User talk:Nanobear~enwiki/Archive4

Wikibreak
I'm taking a wikibreak until next year. I intend not to check my watchlist until then, so if you have something important to say, please use email. For some reason, editing doesn't feel rewarding enough right now. Therefore, I'm taking a break in an attempt to regain motivation. Offliner (talk) 08:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Happy (coming) New Year, Offliner!!! ellol (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Have fun! Hope to see you back next year.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:33, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm back now. I recently reread the article Gazprom (of which I think I have written over 50%), and found it great (although it still has problems.) A friend of mine concurred. Maybe that is reward enough. Offliner (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Re : Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.


 * User:Piotrus resigned the administrator tools during the case proceedings and may only seek to regain adminship by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
 * User:Piotrus is banned for three months. At the conclusion of his ban, a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed, shall take effect.
 * User:Digwuren is banned for one year. He is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account, and advise the Arbitration Committee of the name of the account that he will use. Should he not advise the committee by the end of the one year ban, he will remain indefinitely banned until a single account is chosen.
 * User:Digwuren is placed on a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed. This shall take effect following the expiration of both above mentioned bans.
 * The following users are topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year:
 * User:Biruitorul, User:Dc76, User:Martintg, User:Miacek, User:Radeksz, User:Vecrumba, User:Tymek


 * User:Jacurek is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months.
 * User:Tymek is strongly admonished for having shared his account password. He is directed to keep his account for his own exclusive use, and not to allow any other person to use it under any circumstance.
 * The editors sanctioned above (Piotrus, Digwuren, Martintg, Tymek, Jacurek, Radeksz, Dc76, Vecrumba, Biruitorul, Miacek) are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.
 * All the participants to the mailing list are strongly admonished against coordinating on-wiki behavior off-wiki and directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public. All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Wikipedia itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 17:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - Discuss this

File copyright problem with File:LIFE biomodule test model DSC05071 JPG.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:LIFE biomodule test model DSC05071 JPG.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced categories
Please stop adding unsourced categories like you've done repeatedly. This is an online encyclopedia, not a vehicle of propaganda, and adding highly questionable categories based on your prejudices is not acceptable. Nothing in these articles warrants the category; unless you can come up with solid, reliable sources claiming that those people are victims of Estonian political repression, your actions can be considered vandalism. And I mean actual sources - not personal blogs, but court cases and academic journals. Until you have such sources, please stop. -- Sander Säde 15:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to say that your repeated policy violations give me no other choice but to file an Arbitration enforcement request. -- Sander Säde 10:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1RR limitation
Under the terms of Requests for arbitration/Digwuren and per this AE thread, I am placing you on a one revert per day limitation for all articles covered by that Arbitration case (Eastern Europe, broadly defined) for 6 months. You are prohibited from making more than one reversion per 24 hour per article, not including obvious vandalism. A reversion is any edit that substantially restores the article to prior content, whether or not it is a reversion in the purely technical sense. More importantly: All reversions must be discussed on the article talk page. Violations will result in escalating blocks. henrik • talk  13:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My reverts were enforcement of the WP:CFD policy, according to which User:Sander Säde was not allowed to remove the articles from the category while it was discussed on CfD. Getting a 1RR restriction for making 2 reverts seems pretty odd. Offliner (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The usual avenues of appeal are open to you, and if I've made a gross error I'm sure that other administrators will point it out during the time the above AE request remains open. henrik  • talk  14:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How about first explaining your reasoning for giving this sanction. Right now I'm not seeing it anywhere. I made 2 reverts on 3 articles (based on WP:CFD policy); so did User:Sander Säde, yet he was not given a restriction. I have edit warred very little since July 2009, so I don't know what the 1RR is supposed to prevent. Offliner (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll explain my reasoning and also why I did not give User:Sander Säde a corresponding restriction in this case.


 * You made six reverts, two to each article. I don't see any attempts to engage in discussion, or substantiate the claims with sourcing. Reverting the same user 6 times without discussion amounts to actionable edit warring. A reason Sander Säde did not get a corresponding restriction is that he posted discussion requests here and on the talk pages.


