User talk:Miacek/Archives/2012/June

You are deleting Rankovicism now? It is being used now in other articles
On the article Socialist Party of Serbia we have just agreed today to use the term in the infobox. It is used in the article on the League of Communists of Serbia. It is well-referenced, it clearly describes that Rankovic's politics were popular, it describes the significance of it, and it describes that his agenda continued after his death. Deletion of this article is unacceptable.--R-41 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. You have zero sources for the claim that SPS was 'Rankovićist'. Pure OR.Estlandia (dialogue) 13:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem highly aggressive and combative on this. The SPS' founder and first leader Milosevic has been reviewed as having an agenda linked to Rankovic's politics. Look at reference 108 on this page and this reference: . And if you disagree with its use in one article, then why are you deleting the entire article on Rankovicism that is well sourced?--R-41 (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * this source you linked actually juxtaposes Milošević' and Ranković policies. And even if there were similarities (which I don't doubt there were), this does not mean we could classify SPS or League of Communist as 'Rankovićist' - a total neologism with no support in sources. Estlandia (dialogue) 14:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No it is not a neologism, the term was coined in the SFRY and used as early as the 1960s, the sources in the article demonstrate this. Here is the use of the term in 1969, here it is used in 1974 , here it is in 1977 here it is in 1985 .--R-41 (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Socialist Party of Serbia
The addition of Rankovićism is subject to consensus found at the bottom of Talk:Socialist Party of Serbia. It was being discussed over a very long period in which time you made no suggestions and no contribution. I recommend that if you oppose the term, you assert your views on the discussion first because at the moment, you are presenting yourself as the antagonist - reverting work that has been in development for weeks. Furthermore, it appears you are not only reverting the term Rankovićism which may seem more constructive, but you are deleting the full works of the editor and this is regarded as blanking. Not acceptable. The way I see the situation is this, you have already nominated the article for deletion, let's see the outcome of that - if it be deleted per your suggestion, we'll revise every entry containing the term. Until then, can you please leave the sections in accorance with the consensus. Thank you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Consensus or no consensus (there are just two of you) - you are constantly adding a totally unsourced notion into the infobox.Estlandia (dialogue) 17:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, you are misusing the revert button: this functions is meant solely for simple vandalism. Misusing it has already led to the privilege being withdrawn in the past.Estlandia (dialogue) 18:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not going to use it on you again (it's just for simplicity - no offence intended). Wikipedia does not work on a "consensus or no consensus, I do what I like" basis. I only suggest we await a result on the deletion request and I promise you, if it be deleted, we will remove the entry everywhere. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ever heard of WP:OR or WP:V? Estlandia (dialogue) 18:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Both. However, I am convinced that this is not the case here. You have done the correct thing by nominating the page and I am simply awaiting more contributions. I have nothing more to say there but I will respect the outcome and that is a promise, there will be no resistence from me if it goes the other way. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Islamophobia
Please explain why you want to exclude Eurabia from Template:Islamophobia on the talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit war over Eurabia
Your resumption of the edit war over Eurabia has been reported at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Seventeen Moments of Spring
I am that article's author. My account was compromised yesterday as I left the computer while being logged on when my twelve-year-old nephew was nearby. I didn't even notice he tampered with anything, but upon entering today I realized what happened. Sorry. Anyway, I re-reverted your edit and restored my last version. Many thanks and keep safeguarding the site. Bahavd Gita (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You last removal of POV-tag
I noticed you just removed the POV tag from the Occupation of the Baltic states article. I don't think this is a correct step, taking into account the POV dispute on the article's talk page. The main arguments of one party are still not answered, and by doing the revert without bringing new arguments and thoughts you just join an edit war, which is unproductive. I recommend you to self-revert. Hope to productively collaborate with you in future. Best regards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I demur. Igny just got off of a lengthy topic ban from all East Europe articles - and we ought not "enable" this behaviour. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Miacek, I would strongly recommend you to remove you revert on Occupation of the Baltic states. If you review it history you would notice that you are in direct violation of WP:3RR rule as well as (together with Collect and Martin) in violation of WP:TEAM. Consider this as a warning that such edits are unacceptable on WP, in part per policies which I referred to here. (Igny (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC))
 * He is not in any such "violation" and issuing such a "warning" is contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would urge you to remember you just got off a long topic ban - and jumping right into the topic you were banned from is not especially wise.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you did that again. I respectfully request you to self-revert (or not to revert Igny).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)