User talk:Elysander

Links

SB >> [1]

N/SB >> [2]

ANI >> [3]

regarding "Bourov tries to implement anyway the Moscow version." I don't appreciate your personal attacks and accusations of bias. Especially considering that I did not propose any specific text changes, only quoting other proposed text as well as existing text. Please refrain from further personal attacks and stick to the guidelines.Anatoly.bourov (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please stop changing the page now that you've requested administrative oversight

I see that you've resorted to continually vandalizing the SO page without any new comments. You also claim that you have requested administrative arbitration, please refrain from further vandalism. As far as your claim of sources being outdated, the objection of US embassy to the use of "completely justified" verbiage has already been addressed in the article, the embassy still stands behind the rest of the text. If you have references to new translations of the same text, please include them in the article.Anatoly.bourov (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion project

Your request (diff) for a third opinion has been edited to comply with Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute. If your entry as originally worded contained information vital to an understanding of the dispute, please add those details to the article talk page where the dispute exists (Talk:2008 South Ossetia war#US Embassy in Moscow: Kommersant did inaccurately translate US Ambassador's comments). Thanks. — Athaenara ✉ 18:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion: Edit conflict at "South Ossetia War"

Sorry for inconvenience. I am not very interested at permanent edit conflicts therefore i am looking for a third opinion in this case the first time. Thanks for your correction you did before i coud do it. [[4]]

Elysander (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I moved your message (diff) back here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. — Athaenara ✉ 18:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, you will be blocked from editing. You were warned twice in edit summary, do NOT remove content without discussion on the article talk page. If it happens again, I will report it at WP:AN/I --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your POV/OR postings i'm very amused. You can be sure it happens gain because you did insert again POV/OR content. ;) Elysander (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My POV/OR postings? Everything I post is backed up by sources. Can you say the same? Again, blanking and deletion of content without discussion is not on. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that and state the same claim about mine edits. User:Elysander should make himself familiar with WP:CIVILITY and muse a little whether elucidating Russian and Nicaraguan positions on SO and Abkhasia is equivalent to POV, especially when founded on Reuters and RIA Novosti. Bogorm (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to all members of the Kremlin fraction !! :))) Elysander (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

autonomous areas

Hi,

No, Georgia revoked S. Ossetia's autonomy in 1990, so it is a former autonomous area even by Georgia's contention. However, even if that were not the case, it would be misleading at best to claim a de facto independent state is an autonomous area of another state. kwami (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are offering an interpretation. Regarding several UN security council resolutions ( last in April 2008) Georgia's territorial integrity ( inc. SO and Abch.) is untouchable. I'm open for other formulations. ;) Elysander (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Georgia revoked SO's autonomy, so regardless of the UN, it is no longer an autonomous area (oblast). I don't believe that's the case with Abxazia, but in that case saying it is an autonomous area is just as much an interpretation. kwami (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At my opinion there are so many different political developments the last 20 years nobody can overview the several steps. As i know Georgia did offer in 2008 farreaching autonomy inside the Georgian territory but SO & Abch. did reject this offer. Elysander (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sidestepped the whole issue, but was promptly reverted because I removed the tag which was no longer relevant. I've restored my wording--you might want to tweak it, since it isn't the most elegant. kwami (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delay! I believe you are a serious editor. But as you can watch over several articles and talk pages "POV warriors" are spreading their POV/OR stuff - often concerted. You only need to check their individual pages to discover their "born" prejudices. And personally i'm always tending to support minorities. ;) Good luck! Elysander (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the last hint about the individual pages an insupportable Argumentum ad hominem. kwami is completely right about Georgia abolishing unilaterally Abkhazian and South Ossetian authonomy - this has been been disclosed by President Vladislav Grigoryevich Ardzinba. (See the the article's talk page for a quote and its translation). Bogorm (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were Bogorm I would criticize "authonomy" ;-). I am using this talkpage to express personal views and opinions. It is your problem if you are sure you were meant ;) I didn't drop one name. To the topic: once upon a time ... there was a history before and after. BTW .. Preselecting activities provoke similar activities. :)) Elysander (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If I were Bogorm I would criticise "authonomy"" - would you expound the sense of this conundrum? "to express personal views and opinions" - WP:NOTFORUM Bogorm (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be you have too much time ?? ;) Sorry i'm not interested to waste my time. Anyway i have the impression you are taking the mickey out of us. (EOD) Elysander (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reprehensible edits

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. one of your edits is extremely inimical to editors - this one. Bogorm (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did to Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This ediy of yours is a flagrant abuse of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NPA Bogorm (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bogorm, opinions are not defamation. And no, he won't be blocked for expressing his opinions on a talk page. The worst that might happen it that they could be deleted if agreed to be excessive and off topic. kwami (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ Bogorm - please read this very interesting article [[5]]. As i wrote above: I'm now convinced you are taking the mickey out of us all. Elysander (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are overtly derogating rulers of sovereign countries by calling them "mad"(=Loco) and I have never expressed my personal opinion to any Occidental ruler and I am not going to, because of reverence to the Wikipedia politics. If your statement "I am using this talkpage to express personal views" concerns this talk page, I shall abstain from commenting it, but what you have done is indulging in promulgating your personal stance in an article talk page, which ought to be dedicated to umproving the article and not defaming heads of states (regardless of the state!). Iterum I recommend you to peruse assiduously: WP:NOTFORUM Bogorm (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent edits

Great job editing articles related to the Georgia situation! Just ignore the harrassment above. Ostap 23:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like such debunking comments of definite "POV-Warriors". :) Elysander (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only debunking impertinent and POV activity here are the derogatory insults by User:Elysander towards President Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías. I urge you both not to indulge further in scornful contumelies towards editors who do not abuse Wikipedia by misusing it as forum and by uttering Argumenta ad hominem when unable to refute the matter-of-fact inconvenient sooth and who do not propagate unsourced dubitable rumours. Bogorm (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't stop harrassing other users you will be reported. Ostap 02:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let him croak, my friend!! ;) Anyway i'm amused about such living prayer wheels. :)) Elysander (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition Stats

Hey, seems your up-to-date with those who do and don't recognize SO and A. Can you filter the faulty information on in the article? Good work. jamescp 00:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, you will be blocked from editing. You were warned above about the continual removal of information without discussion. You may or may not take me seriously, but the wholesale removal of information from articles based upon your own POV, and without discussion is not on, and the next time it occurs, I will seek admin intervention. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your activities here and elsewhere seem ridiculous to me: you are disguising your deep POV mentality behind a spate of not seriously meant wikipedia formulas. ;) Elysander (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to 2008 South Ossetia war, you will be blocked from editing. The sheer deletion of sources without deigning to seek a sourced refutation and contumelies towards the sources are more than reprehensible, but WP:NPA restrains me from concluding mine indignation unverblümt. Anyway, my patience is evanescing by your incessant reluctance to engage in discussions. Bogorm (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem rather crazy today! ;) Talk was done! Elysander (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, Elysander, you've got a style of discussing things... FeelSunny (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

I made a move of Ossetian war article. Please see my last comments and contribute if you wish. Thanks,Biophys (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Howdy, as you probably know I'm just hanging around International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia watching and trying to keep divisions to a minimum. I happened to notice this sequence of edits. While I commend you guys for not continuing to revert each other, its still not what it could be. The edits I'm talking about are revert by Russavia revert by Elysander and revert by Russavia.

Please be sure that that you guys are able to discuss this and come to a valid conclusion. I'd suggest starting a talk page discussion if there is not one already (I did not see one).

Finally please note that I am including the same message to User:Russavia. —— nix eagle 15:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hello, I have noticed your two reverts here and here. I'm warning you now that excessive reverts is considered disruptive. If you continue to revert without discussing on the talk page, you will be blocked for disruption. In addition please see Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia#Editwarring. Thanks —— —— nix eagle 19:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check talk page! There's no consensus regarding a 3rd list ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia#Non-recognition_section - Elysander (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________________________________________

If there's no concensus, that doesn't justify edit-warring. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm .. what do you mean? I didn't delete bomb car subsection or move it to another place [[6]]. What i did: editing at both places to get a rather neutral view. My advice to you: check all sources about this incident. And you will check that " terrorist attack on HQ" is an assertion - not more! And an assertion cannot be title of an encyclopedic subsection. We need a 3rd party view. According several Russian sources minimum 2 versions about the incident exist. And that Russian soldiers moved the suspicious car to their HQ themselves. Elysander (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote and I qoute, "A typical debate! One serious incident which will be reduced to a 3-line-sentence few weeks ahead. And still assertions stand against assertions. Is it an "attack" or more an "accident" ?" Can you please explain to me how someone could have accidentally rigged a car with explosives? Was it like "Dad I don't know where to put these" "oh ok son, dump them on the car"? I don't get it, please explain. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry .. but i cannot waste my time for prejudgements. Obviously you know exactly what happened on a certain day anywhere in Georgia. At my opinion in this case nothing is absolutely certain today. It can be an attack if ... , it can be an accident during negligent car searching, it can be .... and so on. Elysander (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life Goes On

Russavia failed to delete Life Goes On (The Article), and is now trying to delete its sources using the copyright angle. Could you weigh in on the dispute^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]? WH Coordinator (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ossetian shelling of Georgian villages

