User talk:Russavia/Archive 26

Unblocked by the Arbitration Committee
The Arbitration Committee has approved the following motion, which decides your recent block appeal:


 * Supporting motion: Coren, NuclearWarfare, Hersfold, SilkTork, AGK (proposing), David Fuchs, Courcelles, and Worm That Turned.
 * Opposing: (none).
 * Not voting: Carcharoth, Newyorkbrad, Kirill Lokshin, and Roger Davies.
 * Inactive: Risker, Salvio guiliano.
 * Recused: Timotheus Canens.

I have unblocked your account, but remind you (as explained in the motion) that your earlier topic ban remains in effect and that you may be blocked again if you violate that ban.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [•] 14:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you to the Committee for absorbing everything that was written in my appeal. The lifting of the EE topic ban will be amongst the first items on the agenda. There's a few other things to take care of first though. Cheers, Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 14:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * For your reference: unless I am mistaken, we would not hear an appeal of your topic ban until six months from today—because we just heard and declined exactly such an appeal. AGK  [•] 16:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

My agendas for next couple of days
Because I am such an agenda driven editor, with a diverse range of agendas, I think it is prudent for me to outlay the numerous agendas that I will be attending to in the coming days.

Moved to User:Russavia/Agenda

Welcome back
Welcome back, you bitch! :-) Now we truly can into Wikipedia. odder (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate! Queuing of music. Can you into such good music mate? Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 16:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is nice to see you back here Russavia!--Dura-Ace (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What took so long? Also, which basement is our next underground agenda meeting in? Is a peculiar-shaped potted pot flower under the red curtain with a hammer and sickle still the signal?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 7, 2013; 16:29 (UTC)

Hey Dura-Ace, Ezhiki, thanks guys. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 06:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Some Irish Stew for you!

 * Top of the day to all of those in the real Europe. And thanks for the welcome back. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Final warning
I'm not sure if I could possibly have made this more clear when I posted the result of your appeal on this page, so I will try one more time. This is the only warning you will be given. If you allow a Polandball cartoon to be published on your talk page, or post one yourself, or engage in edits to threads or content that are related (broadly construed) to Polandball, the one-year block of your account will be re-instated and reset. You must not have anything to do with Polandball (or Eastern Europe in general) when you are editing the English Wikipedia. You must also remove the section two above from this one, because it is in violation of the sanctions on your account. Do you understand and will you comply with these conditions? AGK [•] 22:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I need to remove the entire section which was started by Odder (which is a welcome back section), because he posted an image to it? Is it enough to simply remove the comic? Or do I need to remove the entire section because of comments by Ezhiki as well? I'm happy to comply, but if it's enough to simply remove the comic, that could possibly be done as a solution instead. Can you confirm this for me.


 * Also I need you to confirm if I am unable to engage in threads related to Polandball, is Arbcom going to intervene in instances such as User_talk:Jimmy_Wales and remove the thread which has been started by a troll. I must not be prevented from dealing with these trolls, who will now be clued onto the fact that they can continue to troll without intervention by myself, simply by uttering one magic word, "Polandball". Or perhaps a solution can be found that blocks can be instigated for such trolls?


 * Anyway AGK, get back to me on the above, and I'll work with you to comply as required. Cheers, Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 06:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: I've removed the comic as an interim measure if that is all that is required. Be great to get a response from you otherwise. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 06:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Russavia: I took no part in your appeal but, on reviewing the correspondence, I see a gulf between what you promised and what you are doing. In particular, you are being, at best, truculent and, at worst, aggressively confrontational. I suggest you play nicely, stop throwing your weight around, and show some respect for other editors, whether you agree with them or not. Remember: appeals can be rescinded as ArbCom retains jurisdiction over all matters it hears.  Roger Davies  talk 07:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * OK noted, but I will not be threatened with a block by anyone as I was here. Now that it is known that I have been threatened with a block because Arbcom unblocked me, I can go back to my normal business which I have planned, and I expect to be able to do so without all the bullshit from others. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Be in no doubt that I have zero tolerance for editors who come straight back from unblocks to resume old battles. You do not have to respond, especially when the stuff you are responding to has been removed. If in doubt, read disengage,  Roger Davies  talk 07:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)



Roger, et al, what do you think of this image (in my Agenda #2 section, funny, don't you think? :) Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the purpose of the above response? It appears to be mocking the attempt by Roger Davies to have you moderate your approach. Please remove the excessively large collection of pictures from this talk page as they are slowing down page loading and making it hard to see any discussion. Also, please remove the section from your user page which is not in compliance with the topic ban that is in place. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The image above just means that I am keeping to myself now, and expect others to leave me alone in peace and quiet, and that it is a funny image I think. Nothing else to it ok. Now I have other things to do. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 09:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A note
Hey Russavia, this is just a note that you can stay off of my talk page unless you wish to inform me of any discussions that might affect me. Ryan Vesey 19:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (This is what I was going to post to you before I got an EC). You obviously seem to take issue with me even being on this project, so I won't take much stock in what you have to say about this. Particularly as you were not privvy to my Arbcom appeal, but I can tell you that the inability of me to improve this project in terms of image placement made up a portion of why a continued block was punitive, and it was of course going to be expected that I get such images in use on this project; which they would have done many, many months ago if not for a block. Also, probably unbeknownst to yourself, I was at one stage getting help from other editors via IRC to get images put into articles, but I stopped doing that when the number of images which would be required to improve this project got so large, that it wasn't fair to 1) clog up IRC with requests and 2) expect others to take time out of their own editing. So I think the best solution for you, is to stop looking at what I am doing and stop commenting unnecessarily what I am doing, and keep doing your own thing. Only then, will there be a nice environment for all concerned to edit in. Thanks, Russavia (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

user page protection
Sorry, I've had to protect your user page for a few days to allow the morons to find something else to do. It expires in three days; if you want to edit your user page before then, let me (or any other admin) know and we'll remove protection or make the edit for you, one of the two. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC) editprotect Whilst I appreciate that my userpage is currently the centre of attention for a few unsavoury types, I am asking that the current protection be removed and replaced with permanent protection against unregistered editors being able to edit. This will prevent the obvious IP of 2 permabanned trolls (we know who they are) from touching anything to do with my user page. Other than that, I am more than capable of editing my own userpage as required. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅  INeverCry   18:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. Russavia (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the image
Russ, thanks for the image you added to Anthony Field. As the main editor of most of the articles about The Wiggles, I've had a struggle finding good, free images. Do you have to have any more, especially of the group's members? We really need an image of the new group all together. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

LOL I was just comming to say the same thing yes that is a wonderfull picture of anthony thank you !! Jena  (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, my pleasure. If I come across any decent photos of other Wiggles, as individuals or as a group, I will surely add them to the articles concerned. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

hia
hey, I was curious if you "agreed" with the idea or the post above yours? User_talk:Jimbo_Wales 84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your Eastern Europe topic ban recently affirmed by the Arbitration Committee, as described in the results section of the enforcement request brought by you, you have been blocked from editing for 2 weeks. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.  Sandstein  07:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