 * Categories_for_discussion is also not a policy page, and the guidelines there don't amount to policy. The request for sourcing was reasonable, and the BLP concerns are not patently unreasonable (thus meriting discussion), both which give User:Sander Säde policy based justification for his actions based in WP:V and WP:BLP respectively. The burden on people wanting material in biographies is always on the one inserting it. henrik  • talk  15:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any attempts to engage in discussion - this is simply not true. Did you check my comments on the CfD page? This is where the category was discussed. Sander Säde posted discussion requests on the talk pages - this is, again, simply not true (just check the talk pages.) Also, please assume good faith. My interpretation of the WP:CFD guideline was that Sander Säde's removal of the cats was wrong and this alone is the reason for the second revert. I've never seen a 1RR being given for making 6 reverts with only 2R/24h per article. Since I have reverted very little in the past months, what exactly are you trying to prevent with this restriction? You did not answer this question. Offliner (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit warring over politically charged categories, after very nearly being sanctioned for the exact same thing half a year ago is not ok. If you, as you say, revert very little, this will impose only an insignificant restriction on your editing and will expire uneventfully. 1RR and ample discussion is only an extension of normal good editing practices. This restriction was not imposed on this isolated incident, but rather on a pattern of unproductive and tendentious editing in, for example, Russian-Estonian topics. Now, admittedly, you're not alone (or even the worst) in this on either side. It's one of the trouble areas we've not yet managed to restore to some kind of order. (Apologies for the somewhat tardy reply, I wrote this comment on my laptop yesterday but obviously forgot to save) henrik  • talk  19:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems arbitrary, especially considering the leniency that Henrik showed to Termer. (Interesting how his discussion thread is right below that of Sander Säde.) Henrik provided no reason for the sanction, which was made only 3 hours after the request was made.  So it is hard evaluate because I do not understand the reasoning.  I will look over it and see if it makes any sense.  My advice is to take a day to go over what was written and apply to arbcom to reverse it.  It is usually better to wait before replying because it takes time to prepare a proper response that is comprehensive.  In the meantime I would not ask Henrik for any further clarification.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) The evidence of the AfDs shows that it might have gone the other way if not for canvassing. By the way User:Collect has posted a good essay called false consensus. But since the EEML arbitration is closed, no action can be taken against anyone. It is a good reply if anyone questions a future AfD. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you like I will look through Henrik's decision and file an appeal myself if I find that the action was unwarranted (which it appears to be). It is a lot easier to present these things when you are uninvolved. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * By all means. If you would happen to need to have any particular point clarified, please drop me a note. henrik  • talk  19:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Chapter order
(Copied over from Ezhiki's talk page): Do you think we should always place the chapters in articles of Russian federal subjects in this order? I think a standard order would be nice, but I don't know if chapter order in this guideline is well thought-out. Offliner (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This wasn't a bad idea at the time, but Wikipedia grew much since then, and even this suggested structure is not applied consistently. If you have a better structure in mind, by all means make a suggestion (just not on the WPRFS, which is dead).  While I do have some preferences of my own as to the sections order, I have nothing against a well thought out overhaul.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:03, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that order is just fine. I would maybe put "economy" before "history" since I think that is more important. The only other problem is "tourism." Obviously, information about the tourism industry needs to go to "economy", but some of the tourism chapters contain material that really doesn't belong to "economy" (such as sights, etc.) Perhaps the best solution would be to put most of the tourism info into economy, but if the article has extensive info about sights and "travel guide" -kind of material, then it should be placed in a separate chapter called "sights" or "travel." Offliner (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly whether the Economy is more important than History, but I still lean towards listing History first. We are, after all, an encyclopedia, and not an economic digest.  We are supposed to narrate things more or less in order&mdash;it makes sense to start with what/where something is (lede and Geography), followed by how it came to be (History), and then follow with how that something is doing now (including the Economy).
 * Merging Tourism with Economy, on the other hand, makes perfect sense. The economic aspect of tourism belongs in Economy anyway, and sights and travel usually don't belong at all (since Wikipedia is not a travel guide).  Plus, there are not that many sights that warrant being mentioned in articles about the federal subjects; however, if extensive info is included, it can safely be transferred to the article about the corresponding city/town.  What do you think?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:27, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether economy or history comes first is not a big deal for me. I guess in most other articles history would come first, so we can use that order. On second thought, there doesn't seem to be much non-economic tourism info in the federal subjects articles at all, so we may just as well put everything in the economy section. But this problem can exist in other area articles such as cities. It would be nice to have a standard structure for those articles as well. For example, very little of this would belong into the economy chapter. Offliner (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't call mixing sports, sights, and recreation all in one section the best approach :) Sports (at least in the city-level articles) can easily be a section on its own; Recreation (the way it currently is) needs to be cleaned up (shopping centers?  bars?  do we care?) with the remains (parks & Ferris wheel) moved to Tourism; and Tourism could become a well-defined section on its own.  Sounds to me that we need a recommendation for the structure of the city/town articles much more than we need one for the federal subjects...  WP:USCITY and WP:UKCITIES actually have very thorough guidelines as to the city articles structure; perhaps we could borrow much of it for our purposes?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:48, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need a guideline about cities. I think we could copy much of WP:USCITY. Only the economy/infrastructure division seems problematic. Shouldn't we move the federal subjects guideline to WP:RUSSIA (with the tourism modification), because no one will find it from the abandoned wikiproject? I will probably rework Noyabrsk structure in the near future. Offliner (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, just because a project is dead doesn't mean nothing there is salvageable :) Moving that guideline to WP:RUSSIA makes perfect sense.  Perhaps it would be also prudent to establish a broad geography taskforce?  Then the guidelines could be moved there, and the new guidelines could be placed there as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:10, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 G W … 12:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