It was interesting to see the news you had found about the South Ossetian shelling of the Georgian village Avnevi on the 7th of August. Because that confirms what the Georgian refugees from Kekhvi (north of Avnevi) said that I met in Tbilisi. They had fled their home village during the day of the 7th after the village had been under heavy shellings from Ossetian fire. They didn't dare to go on the main road so they had to walk through the forest first and then by car to get around Tskhinvali. But while escaping by car they were shelled by fire from Tskhinvali that they believed came from Russians. One car was hit and two women were killed. This explains why Mikheil Saakashvili asked for ceasefire in the evening, but after no response the Georgian side launched its attack. Another refugee I talked to had actually seen a killed Russian Spetsnaz in that area, which also confirms that Russian troops were there already then. But so far I haven't seen anything of this in any news. Närking (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe both sides are not ready to open their books. Some European governments especially France & Germany are sure Georgia had walked in the trap Russia had prepared for months. But these governments cannot answer the questions what Georgia should have done regarding the escalation since spring 2008. German foreign minister's diplomatic failure before war in Abkhazia when the separatists rejecting the Western plans and Georgia's offer of far-reaching autonomy must have been a signal to the "West" that the dice was cast. The Scandinavians and Baltics are sure that Bucharest NATO decision against Ukraine & Georgia was like an invitation to invasion in Georgia. Elysander (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putin's Pandora Box opens up ? [7] Elysander (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure Putin will soon have more problems at home after this. From the outside it might have seen to be stable in Putin's Russia but it has just been boiling on low heat for a while and soon it will boil over again.

And it's true it will take some time before we will know for sure what was exactly going on there in early August. Although I was there at the time it sure was very hard to know what was happening. There were so many strange rumours going around, like that Saakashvili had had a heart attack and was under surgery in Turkey! But I did interview some refugees from South Ossetia and got to know more information from the war scene, but at that time I couldn't compare it with other information. But from what they told me and what I know now it seems more clear what was leading up to Saakashvili's decision to attack. And by the way that part is missing in the lead. Now it seems like Georgia launched its offensive just out of nowhere.

And it was also interesting to see how Russia was treating its real citizens that were visiting Georgia at the time of the war. Because indeed there were many Russian citizens in Georgia during the war, but they were not in South Ossetia, many more were in Tbilisi. And while other countries tried to help their citizens during the war by evacuating them (I didn't follow the evacuation though) all the Russian embassy said to its citizens were you are on your own, and get yourself out by yourself! In fact the Georgians were treating the visiting Russians there much better. Närking (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mined buildings

My bad. So much reverting going on there that I missed that sentence. --Xeeron (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. This article is a perpetuum mobile. The biggest nonsense you will find if you are checking the sources. As i told before - real work on article is just beginning. :)) Elysander (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse others of disruptive editing during a content dispute

Please don't accuse editors of DISRUPTIVE EDITING unless you're sure they have committed it. In particular, avoid using the words in edit summaries (such as "reverting disruptive edits"). Review the disruptive edits policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "definition of disruptive editing". Note that content disputes are not disruptive editing, and that good-faith edits of any kind, even if you think them misguided, are not to be considered disruptive editing. Disruptive editing accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult.

Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't provoke an edit war by changing a stable version As i can watch you are trying to revert a rather "stable" sentence in article's leader to a version which is in this formulation the version of one conflict party. If you prefer another version don't start an edit war but discuss the questions on talk page. Personally you were also trying to insert a corrupt version of the events in Poti harbour. --Elysander (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The version that you are trying to push isn't the same version as I started editing so you can't claim that your version is the stable version either. Plus you can't claim that I'm trying to insert a corrupt version, I am using the proper term for what happened to the Georgian Naval vessels. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poco's Threat: "3 Revert Warning"

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2008 South Ossetia war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pure nonsense! You did start an edit war on various places in the leader at the same time later supported by some "fellow travellers". And YOU didn't use the talk page. 1) The sentence ( On 7 August) was already a comprise formulation weeks ago. Without any necessity you are trying to push the interpretation of only one conflict party in the leader provoking knowingly an edit war. One of your supporters were not yet able to read the time line in his blind support of your POV pushing. 2) Your preferred terminus technicus doesn't seem to fit exactly the facts in Poti; nearly all examples in the linked article are cases of self-destruction. I will insert again in simple plain words what happened in Poti: set on fire and sunk by Russian forces. ;) Elysander (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, I made some good faith edits that I believed would improve the article and you started reverting without proper explanation even in your edit summaries. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding OIL prices for Russia

Luis Dingley // November 12, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Understanding Oil Prices for Russia:

145 $ - The current world order should be questioned, we demand multipolarity !

