User talk:Miacek/Archives/2009/March

Speedy deletion of Vladimir Hütt
A tag has been placed on Vladimir Hütt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Vistro (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on March 2 2009 to Liberal Democratic Party of Russia
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) 23:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Curiously enough, I was in fact blocked indefinitely, see my blocklog. As has been observed by me and other users, mr Connolley is getting unacceptably careless and should better have some break in his sysop activities. Instead of the initially intended 24 hour block, in effect, by the time I can edit again, I will have been blocked for 32 (!) hours due to William Connolly's mistakes. The idiotic thing is that I created an article yesterday that is going to be deleted if I don't prove its notability today. How can I do it, if I'm currently blocked (for having reverted party propaganda). -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 09:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, the guy that has declined your unblock request is not an admin, he is an obscure vandal, now permabanned. I have reverted him. Colchicum (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have shortened your block to approx. 24 hours after the original block time. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The unblock has now been rejected by an admin but the length changed so as to fit the original length of 24 hours. Wikipedia's rules established long time ago often make no sense anymore, even more frequently, they contradict each other. Claiming that 'content dispute' is not vandalism is OK, however, common sense also says that you can't have a content dispute where the 'content' has no sources (which again, is what WP:V tells us). Thus, there are ways hoaxes or deliberate factual errors can be introduced here, pretending a presence of a 'content dispute' and organizing fellow-minded people. An example I face almost every day is someone from the IP range 87. ... and recently also 83. .... This user represents a borderline case of trolling (does not equal vandalism) / hoaxing (=vandalism). I can only get the users uncountable IPs blocked because he has been as reckless as to use sock puppets, which is (again) against rules. Edits like this one are IMO not only disruptive but introduce factual errors, but, alas, they can be qualified as 'content dispute' (unlike patent vandalism by the very user).-- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 13:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you suspect sockpuppetry, you can request an investigation at WP:SPI. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please unblock me, finally! I am not going to publish my IP here for anyone to check, hence I leave the 1= row blank. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 08:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the article
I have explained the changes on J. delanoy's page. I will post it here for you.

Compare my version with yours.

first change: mentioning that Hess is considered a martyr by the party. Why you don't think this is important, why it should not be mentioned so as to say why the NPD has a picture of Hess there, is beyond me.

6000 is not an exact figure, it is an estimate. The JLO says around 7. The NPD says 7 or 8. The media has said at least 6.

Nobody met the demonstrators - again, meet suggests confrontation. There was another rally in the middle of the city held by antifa. There were two demos held the previous days, too. One was anti the other was nationalist. So what? None of this is important.

the section "alleged intimidation attempts is not even about intimidation.

a concert cannot declare itself an "anti-fascist" concert, the organizer calls it that.

What does it mean to "exert party influence"? That sentence is very awkward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.196.41 (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Autoblocked
The block was an accident, please remove autoblock. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 09:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 10:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Russian constitutional crisis, 1993
Hi, Miacek! Thanks for the note, but the protection I imposed was basically due to the fact that the revert war was going on (I'm not taking any sides, mind you). Locking up an article is the very first step to stopping that madness. Please try to work out a compromise with DR2006kl while the protection is in effect&mdash;I understand the problems you described above, but making just one more good-faith effort to resolve the issue at hand amicably never hurt anyone. If this two-week lock-down leads nowhere, we'll try other methods of resolving this (and if you prefer a different administrator to get involved, please let me know beforehand&mdash;I'll step aside). Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:51, March 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. The version right now is more or less ok, as I managed to introduce some ref's today and remove some more dubious cn-tagged sentences. I'll just collect information in the meantime, the other user only edits once in a blue moon, so if he presents any different sources & opinions at talk, oh right. If not, I can just ignore him. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 14:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