99p Stores GA review
Hi, no i'm not offended by your review. You made several valid points and sometimes it helps if a 3rd party can point these out as a fresh pair of eyes. Thanks for taking the time though. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the review was fine. Hekerui (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nokian
Thank you for your review. I have worked on it today and will continue to work on it for the next week or 10 days. I hope you have not had a bad experience with Nokian tyres. I do not use Nokian tyres because they are very expensive. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Defence industry of Russia
As you'll have seen from the edit history, the article, after having all the copyright violations deleted, was about three disconnected, unreferenced, sentences. I merged those three disconnected sentences to the VPK article because it was a viable stand-alone article that presented the opportunity to present all the information in one place in context. Does that explain my reasoning reasonably well? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It would have been better to leave it as a stub, since that encourages others to develop it. I have now restored the article and expanded a bit. I hope to make it a B-class article in the future, if someone does not beat me to it first. Offliner (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your review of NJ 133
I've left a note at the review page; maps are not primary sources. --Rschen7754 21:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Xian H-6K
Congratulations on your DYK. On a somewhat more unrelated note, do you know what on earth is going on with the transclusion on Talk:Xian H-6K? It appears that the entire WikiProject transcludes onto it. Perhaps someone's been fiddling with a few pages. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 06:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Colds7ream (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Tylman AfD
Accusing you of lying? Of course not. I just was remarking that there are many suspicions; some of them are true and most of them are not. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several lies associated with this AfD, and those telling them know who they are. That's all I have to say about the matter. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with my comments, please take them up at the appropriate noticeboard. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Green Pine
I did some improvements. Please take a look. Flayer (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! Flayer (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, take a look. Flayer (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yulia Tymoshenko
(I think) I fixed all your pointers/issues at the Good Article review page in the article. Please take a look also. —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  23:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to BASC
The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has reviewed your appeal. Your ban is modified to be a twelve month ban. You are allowed to appeal again in six months (August 1st, 2010).

For the Arbitration Committee, Shell  babelfish 22:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list
Following a motion at Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Remedy 20 of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Miacek topic banned") is lifted.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk ) 00:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss this