User talk:Miacek/Archives/2011/October

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys
By motion voted upon at Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: "The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Miacek."

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio  Let's talk about it! 01:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Discuss this

Don't be an asshole
Cut out the personal attacks. These kinds of edit summaries, especially coming from someone like you, are simply not acceptable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please stop removing perfectly valid stuff just because it doesn't fit you Polish 'Derzhavist' sentiments. There have been many glorious events in the Polish history, but there have been events that aren't that great. Trying to conceal those whilst endlessly whining about real or imagined injustice done to Poles by Germans or Russians is sort of hypocritical. As for “especially coming from someone like you” this is kinda pointless an argument. I'm definitely no supporter of Russian or German nationalism and nor am I polonophobe. I'm just someone who'd let the history be as it was, instead of trying to whitewash one side and smear the other, as some guys are doing.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You didn't even bother looking at the talk page before reverting. All that junk was put in by Vlad F. and it's a dubious mischaracterization of sources. It's his usual POV pushing nonsense. You did not participate in that discussion or make any comment except insults and false accusations in the edit summary. You just reverted it because it was anti-Polish and you seem to have some kind of a weird obsession on the point of Poles.


 * And remember. *I* was on the EEML list with you - though at the time I (unfortunately) didn't pay much attention to the messages you were sending, so *I do actually know* what your politics are like; and it's not what you're trying to pretend on Wikipedia, now or before . And you REALLY need to quit attacking people for being "nationalist" (in your own mind) on Wikipedia. How would you feel if the next time I reverted one of your edits I used the edit summary (basically reverting POV-pushing once again purssued by users who recommend Holocaust denial websites as good reading). The only difference being of course that some edit summaries are true and some are not.Hypothetically speaking of course.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * “so *I do actually know* what your politics are like; ” - funny, what did you then conclude if it's not s secret? Only recently did Biophys sugegst my politics were similar to Russavia's: I disagree, I do not support the political party he does! As for “reverting POV-pushing once again purssued by users who recommend Holocaust denial websites as good reading” it would be simply defamation, as I've never done anything like that nor has anyone but you (in Aug. last year) hinted to such an option. It would basically the same kind og 'argument' the representatives of SAFKA here would present a couple of years ago (but have since given up it seems). As for supposed nationalism on your group's part, I think that it's not just me who sees it this way, but well, even arbs seem to look upon it as such (last time they used the wording 'national conflicts' or 'tag-team edit warring' though). The next Arbcom will fortunately curtail such activities further, I hope so at least. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Carl O. Nordling.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't remember ever having linked this amateur historian's works. But the bio on him lists the article Did Stalin deliver his alleged speech of 19 August 1939?, which I've read. It was published in the reputable Journal of Slavic Military Studies, so if you have a trouble with that author's opinions on that matter or believe him to be spreading Holocaust denial, you might want to contact David M. Glantz on that matter in order to express your utter contempt to him for enabling Nordling to publish in his journal (Volume 19, Number 1, March 2006, pp. 93-106(14). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You might wanna see the article on the guy. I'd link to the actual essay you recommended but i really don't want to link to that kind of trash on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For me it's never been a problem considering the opinions of people who have their articles published in peer-reviewed journals like the one I listed above. Was it actually an article other than the one published in Glantz's journal that I recommended? I'd actually like to see it, 'cause I really don't remember. And of course, much of Nordling's theories are close to pseudoscience (I mean, he's even been writing on demography!), but what does it prove? Some of his opinions warrant discussion in specialist journals, other might be real crap. That's it. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright then, since you insist, I will refresh your memory. This is the essay you were recommending to people, in which Nordlinger heaps praise upon Robert Faurisson ("who is a notorious Holocaust denier"). The essay itself was originally published in a Holocaust Denial journal, called The Revisionist. So no, it's not like you were recommending Nordlinger's stuff from some legit military history journal, while unaware that he also just happened to have written "other stuff".Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article you link here has many points, from Big Bang to refutation of 'peaceloving Stalin' myth. The word Holocaust even doesn't occur in the piece. And the argument he makes concerning Stalin is exactly the same he's made in the Glantz's magazine. Your just bringing this up to draw connexions that aren't there: I still don't know in which context and where did i link it, but if I did, I did it to illustrate the points on MRP - the fact that this time he could publish this article in some revisionist paper and not in Journal of Slavic Military studies doesn't undermine his views an Stalin. It's also funny that you in contrast not only link to stuff published on non-reputable sites, but even use them as references - if they fit your goal. I mean Anton Maegerle, who has posted his denunciations both on far-left sites and acceptable German media.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article you link here has many points - whatever.
 * And personally I'm not gonna apologize for Anton Maegerle. Quite a bit different than a Holocaust denier like Nordling, don't you think?Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop referring to Nordling as an Holocaust denier, unless you have credible and reputable sources to that end? Or do you sincerely believe Holocaust deniers would be publishing in Journal of Slavic Military Studies? As for Maegerle, I'm now gonna take this matter up again, since I found some acceptable sources. PS. Where those insinuations everything that you could dig from our correspondance in order to discredit me? If that's all the ammunition you had, it wasn't much worth the effort, I'm afraid. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, so publishing an essay in a Holocaust Denial journal, in praise of a notorious Holocaust denier does not qualify one as a Holocaust denialist? Ok.
 * Honestly, I don't even remember where I used Maegerle. And you see, the difference here is that my "insinuations" have a basis (Nordling etc.). Your insinuations don't - they are just plain old personal attacks made for that same reason as always, to justify POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your arguments get worse with every post. If having sth published in The Revisionist (I have no idea what kind of a journal is it) “qualif[ies] one as a Holocaust denialist” for once and for all, why doesn't it work the other way - I mean by that logic would the fact of having published a paper in a reputable journal like the once I referred to above immediately make one a specialist in the field of Slavic military history?! Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Think about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Pop quiz