stop russian parties on base of the preconception to accuse of nationalism or I shall begin too most do with polish party Gnomsovet (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Если Вы хотите продолжать вносить свой вклад здесь, научитесь для начала связывать слова по-английски. Честно говоря, я не понял ни хуя из того, что Вы сейчас сказали, и еще меньше из того, что Вы пытались добавить в статью. Так понятно? Colchicum (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Communist Party of the Russian Federation
Miacek, use talk page of the article to substantiate your opinion. Your reference concerning CPRF ideology become old-fashioned 10 years ago!Nut1917 (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ху ар ю ;-)? I've substantiated my opinion by giving academic or at least reliable sources. My references are as up-to-date as they were ten years ago. Or would someone argue that the party had again moved to orthodox marxist positions?! Hardly. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 18:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I dislike KPRF, but here you're completely wrong. Do you come from outside Europe? FeelSunny (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I come from Europe and am quite a cosmopolitan. As a (somewhat) political scientist, I'd personally evaluate the party as left-wing nationalist. In fact, the party's program (and ideology) is in many aspects closer to nazism and fascism, also to democratic socialism, than it is to traditional marxism, let alone Western European new left trends (that are all more or less anarchistic). That the CPRF is not Marxist at all, is shown by various authors I've cited. I wouldn't say I particularly dislike the CPRF. I dislike Marxism and orthodox communism (thus, CPSU) much more. In short, the party plays on Russian nationalist emotions (every nation has nationalist tendencies), it combines traditional Russian (ultra)nationalist mythology (evil, spiritless, 'rotten' Zapad etc, 'global Zionist conspiracies!') with some post-Marxist demagoguery ('compradorian regime in Russia!'). In general orthodox communism is even worse than nationalism, the former (I mean precisely in theory) being complete nonsense, the latter, well, just ubiquitous emotional crap. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 17:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're a (somewhat) political scientist, consider this to be a field report then from your Russian correspondent. In Russia, party programmes mean nothing. Unfortunately, people got so disappointed after 1990ies that noone beleives no party now. Please beleive me, for I am a sociologist and have a PhD in media analysis.


 * So no matter what is written there in the KPRF programme, they are neither fascists, nor populists. They are not for or against migration, for example.


 * However I would argue they are not at all Marxsists. They still are marxists, though, of course, it's not the same as in 19th century. Anyway, ask yourself, who is not a Marxsist in this world since 2008? FeelSunny (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No problems with you
No problems with you ==

Hi Miacek, I've noticed the ranting going on at Digwuren's talk page in relation to my editing, and I see that you posted there, in that I mentioned your name somewhere. Note, whilst I have mentioned your name at believe you refer to my AE prep page, just know that I don't have anything against you either personally nor as an editor; I believe we are both attuned to why we are here as editors, and don't have a problem in my interactions with yourself, now or in the future. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 15:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. A good thing to do is to concentrate on creating new content, keep temporarily away from disputes where an aggressive minority currently holds power (which is why I removed CPRF from my watchlist) and not to intervene too much in topics where you have actually little interest (I have Boris Yeltsin in my watchlist, but won't get involved yet). A new arbitration case is likely to exhaust every participants' energy for months, as did the last Piotrus case. Additionally, it is likely to end with general statements like 'incivility is baaaaad' and 'npov is of vital importance' (d'uh!) and a some of the people involved will get reprimanded. Cheers, -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 15:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

At least some minimal standards of formatting, neutrality and just lay-out must be followed. The article at hand does none of this
Its quite irrational conclusion  from ure  side  - I,m sure u are well established intellectualy to handle the subject  about what we are talking hier  no doubt about that. Let me enlighten u little bit. This aticle its written by me and was published in scientific journal 3 years ago .Is it possible that editor of the journal was  simply  too stupid to notice what u have found out?

In estonian wikpedia   most of erticles about buddhism have my influence so to speak  so whats ure problem because u start  on such a nice way our  creative conversation   .And of course u have to speak estonian  at least to understand whats written there or is it  ure deep interest what I,m doing hier in  english wikipeadia.Just dont get too paranoic   let people do their jobb hier.

Unrightful revertion of my edits and unrightful vandalism warning by You
I made only 3 edits on a single page within a 24 hour period (see diff) (see diff) (see diff)  and my previous edit to these three edits was made more than 36,5 hours before the first one of these three edits (see diff). three-revert rule allows me to make 3 edits. It seems You have tuned Your Twinkle program uncorrectly. WorldReporter (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)