User talk:Vlad fedorov/Archive 4

advise
Vlad, I realize you feel strongly about some topics but please never ever call other contributing editors vandals and never ever break 3RR. If someone's edit needs reverted, chances are other users will revert. 3RR rule is there for a very good reason. Please keep reverts down. --Irpen 05:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Now please sit out your block, do some book reading and come back calm down and polite. You won't change the world or the methods of some editors' way to win content disputes. You need patience, persistence and reliance on the sources. --Irpen 06:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, please cut down on reverts. Stick to no more than 2 reverts per 24 hours and do not consider this a "quota". Further, please never ever call anyone a "vandal" except true vandals as per WP:VAND and do not call even those as such as this is useless and true vandals get blocked quickly these days. If you start your day from checking a set of articles and reverting each, you are on the wrong track. Please spend more time writing content and create a couple of articles.

Oh, and stay away from Piotrus' way. This an easy way to get blocked. I know this editor quite well and I will stand up to him properly and when really necessary. Hope you don't mind getting this piece of friendly advise. --Irpen 07:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing, if I may. Please do not paste extensively from outside sites to the talk pages. A link would suffice as people know how to click. Lengthy pieces of outside texts overload the talk pages and make the dialog harder as what editors say gets diluted by the kilobytes of external text. Additionally, copying of external sites may (or may not) be a copyright infringement. --Irpen 07:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As for your question, I am not the right person to ask about mediation since I have not yet seen a productive one. Reasonable users can talk and listen without the formal mediation and make a good use of talk pages. It is unreasonable to expect that mediation may help users who are not able to discuss things otherwise.

Now, may I suggest you cool off a bit. Don't worry about the articles so much. If the article is tagged as disputed, there is no need to revert war to have it your way at the same time. Tag says it all. Use talk pages. While there, please avoid (or at least minimized) personalized edit summaries and section headings. Concentrate more on content and less on the contributors. You do not have to respond to every comment at once or revert what you see as "nonsense" from the articles. A tag takes care of it.

You will find a great deal fulfilling to step aside for a short time and write some new articles. Wikipedia has many gaps. Filling them is a worthy undertaking. Cheers, --Irpen 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Przyszowice massacre
You might want to check the article now that it's sourced. BTW, feel free to add cite tags anywhere you see fit, there's plenty of sources to add if there's need to.  // Halibutt 21:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Just so you know, admins have to close on consensus, not on their own views - an AfD (while I dislike them being used in clearly contentious situations) is a very different animal to a WP:PROD or a speedy as people can legitimately object to the deletion and give grounds which others (often uninvolved people who just read a lot of AfD debates) can chime in on. Orderinchaos 06:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for unblock

 * Caveat lector: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editors blocked. —xyzzyn 08:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

HBC Archive Indexerbot
Greetings! I noticed that you have added the opt-in for the HBC Archive Indexerbot, but have not created the specified index page with the appropriate code allowing the bot to blank it, nor have you created the template specified in the opt-in. Please follow the full instructions to allow the bot to function properly and index your page. If you have any specific questions or difficulties with the instructions, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. —Krellis (Talk) 15:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

IPN
I am busy right not and won't be able to do a serious writing until later. I suggest (see talk) you merge your material to the existing criticism section. It just makes more sense. Please also note the section heading change I made and take a note of it for the future. Finally, revert warring is harmful.

The more sensible your edit is, the less comfortable the serious editors would be reverting it. Please take my advise. --Irpen 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please take a second look at the edit summary you left. What did I suggest to you? Please... --Irpen 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop editing the IPN article NOW and restrict yourself to talk. You are not revert warring but developing it, but (a familiar pattern) a new account out of the blue came in to push for Piotrus. This will be added to this arbcom but any version can stay, even the nonsense one, if the tag is in place. The world won't end if the tagged article will appear in Piotrus' censored version for a couple of days. This is a clear pattern to push for your block and you should be smarter than to allow this trick to work. Be prepared for new plots since you choose to ignore my advise to stay away from Piotrus. Doing so adds you to the list of users whose blocks would be actively sought by any possible means. --Irpen 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember! No revert wars! Make an edit once, revert no more than once (this is stricter than 3RR but this is a better approach.) NPA! Absolutely NPA. No anything that can even be misconstrued as PA or WP:CIV. Remember that Piotrus will try to reduce the content disputes to civility issues and we eagerly try to paint you an abusive user every time he gets the chance. I will say no more for now. --Irpen 05:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Need signature
I need you to sign here to indicate that you would agree to a formal mediation on the Boris Stomakhin issue. Thank you. Diez2 01:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 08:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

General advice, but given very strongly
Things like these should be kept off the talk pages. Some of the perfect fora for these are alt.politics.nationalism, forum of inosmi.ru, lj, etc.

Now, allow me a more general comment. I've seen many users who behave unacceptably and had to leave Wikipedia. Among those I have seen only two whose departure, despite their being difficult to deal with, was a net loss of Wikipedia. Those users were very willing to contribute, cited their sources, were reasonably read on the subjects and could contribute further except for one thing. Their entries to talk pages and the extent of edit warring very much resembled the overall pattern of the users who will never ever bring anything useful to Wikipedia but whose presence aggravates matters a whole lot.

To be honest, I've done my share trying to save those two users for the Wikipedia by both explaining them some basic concepts of behavior and explaining to the community why those users should get just an extra bit of tolerance. I was only partially successful in both these paths. I managed to achieve that the presence of the two said users lasted longer and they contributed more real content (that was my motivation, I've never spoken for the users here for any other reason), but in the end of the day I failed to reform them to an extent that they were able to stay on the long run. Thus, I came to the conclusion that the trouble users, even potentially productive ones, are unreformable.

I am sorry to tell that, but from what I see you are heading their way. Your contribute content but do not reform the style of your entries or, at least, reform it too slowly. This makes you a, so called, "problem user" to the quick glance; and the administrators who study the complaints are often lazy to see any further than such appearance, especially if the report is cleverly construed and there is no shortage of experts in such constructions. Moreover, some administrators are not just lazy but just love to block as blocking makes them feel important. This is a minority but the one that leaves a very significant footprint.

Anyway, my message to you is just please do get what people have been saying to you for a while. I am not to give the names of those two users I was referring to publicly to avoid harming them further. If you want to find out and check their onwiki stories, feel free to email me for additional information. --Irpen 06:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I know who are those two users Irpen is talking about (I have counted three, but it does not matter). And yes my perception of the story is similar to Irpen's. Do not follow their steps Alex Bakharev 07:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Contact
Please forgive the impertinence for publicly contacting you via your user talk page and for correcting some minor matters on your user page.

I wished to e-mail you but got this response when I tried just now:"This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users".

However, your user page says, currently: "I have graduated from three universities:

* Gomel State University Faculty of Law * Warsaw University, Faculty of Law and Administration * University of Oxford, Somerville College, Faculty of Law.

If you have graduated from any of those university, or you are going to enter them you may contact me at any time."

How does one contact you, please? (You may reply to me via my own e-mail link and I thank you in advance for your response, Sir.)... Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 17:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Catch!!! Vlad fedorov 06:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tag usage
The "totally disputed" tag is not to be used whenever you don't get your way. It's clear from the talk page that you do not dispute the content of the article, but that you're upset that your list was removed; the removal of that list does not change what's already there. The list you are adding is meant to confirm what's already there, not refute it. You can't slap a "disputed" tag on an article every time you have a tantrum about it. It's completely inappropriate in this case. Kafziel Talk 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Plugin
I think it is Tools/Navigation popups Alex Bakharev 03:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Anna Halman
Hallo! As I see, You voted in [] and you are natur-speaker of Polish language. My own knowledge of Polish language are poky. I can read and understand, I can listen (if speaker speak slow and literaly) and understand, but I can not write or speak understable. This complicate (among others) my searching on net in polish materials. Can you help me with searching of oficial judgement-materials and police materials on net, related to this case? As I know, case is not finished in this time, but exist something oficial "intermediate data"? And how relevant are article, that dispute a claim about sexual bulling in this case? Can You help me? --Cinik 22:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. In the future, please solve editing disputes through discussion rather than edit warring. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For Vlad and any admin who might be considering unblocking him: the fourth revert which he gives (which is the one Biophys listed in his report) is not in fact the fourth revert I gave. Biophys's report was in fact full of errors: he listed ten reverts; I found only four. But I did find four, each of which clearly undoes the edit of another editor: either Biophys or Piotrus. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Then, please write us all, what four edits you mean, because I have carefully considered all my edits in this article and I could bet there was no four reverts of one and the same text committed by me. Reverts 6,7,8 cited on the board are removal of section with different content so they couldn't be counted as removing one and the same text, reverts 1, 9, 10 are are editing of the section. Reverts 2,3,4,5 are already covered by me. Where is the violations of 3RR rule? Vlad fedorov 04:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For example as for section removal, 8th revert (section removal) removes pretty much different text about Ralkamankov and Stomakhin who are not bloggers. Other section removal reverts were dealing with pretty much different texts. Vlad fedorov 04:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, then (after two edit conflicts):


 * 03:35, 9 May 2007 Reverts Piotius's immediately preceding edit
 * 16:15, 9 May 2007 Reverts Biophys to Irpen (as suggested in edit summary)
 * 16:37, 9 May 2007 Reverts to Irpen again
 * 17:59, 9 May 2007 Removes section added by Biophys three edits before diff of Biophys.

Note that immediately after the fourth, Vlad reverts a page move by Biophys (though I am considering this part of the same revert as the fourth, rather than a fifth revert). I note you mention something about reverting "one and the same text". Whether or not the reverts are the same is irrelevant. All reverts other than of vandalism and BLP vios count toward 3RR (see WP:3RR). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Heimstern Läufer, please, look carefuly at my last fourth edit you cite and read the text. The text I remove is completely different text from what I was removing previously. 17:59, 9 May 2007


 * Your statement that me "Removes section added by Biophys three edits before diff of Biophys" is wrong. I remove completely different text which was inserted by Biophys. Moreover, look at the article history, Biophys already agreed that Rakhamnkov is not a blogger. Vlad fedorov 04:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know your fourth revert removes different material than your previous reverts. This does not matter. Any four reverts count; regardless of whether or not they're the same. Your edit did in fact remove a section that Biophys has just added; it was therefore a revert. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OOooo, my God!!! Ok guys... Agreed. Me bad. I haven't grasped that "whether involving the same or different material each time". Ok, Ok... My fault. Sorry Heimstern Läufer. Anyway, thanks for my education. Vlad fedorov 04:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Btw,
It seems that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is up to her ears in politics.. Like so: ''In 2006 during a trip to Israel and the disputed territories, Arbour initially refused to meet with the families of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers, Eldad Regev, Ehud Goldwasser, and Gilad Shalit, but later changed her mind following a media furor and accusations of bias. In the meeting, she offered to do "all she can" to help obtain their release. As High Commissioner she was criticized for not using this trip as an opportunity to call attention to their kidnapping. "'' Alas. ellol 15:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

KGB Internet trolls.
If you are active on the net to day, have a look at what can be found on the main page of www.sokr.ru (dictionary of Russian abbreviations) today!

In case you are too late to see it, I paste it here:

История одной аббревиатуры В 1917 году появилась ВЧК. В феврале 1922 г. ее переименовали в ГПУ. В ноябре того же года создается ОГПУ, которое в 1934 г. входит в состав НКВД, а в феврале 1941 г. разделяется на НКГБ и НКВД.

13 марта 1954 г. создается КГБ СССР, который в декабре 1991 упраздняется и на его базе создаются МСБ и ЦСР (сейчас — СВР).

6 мая 1991 г. учреждается КГБ РСФСР, который 26 ноября того же года преобразуется в АФБ. 19 декабря 1991 г. Ельцин подписывает указ о создании МБВД РСФСР, просуществовавшее меньше месяца — до 15 января 1992 г.

24 января 1992 — образуется МБ, в декабре 1993 переименованное в ФСК.

3 апреля 1995 преемником ФСК становится ФСБ. С июля 1998 по август 1999 директором ФСБ является ВВП, впоследствии — президент РФ.