Get ready to go to Arbcom Sandstein. Better have all your evidence ready, I've got mine almost done. I've shown numerous people User_talk:Sandstein and their comments is that you have really shown what a power hungry twit and bully you are. You are WRONG in your decision to nullify Arbcom sanctions and decide that they don't apply any more. Might I suggest that you plan for a life on this project without the admin tools, for you have just in plain sight misused your tools, and I will be seeing to it that are stripped from you in the most public way possible. Russavia (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I am hereby placing a link to a copy of the text of my appeal to Arbcom for all and sundry to read. Commons:User:Russavia/Appeal -- that I waited for almost 8 months in the hope that someone would do the right thing is a disgrace to this community. You better get well acquainted with everything in that appeal Sandstein, because that appeal as well as your abuse of the tools just now is not going to end well for you. I begged for you to wait, but you like a hardarse ignored everything I had to say. In the end Arbcom were told straight that my block and topic ban last year was a disgraceful action, and how the community was deceived and lied to by numerous people (their day will come at Arbcom too, trust me on that). I have spent the last year all but blocked over an issue that was manufactured and overblown by people with a reason to lie. That year will not be in vain. Let's see if the next two weeks is a mini-repeat of last year -- is there an admin out there who has the balls to undo this clear abuse of our processes, but also the authority of admins to declare null and void Arbcom sanctions. Let's see shall we. Someone needs to finally take a stand, and do the right fucking thing on this project! Russavia (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Also Sandstein, I hope you can explain how you came to reach the decision you did on whether the interaction bans were valid or not, because when one looks at it logically one can see that you have acted in defiance of your authority as an admin. But when one looks at what you did behind the scenes in conjunction with a certain editor at WP:IBAN is just the cherry on top of the icecream. During the AE report that editor adds this to the policy. You then amend it -- the edit summary of your edit is quite amusing considering the conclusion you reached at AE. That editor then posts Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy and he hopes "it is non-controversial?" Oh no, of course not, it is entirely uncontroversial to go and amend POLICY in the middle of an AE enforcement to ensure that a fellow EEMLer is let off without sanction. If this has happened once, chances are it's happened before right? It would indeed be interesting have a look at the previous appearances of Volunteer Marek at AE, and see if he got off without sanction as a result of deceptive shit going on in the background. I know of one occasion it did; on that occasion Piotrus went running to Newyorkbrad and wikilawyered his EMML buddy out of yet another block. It is for that reason, upon seeing that occur, and my block being left intact, that I sent Arbcom a number of emails to ask them what the fuck they were doing. Would anyone like to have a look at other instance, and see if that held true, and who the AE closing admin was. I know the AE from last year didn't see any possibility of Piotrus getting VM out of the shit; but instead, several days into VM's massive two week block (don't worry VM, it will be an indefinite block for you soon enough), Piotrus goes and awards VM a purple heart barnstar; the purple heart of course being awarded to those injured in battle; what a nice fitting tribute to the battleground that is Volunteer Marek's talk page -- it's still displayed there. Perhaps a Polish speaker can tell us what it means?

Sandstein, you should start doing the right thing right about now! Unblock and hand in your tools voluntarily, because if you don't I am going to be insisting that along with desysop you are banished from this project entirely...for good. You foolish, foolish person. Russavia (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please alert Giano
Could someone please alert User_talk:Giano to the above actions and my comments, and please ask him to come here to, if he wouldn't mind, discuss this with me. He is well versed in numerous aspects of this history relating to myself, and I am sure that he will be especially interested to see how the soon-to-be-ex-admin Sandstein responds. He might have used his admin tools to bully me, but let's see anyone try a thing with someone the likes of Giano around here. I will bring him up to speed, quite openly, on what an absolute disgrace this place is. Numerous people need to start saying their goodbyes to this project for good. I will be seeing to it. Russavia (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Never fear, I am here; now WTF is going on?  Giano   17:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
He will keep you company while you are editing at Commons and will cry each time you are quarrelling. Take good care of this kitten.

Seleucidis (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 

Arbitration enforcement discretionary sanction: Interaction ban
You fool, see ARBRB is a still active Arbcom sanction, that you have again overstepped your authority as an admin in nullifying. Please show me where in your admin guide it gives you the authority to declare null and void an active Arbcom sanction. Foolish mate, real foolish. Russavia (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Discretionary sanctions may legitimately override an older committee sanction. I regret to inform you that this sanction is therefore procedurally sound. AGK  [•] 11:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So here we are, an arb, saying that an admin is able to nullify at their own discretion any in force Arbitration sanction. So can you please explain to me why, you as an Arb, wasted my time asking me for my input at this amendment request, and 9 Arbs in total voted for the limited amendment only between me and Nug, and 2 opposed it. Not a single one of you stated on the record that the interaction ban was apparently no longer valid, as was declared by Sandstein. But now, all of a sudden, Piotrus "uncontroversially" adds to WP:IBAN a most controversial sentence to our policy, which is automatically seized upon by Sandstein to unilaterally declare that Arbcom sanction null and void. Sorry AGK, that is rubbish. Can you please give other examples on this project where an admin has been given carte blanch authority to null and void an Arbcom sanction. Can you also please explain why you stated that the report had to be taken to AE, instead to Arbcom when I enquired about it on T. Canens talk page. Why didn't you state then, for the record, that the sanctions were no longer valid? I expect the answers to these questions in a timely fashion. Russavia (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I recommend that you carefully reread that sentence added to WP:IBAN, as it appears to say the opposite of what you seem to think it says. T. Canens (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I know how to read, and I know precisely what is says. You see English is my first language. "A ban from interacting with an editor remains in effect if the editor is later blocked or sitebanned, unless the interaction ban is explicitly lifted." The amendment by Sandstein of Piotrus' addition does not negate the fact that the arbcom enacted interaction bans are still valid. EEML and ARBRB are still active Arbcom sanctions. Except there have been two amendments. The first was one allowing interactions between myself and User:Estlandia. And oddly, a one-way interaction ban allowing Nug to interact with me (Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_mailing_list) -- but an amendment was never considered for ARBRB. That Piotrus decided to sneak that in during an active AE, but failed to mention it in the AE itself, shows a level of deceptiveness on his part, especially with his snide "uncontroversial" remark. that we should not be rewarding or encouraging. Please show me precisely where this interaction ban was explicitly lifted by Arbcom, as it pertains to myself and/or Volunteer Marek. Russavia (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Russavia, I normally do not respond to questions asked in that tone. But since you seem to be genuinely confused about this, let me explain: I consider (as others did) that it is unclear whether Volunteer Marek's arbitral interaction ban still applies. The remedy specifies that "editors sanctioned by name" in the decision are interaction-banned. But since Volunteer Marek's sanction in that decision was later rescinded, it is not clear whether he is still an "editor sanctioned by name" and therefore subject to the topic ban. The same ambiguity applies to your own arbitral interaction ban, which refers to "editors from the EEML case", because it is not clear whether Volunteer Marek is still an "editor from" that case, whatever that may mean. In view of this ambiguity, I consider that these interaction bans are not clear enough to be enforced. That's why I imposed a new a discretionary sanctions interaction ban. This does not void the arbitral interaction ban, but rather reaffirms and renews it. Additionally, if another administrator is (unlike me) of the view that the arbitral ban is clear enough to be enforceable, then they can still enforce it. My action therefore in no way voids the arbitral remedy (it can't; I have no authority to do that.) I leave it to arbitrators who may read this to determine whether the original remedies may need wording adjustments in the view of these concerns. I also note that your recent posts to this page appear to violate your interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, but considering that these posts were made in the context of criticizing my actions, I leave it to other administrators to determine what, if any, enforcement action may be needed with respect to these posts. (This is not to be construed as a recusal concerning administrative actions in reaction to any future edits by you.)  Sandstein   13:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Russavia, I normally do not respond to questions asked in that tone." If that is the case, it may be better if you ceased appointing yourself the Wikipedia Chief of Police. I rather think that you will find that dealing with angry people rather goes with the job.  Giano   17:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, don't be condescending. I am not genuinely confused, I am thoroughly disgusted in you and your behaviour and I believe that you are no longer fit to hold the tools on this project, because you have clearly abused your authority as an admin. You were not elected to Arbcom, and this is obviously for very good reason, so you are not able to act unilaterally in declaring that Arbitration sanctions are no longer valid. (although there is hope for you yet) On this project, you declaring that an Arbitration sanction is no longer valid, carries no more weight than if I as an editor were to declare the same thing. Unfortunately, being the "star" of the The Sandstein Show has all but gone to your head, and you know what they say about abuse and "authority"; that AE request is proof of that. That you do not see that just makes it worse.


 * You were clearly asked on multiple occasions to simply delay any decision at the AE request so that a request for clarification could be obtained from the Arbcom. This has been done on numerous occasions in the past; numerous times by yourself. That request could then be dealt with after the clarification was gained. However, you decided to nullify their decision entirely without clarification, and then threw it back in my face that I could do that after you did as you please. If that AE request were an episode of The Sandstein Show I would be named in the credits as "(Now blocked) Guy who dared question the shows star".