 * 1) Are you a regular Joe with a regular job?
 * 2) Are you an average white suburbanite slob?
 * 3) Do you like football and porno and books about war?
 * 4) Do you have an average house with a nice hardwood floor?
 * 5) Do you have a wife and a job, kids and a car?
 * 6) Do you put your feet on your table with a Cuban cigar?
 * 7) Do you drive really slow in the ultra fast lane?
 * 8) While people behind you are going insane?
 * 9) Do you use public toilets and piss on the seat?
 * 10) Do you walk around in the summertime saying "How about this heat?"?
 * 11) Do you sometimes park in handicapped spaces?
 * 12) Whilst handicapped people make handicapped faces?


 * 1) Are you gonna get a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado convertible, hot pink, with whale skin hubcaps and all leather cow interior with big brown baby seal eyes for headlights?
 * 2) Are you gonna drive that baby around at 115 miles an hour, getting 1 mile a gallon, sucking down quarter pounder cheeseburgers from Mcdonalds in old fashioned non biodegradable styrofoam containers?
 * 3) And when you're done sucking down those grease ball burgers are you gonna wipe your mouth with the American flag and then toss those styrofoam containers rights out the side?
 * 4) And did you know that there ain't a god damned thing anybody can do about it?
 * 5) Do you know why? Because we got the bombs, that's why!

PLUS BECAUSE....

You're an asshole, he's an asshole, what an asshole.

A-S-S-H-O-L-E, EVERYBODY

A-S-S-H-0-L-E

You're an asshole, and be proud of it! --Russavia Let's dialogue 15:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Russavia, while you may not be banned from interacting with Miacek, you ARE still banned from interacting or referring to me. So observe the ban.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Die Freiheit
Hello Miacek.

Instead of putting an edit war template on my talk page, it would have been helpful to read the discussion about the article. Bellatores (who really is not under the suspicion to be a left-winger) and I agreed on a compromise, not to include any ideology labels in the infobox, as long as there are no scholarly studies yet. Could you be okay with that, too? Kind regards. And please say hello to your crime-fighting dog! --RJFF (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, have I stated anywhere that the problem with you is you being left-wing? Nope. The problem is that you've been causing some problems with your arbitrary classifications/removals /interpretations of sources (like here, ). Discarding the self-identification of the party + similar classification as per newspapers with reasons like 'we reached the consensus not to' or 'only time can tell' are not valid reasons for removal. Bitte denk doch darüber nach! Miacek and his crime-fighting dog  (woof!) 08:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Miacek,

I would like to invite you to comment on my latest proposal on the article's talk page. It is important to me to edit the article with your consent. Have a nice day! --RJFF (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Miacek,

I thank you very much for the second beautiful and very helpful edit war template on my talk page. I do not know how I earned it, but I am very sure that I earned it. I am hopeful that more and more of these templates will really improve the design of my talk page! I wish you a very nice day. --RJFF (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I added the template, so that you'd avoid breaking the 3 RR (a no-go!). As you've ceased edit-warring and got the message anyhow, I'll undo my revision now (I had actually counted 3 reverts, whilst you in fact reverted twice(not that just reverting twice would be OK, but still.).Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic States
Hey Miacek, I guess I should ask you what you think about Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states. Do you think this could go some way to beginning to achieving some NPOV on this article? I think that allowing both sides to put forward their arguments for and against, and then letting the rest of the community achieve some consensus is a good idea. What do you think? --Russavia Let's dialogue 20:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)