(with the famous shield on the left, of course)

If not on Wikipedia yet, perhaps something to remember.--Pan Gerwazy 09:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Text you have cited is absolute sheer idiocy, at least. First of all it mixes in bandwagon internal affairs and intelligence bodies and doesn't differentiate functions performed by these bodies. This genealogy just lists besides internal affairs bodies ВЧК, ОГПУ, НКВД and intelligence bodies КГБ, ФСК, ФСБ. But what is the connection between them? Second, it falsely claims some newly created bodies as succesors of other bodies. Third, for the last uncivil statement (ВВП) it is clear that a person who wrote that is at the extreme POV side, rather than neutral. And lastly, why have you posted it for me? You think that I don't know something? I think that this spam doesn't deserves mentioning, because it ommits a great number of  both intelligence and internal affairs bodies, for example SMERSH. Vlad fedorov 09:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you need to read here http://www.sokr.ru/about/ that these abbreviations are created by the readers of this dictionary themselves like in Wikipedia, so it's not a wonder that these texts are so incompetent about the matter. I advise you large (unpleasant) texbooks on history instead. Vlad fedorov 09:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Vlad, it was not meant as spam - if you think it is, delete it. I agree that the info is concise and does not tell everything, but it would be intersting info for westerners who still talk about the KGB. Unfortunately, it is in Russian. But if this turns out to be by readers themselves, it cannot be used as a source or reference for Wikipedia itself, of course. --Pan Gerwazy 14:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sheild.png
Hello Vlad fedorov, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Sheild.png) was found at the following location: User:Vlad fedorov. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your mediation request has been taken up by Daniel
Please visit there now to make comments and accept/decline his mediation efforts at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Boris Stomakhin. Thank you. Diez2 23:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain your edits
Please come to the admin noticeboard and explain your recent edits. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Vlad please... The comments you placed on the incident noticeboard are not very helpful. The tone of it only seeks to anger Piotrus, and won't help the issue get resolved. -- Kzrulzuall  Talk • Contribs 11:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I find these activities not helpful at all. Forum shopping is a nasty tactic for everyone involved. Please take a cup of tea and check your e-mail. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism
If you are found plagiarizing material again your account will be blocked from editing. Kaldari 01:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice. Let all see what Wikipedia really is - just a gang of outright discriminative administrators like Essjay. Vlad fedorov 06:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You know that stooping to insults isn't going to help your case, but hinder it, so I wonder why you do this. Essjay wasn't discriminatory, and while he had issues they are completely unrelated to the things going on with you, not even remotely similar. I have been hoping through this time that you might learn from what's going on and not get blocked, but learn from what is going on and not get involved in revert warring, but sadly it doesn't seem to be the case. You seem to think that, despite clear evidence to the contrary, everyone is out to get you. It is truly a pity; you're a good editor, if overly biased. I hope you will take a step back before you continue in your current course and get banned from editing altogether, because that seems the way you're going right now. 67.37.110.90 02:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Diffs of Biophys disruptive editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_and_possible_wikistalking Questions left unanswered by Biophys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Questions_for_Biophys Vlad fedorov 09:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mediation has already been started regarding you and Biophys' issues with one another. Accusing him and others of disruptive editing, and discrimination will only worsen the situation, and possibly earn you a longer block, so please stop. -- Kzrulzuall   Talk • Contribs 07:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a break, Vlad
I warned you that this was coming and I warned you again. Now, please accept the consequences of your actions, that Wikipedia is not a justice system and rejoice that your block is not permanent. I hope you will reform yourself and won't become a third user in the symbolic list I was referring to. --Irpen 03:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Constitution of Belarus
I looked at your userpage and it says you are a member of the Wikiproject Law and from the Gomel Voblast, Republic of Belarus. Well, I been writing the article on the Constitution of Belarus for many months and I want to know of your opinion of the article. I thought I hit everything that I could find, unless you know of something more. Thanks in advance. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration
A request for arbitration has been filed at the link above. You may make statements there concerning the case. Please keep in mind that your input may have a bearing on the arbitrators' acceptance or rejection of the case. Please also keep in mind that your input is not absolutely necessary for acceptance, but is suggested. Thank you. Diez2 04:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Vlad, I urge you to refactor your statement. The unsubstantiated cabalism talk is not acceptable. Please discuss content rather than personalities. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration
Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. Picaroon (Talk) 03:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/HanzoHattori
You previously made a comment about this user at WP:ANI#Problems between HanzoHattori and Custerwest, so I thought you would be interested to know that a user-conduct Request for Comment has been initiated at Requests for comment/HanzoHattori. Best wishes. --Yksin 20:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, a related article RfC has been initiated at Talk:Battle of Washita River. We could really use statements from people outside the dispute. Thanks. --Yksin 02:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin
The above arbitration case has closed and the final decision is located at the link above. Vlad fedorov is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 14:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to advise that I have blocked this account to enforce the decision. Newyorkbrad 14:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Unbanned
Your one year ban has expired. I have removed you from the page of banned users and restored your userpage. Cheers, Face 09:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back....are you back?
Hey Vlad, I just found out today about your block, and that your block has now been lifted. When you return, can you please give me a holler over at my talk page or by email. Cheers --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 20:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Occupation of Baltic states
A new discussion had been initiated in this article. You may be interested to participate as you've participated in the mediation case.--Dojarca (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Avoid making things personal
Given the already heated subject area, edit summaries like "Removal of obvious unsourced OR inserted by Biophys as usual" are very unhelpful. Shell  babelfish 02:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Nuclear Terrorism
Hi - I noticed you participated in the Nuclear Terrorism discussion; would you be willing to weigh in on this discussion? This is the second attempt at an RfC on these issues (the first was here). Thanks, csloat (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Relocation of EEML evidence
Just a notice: For a few users I have relocated your EEML evidence to a sub-page.