 * You can also cease thinking that you will use the tools any further on myself. I really can not believe how arrogant you are. I have already told you that I will be going to Arbcom to lodge a case against you for abuse of your admin authority and tools. And I am only doing this because you have clearly acted like Giano says you have, and you have refused to listen to objections over your actions, and you continue to balls up your self-appointed role as Wikipedia Chief of Police, and in doing so, you are now clearly giving us enough doubt to believe that you have purposely gamed the system at that AE request in order to dismiss valid complaints against an editor purely because it is I who did it. Russavia (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Question to Sandstein re: my appeal
Sandstein, can you please tell me if you have read User:Russavia/Appeal up to, and including, the section "WGFinley’s block extension and revocation of talk page access". I was informed by the Arbcom that it was in the authority of individual admins at AE to use valid sanctions as they saw fit. But I would be most interested in hearing your thoughts about what I wrote in this appeal, and relate it to what has happened at the latest AE report. I know what it says, we all know what it says; I want to know if you know what it says. This will obviously be used as evidence at your Arbcom case. Russavia (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not previously aware of this material. I don't see how these e-mails, apparently from January and February 2013, are relevant to the sanctions I made you subject to for your more recent actions. So I don't see why I should read these walls of text or or respond to them. But I note that you directing others to post them on Wikipedia probably also violates your interaction and/or topic ban, because they are not now used (or necessary, as far as I can tell) for any current dispute resolution purpose.   Sandstein   00:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You appear to be genuinely confused here Sandstein. I'm not sure why though that would be, because everyone reading this talk page knows what happened, and is happening. Would you like another opportunity to comment Sandstein? Russavia (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)



More words of wisdom on interaction bans from Sandstein
From User_talk:Sandstein

"my opinion is that the only way to fairly enforce such restrictions is to enforce them to the letter, or one invites gaming and acrimony in the long run. The only (possibly relevant) exception to topic bans, per WP:BAN#Exceptions to limited bans, is "engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum"."

