:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Watch out
Commies are coming. Colchicum (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All kinds of interesting people becoming active again :D We'll see, if Jacob Peters also has some new IP addresses to impress us! As to 172, his edit to 1993 crisis was as close to vandalism as we are likely to get from an experienced user: he basically threw into waste basket everything that had been made during the period his account was dormant. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Miacek,

I am disappointed to see the comments above. I am not some partisan editor, definitely not a communist. I am a Western academic dedicated to improving the quality of any article to which I am qualified to contribute. Frankly, I would appreciate an apology. I appreciate your recent contributions; and I am willing to work with you in good faith to improve the quality of the article. My edits, by the way, were not a reversion to an order version of the article. Please notice that I have been trying to synthesize the better aspects of recent edits and an older version of the article. Please, let’s focus on working together to improve the article, and improve the tone of the recent discussion. 172 | Talk 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not argued you're a commie, though a random edit of yours, might give one food of thought. As for collaborative efforts with you, I previously indeed thought it's possible, but you've made me rather skeptical with your recent acts. BTW, if it's not blind reverting, how did you even manage to get all external links deleted + categories that were added later than 2008? Come to your senses - if you wish to improve the article, start with the version that was there before your return, not with pointless erasures.

Regards, -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I find the "food for thought" remark insulting. I have opposed POV pushers regardless of ideology. Have you seen my contributions against communist POV-pushers on the Cuba articles ? ... I will restore the categories and external links. But there is no reason to revert all of my recent changes. I find it hard for anyone to not notice the improvement in the writing quality of the article and the tighter focus. 172 | Talk 19:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing sources information the way you did qualifies as vandalism. Instead of removing my sourced additions made from November 2008 - April 2009, you should have started with cutting down your own prose that lacked any sources whatsoever. I have already added a complaint on your behaviour and please, do not use my talk page for this issue any more, but comment on 1993 crisis talk page - this is the way you should have started. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I am one of the interesting people becoming active. I found myself wondering whatever had happened to and when I checked his recent contributions found him up to his usual edit warring on Totalitarianism where he replaced the current version with a two year old version which he prefers. His edit warring over that and similar subjects has been going on for many years. Fred Talk 23:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)