The reasons for this are because your sections are now so long it was becoming impossible to navigate and decipher who wrote what, particularly towards the end of sections. This effectively rendered your evidence as unusable, which was not a good thing.

Rather than reduce the size of your evidence (which I deemed as unfair) I have removed them to private subpages. These are yours and yours alone to edit. They certain make interpreting your evidence MUCH easier.

The downside is that when you update your evidence it does not go into the history log of the principal evidence page. Hence I suggest you add a brief "Updated evidence on ..." note beneath your evidence heading on the main evidence page. This will alert people to changes on your subpage. An extra bit of hassle I know, but it a small price for having evidence which can be understood.

Also feel free to create a single sentence description of your main headings and insert it on the main page below the link I have added. See for an example from a previous case.

I hope none of you are upset by this - I assure you my only objective was to increase the usability of your evidence.

Sincerely, Manning (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

EEML Case ban - One week
As a result of a series of completely unacceptable statements here you have been banned from all pages relating to the EEML case for one week. To maintain fairness, during this time NO editor may criticise you or comment on any of your actions, and you are to alert me on my talk page if this occurs. Manning (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Welcome back :) ellol 10:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks
Re:. I never harassed you, nor anybody else, certainly not entire group of people and certainly not in that edit. Edit summaries such as these constitute a personal attack and are in violation of WP:NPA.radek (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * By the edit to the article Belarus, stating that Belarus has never been part of Russia prior to 1919, you knowingly introduced false information. Even your Poland was the province of Russia till 1918. I consider unsourced falsification of Belarusian history by you to be harassment. Especially given your denial of Western Belarus occupation by Poland, despite academic sources cited here, given your claim that Belarusian sources hardly could be cited, and given that previously one of your comrades Colchicum already inserted this unreferenced Original Research into the article, and thus I consider such actions to be a group disruption and harassment. You could bring this to ArbCom page WP:EEML if you wish, and this would dealt with. Vlad fedorov (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Vlad, don't lie. I never said that Belarus has never been part of Russia. In fact my edit summary said precisely that it had. So no, I did not "knowingly introduced false information", which is another personal attack you've just made. And then you proceed to make a personal attack on another editor.radek (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Radek, you wrote "never was part of USSR". However, you should know that USSR was a national federation state and there were no federal lands in it, and it had federation subjects such as different national republics, not territories like in USA. If you pretend for historic and legal accuracy, you could talk about Western Belarus reunification with Belarusian Socialist Republic, but not with USSR.


 * Is it not embarassing for you not to know that Belarusian People Council was held in Bialostok on October 28, 1939, which took decision to reunite with Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic? On November 14, 1939 Supreme Soviet of BSSR adopted law on reunification of Western Belarus with Belarus? The same situation was in Lithuania and Ukraine, and you know this as well.


 * But you should also remember Belarusain People's Republic territory and Curzon line. You have indeed, introduced false information, because you deny the theory of sovereign continuity which is old and long-standing principle of international law. If you deny it for Belarus, then you can't talk about Occupation of Baltic countries. And thanks God you do not teach history and international law. Oh, and I forgot that Stalin illegaly transferred to Poland Bialostok region, which was historical part of Belarus. It is very sad it is not described in Wikipedia still. Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you wish to make some kind of a point, or to discuss content, there is a way to do so without needlessly insulting people.radek (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am also happy that you have no other agruments. USSR article could be a good starting point in filling the gaps in your knowledge of the subject. Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)