I really can't believe I wrote the word wisdom. All (ongoing) evidence points to the fact that Sandstein engaged in his own piece of gaming, and am I acrimonious? Hell yeah. Russavia (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, I note that the 2 week block was an enforcement action "to the letter" of the restriction, but the idiotic nullifying of an Arbcom interaction ban is what is at issue here. The issue isn't simply Volunteer Marek's blatant breach of the interaction ban, but the fact it was in a thread which was begun by a troll to try and paint myself as a racist (a view that Marek himself subscribes to!), which was then joined in by other trolls from a harassment site, and culminated in Volunteer Marek's inflammatory posting relating to myself which included his declared intent to have me indefinitely banned from this project. Sandstein, I bet your ass that if I did such a thing, you would have blocked me for a year without a second-thought, and without giving me the opportunity to some up with some totally ridiculous statement like VM did, and given that you (and the community in general) were used as a tool (pardon the pun) in my block and topic ban last year, this is very, very clear. This is not finished with Sandstein, by any stretch of the imagination. Russavia (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban violation
Hi Russavia. I appreciate your caution in self-reverting your Croatia-related edit as a possible violation of your Eastern Europe topic ban, and in disclosing this at a recent Arbitration Enforcement discussion involving you. I didn't imagine that this edit would lead to a block, though as it has, I should probably point out an earlier edit of yours which could also be construed as violating the topic ban: in this edit you post an image and caption concerning the Moscow Metro. Unlike the Croatia one you did not immediately revert it, so I'm assuming that this was an oversight on your part. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing that to my attention. In my zeal to do what is best for this project, I simply copied what in my Commons userspace and pasted it here. I, of course, instantly realised that the Russian aviation photos would be topic ban violation material, but there's obviously a few I have missed. I have just looked at the page, and after reading my appeal to Arbcom (the email from 22 February) I have just noticed that User:Russavia/Agenda is made almost entirely of Latvian politicians, User:Russavia/Agenda is an Estonian ship, User:Russavia/Agenda has a couple of photos too which technically shouldn't be there. Unfortunately at this stage, as you can see I have just been bullied and railroaded by Sandstein with a 2 week block, so I am not able to do anything about them at the moment. When someone has the balls to unblock me (which I am not going to hold my breathe for) or until the block expires, I will be certain to remove them. Or, if you like, if you are in helpful mood, you might like to place those in relevant articles for me, and remove them from that page? Would appreciate that, as would our readers I suspect. Russavia (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was also thinking of your edits to Files for deletion/2013 March 25. I'm not sure if you noticed the country of the logo when you commented there. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Good advice
Hi Russavia! Cool down, please. Go for a walk, do some gardening, drink a cup of tea or whatever to put your mind on something else. Do not edit (respect your block) and do not think about Wikipedia and wikipedians. '''Leave it as it is. Forgive and forget.''' Life is not always fair, so accept it. Look around at birds and the bees and soon you will discover that life is so much more than Wikipedia. Have a break from editing here. You are still wanted at Commons and your deeds there are appreciated. Do what you are good at: uploading valuable images, illustrating articles, improving existing illustrations in the articles and helping new editors to make contributions at Commons. Passing time is the best medicine and cure all wounds. --Seleucidis (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, I second this advice. I've been blocked too twice when I clearly was right in the matter, but broke formal rules. Well, what can I do. Hope you'll return once two weeks are gone. Take a break in the meantime, they might have just as well blocked you for another year (or two years), but it was 2 weeks this time. See ya! Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys, believe it or not I am actually cool...very cool. I am however very disgusted in the way that Sandstein acted, and is still acting, in relation to this mess and the community is allowing him to get away with it. I will keep editing of course, and I will not be letting the trolls (even the admin ones) get to me. If I do, then I lose, we all lose, and this project is too important for it (or at least it used to be...prove me wrong) Russavia (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I rather think Sandstein has allowed himself to be swayed by anons and other disreputables, and clearly has forgotten that you were very much the innocent victim in the Eastern European Mailing List scandal - and it was a true scandal and a very badly handled scandal. I'm afraid the person most damaged by this latest salvo from that quarter is Sandstein - not you. Sooner or later (trust me on this), the community will tire of Sandstein strutting around the site and imposing these Draconian blocks. All through history (in real life and Wikipedia) people like him always come to very unpleasant ends, but until that happy day - the likes of you, will just have to sit your blocks out and wait for the sheep to baaah in a different direction - and I promise you that before long that is exactly what they will do.   Giano   09:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that's the case Giano. Yes, I was the victim of the EEML. Do you think the EEML is still in operation? Would you like to ask the EEML editors the simple question if the EEML is still in operation? If so, who is a member? And if not, when did it disband? They want to put the EEML days behind them on this project, and if it is no longer in operation, then the community, myself included, would be happy to do so. Then if required, the behaviour of individual editors can be looked at without tarring all editors with a brush which is no longer valid. In relation to Sandstein's problems, unfortunately, ultimately this is now of his own doing. Russavia (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it's still in operation - no point asking, only a fool (or the Arbcom) would believe them even if they answered. They should never have been allowed back, under any name, form or IP. They were a disgrace. You really ought to post a link to the Arcom case about it prominently here because many of the admins and editors currently opining were not here when that all happened. You forget that Wikipedia has the memory span of gnat.  Giano   10:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

More images
Seleucidis, thanks for your help in getting these images into articles. With the 1982 Commonwealth Games image, could you change the date to 30 September 1982 (the date on the file appears to have been the upload to Flickr date by the Brisbane City Council). We also have 1982 Commonwealth Games opening ceremony into which the photo of Matilda could be put into; replacing the non-free image. The photo of James Ramsay is also incorrect with the date; I will try to find out which date the Queen Street Mall was officially opened -- Queen_Street_Mall states it was in 1982, so it was whilst Ramsay was the Queensland Governor, but the exact date I am not yet sure about. Thanks again for your help and your messages. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done:-) --Seleucidis (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that mate. Russavia (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Russavia, what do you want me to do with the picture of Chrysaora pacifica (=Japanese Sea Nettle)? I can not replace the picture in the speciesbox in the article about Chrysaora melanaster, because (as written in the article) the name "Japanese Sea Nettle" was used for this species, but "Japanese Sea Nettle" now exclusively means Chrysaora pacifica, so requires a separate article (not written yet). Well, I have placed the picture under the speciesbox, because Chrysaora pacifica is mentioned there. And two more questions:-) Should I place always in External links section? Which way is better:  or  . Greetings & Choc-Chip-Cookie.jpg. --Seleucidis (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey mate, we can leave the Japanese sea nettle for now; I'll let a relevant wikiproject know of the redlink article link, and hopefully they can do something about that. In relation to the commonscat template, this goes in the external links section; if there is no EL section, even in the references or the bottom section of the article page is fine. There's no need to use the inline template; it's up to editorial discretion, but myself I tend not to use it. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Russavia, please check my last edits, because I do not know the habits here, so I am not sure if I have inserted the pictures in the right way. If something is not good, please tell me and I will adjust it tomorrow. This is a marvellous picture of Jelly Bean Row, you have found, but the name Jelly Bean Row is not mentioned in the article. I found what it means and placed the picture in the section of architecture. Is it all right? or you had another idea? There is also a separate article about architecture of St. John's. I am not sure if it is a good idea to remove the current picture of the castle in Hernen, because it look quite good enlarged, is taken recently and shows another side of the castle. Perhaps create a Commons category Hernen and choose only one picture to illustrate the article - this is the policy on "my Wikipedia". We don't use a gallery any more. What do you suggest to do? Last but not least:-) thanks for the answers. --Seleucidis (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All looks good. It's weird the St John's article doesn't mention "Jelly bean row" -- given that it does appear to be a local nickname for the houses in that section of the city. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * S-61 photo. Easier said than done:-) Which one is this? Would you like to be more specific? You know, I'm not an expert on helicopters. The rest is done, also castle in Hernen. Greetings. --Seleucidis (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Turns out both helicopter photos in the article are of the S-61, but I was thinking perhaps replace File:Irish-Coast-Guard-Helicopter-2012.JPG. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Where do you want me to place the picture of Brown Skua snatches Gentoo Penguin Chick? In the gallery of the article Gentoo Penguin (there is still one free place) or like I did in the section Threats? 2) Is this your intention to place the picture also in the article about Brown Skua? It is a rather short article, so I think it is not such a good idea. There is a link to Commons category containing this particular picture. 3) Is anything wrong with Hernen castle? I ask, because you haven't removed the picture. 4) If I am not mistaken, tomorrow is the big day:-) Greetings. --Seleucidis (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey mate. 1) Is fine where it is. 2) Didn't notice that the brown skua article was so short, so it's no prob, we can leave it out. 3) I've left Hernen castle as I might write an article -- it's for my remind. 4) Don't know, I'm honestly not keeping track. Thanks for your help Russavia (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the L.A. Zombie... I am not so prude, but some people can make problems. I don't know what is the policy here, on English Wikipedia, but I know that this photo would cause a lot of fuss on "my Wikipedia". I know, it is just a film, so make-up artist used a lot of ketchup, but we should respect the opinion of other readers, who do not like to see it. After all people who do not want to see the photo, have the same rights as people who really want to see the photo. The best solution would be a "hidden picture" and a warning for the reader – one must first press a button, if one wants to see it, but I do not know how it works. What is the policy here in case of controversial pictures? If the policy is not clear, then I would like to advise you to wait with inserting this photo in the article, just to avoid quarrels, fuss and unpleasant situations, especially because your block will be just finished tomorrow, so you should start quietly and gently, avoiding making other people angry right from the very beginning. After all there is a photo of the film poster in the article, so the article has the best possible illustration. You can always ask other wikipedians about their opinion concerning inserting this picture in the article. Maybe ask members of WikiProject Film? It is a good and peaceful solution. I have noticed that often wikipedians ask for second opinion in case of controversial subjects or pictures. Remember that sometimes you must put water in wine: lessening demands and ambition, mellowing, adopting a more moderate stand on an issue in order to reach a compromise. I must do it too:-) Greetings. --Seleucidis (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)