130 $ - Moscow should become a new center of economy

120 $ - We are not afraid of the new Cold War

110 $ - Georgia should be crushed!

100 $ - Why is the whole world against us?

90 $ - I think we exaggerated in Georgia

80 $ - We are ready to have international observers in the conflict zones

70 $ - We are biggest ally of US, right Barak?

60 $ - Just a reminder, we still poses numerous nuclear war heads

50 $ - We are ready for negotiations

40 $ - We support Georgia’s and Ukraine’s integration with NATO

30 $ - We demand Georgia’s and Ukraine’s integration with NATO !

20 $ - Vladimir and Dimitry fled, Moscow is Free

-- Elysander (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, the real Russian name is Dmitry. Not Dimitry. But you're right, "Dimitry" surely sounds more villainous:)) FeelSunny (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, we already went under 40$, and the things you suggested still didn't happen :) At least Russia does not have a huge national debt like some "efficient" always-stay-withing-EU-budget-deficit-rules Central European countries, which already owe 65% of GDP and counting. Offliner (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have your permission to add this to my talk page? I will label it as "Views on Russia from Elysander, and unbiased wikipedia editor". Can I? Please? Also, you may not be aware, but in Moscow this dude, Yury Luzhkov, is kinda a big deal HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept your silence as a yes and will place this onto my talkpage, unless you say otherwise. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning over 2008 South Ossetia war edits

You keep attacking me in your edit summaries, please read WP:PA and watch your language when commenting. Also do not forget WP:3RR when participating in the edit wars over unstable article content. (Igny (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Let it be! Nonsense must be called nonsense. If you are permanently trying to "translate" the simple English word "believe" into "call", "approve" or other words , or to sell us manipulated quotes again and again as direct/verbatim quoting it must be stated officially in an edit summary. And please don't forget: regarding leader's content only one edit warrior exists since days >> (Igny (talk) - - - Elysander (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2008 South Ossetia war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. CIreland (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Igny is attacking ( for days) a consensus version of article's leader which I try to defend. Therefore IMO my activities belong to the explicitly named exceptions regarding 3RR. Please check leader's history how often Igny did try to force changes against the will of several editors without ( serious) discussion . Elysander (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have consensus behind you then there will not be a problem since you will not need to personally revert more than three times; others that form that consensus will also revert. I see already that Narking (talk · contribs) has restored your preferred version. That being said, please seek outside assistance rather than edit-warring; if someone else were to revert to Igny's version then an admin may well protect the page on a random version. CIreland (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a consensus, there were no need to defend the article. Clearly there is no consensus and the article has been a battleground since its creation. That being said, Elysander here claims he defends the article, however I would argue that he behaves like he owns it. (Igny (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

As usual a knowingly misinterpretation by Igny! Because article is a battleground, some regular editors want to keep article's leader leastwise stable: No substantial changes in leader without talk! The only user who is permanently attacking this editors' consensus (talk before change) regarding article's leader/header is (Igny (talk). It is significant that he is denying a consensus where no consensus exists (article) to cover up his violation of an existing consensus (article's leader). Elysander (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you do not have a clear understanding of what WP is and what it is not or its policies. In particular, here you refuse to admit the lack of consensus, and fail to assume good faith. You use the word "consensus" simply to justify your behavior (which amounts to WP:OWN) without understanding meaning of the word either. You are waving the sign "NO CONSENSUS NO CONSENSUS" every time someone makes an edit which does not agree with your POV, like it makes it all right to revert such edits without giving a proper explanation. You accuse me of violating some nonexistent consensus, like I was violating some WP rule or policy. There is no such rule as "No substantial changes in leader without talk"! You just made this up. (Igny (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[8] made on November 23 2008 to 2008 South Ossetia war

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... would you be so kind and checking your decision? I cannot see any edit warring in this part of article. I did remove completely unsourced subsections which were inserted by one user within the last 1-2 days. The only reliable informations are already available in article's info box. The reasons for removing therefore as I said explicitly in edit's summary: subsection without any sources & redundancy. Elysander (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts seem clear enough. I don't know what you mean by I cannot see any edit warring in this part of article Which "this"? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called edit warring yesterday concerned article's leader/header. IMO my activities did save the status of this leader ( consensus: talk before change) and belong to the explicitly named exceptions regarding 3RR. I did always revert to a former long undisputed version. What you identified today as a renewal of edit warring concerned new inserted subsections at another place of this article. I couldn't and cannot watch a definite controversy because nobody did reinsert these sourceless passages (perhaps this discussion will provoke it). I did explicitly explain in edit's summary why I removed these sections: complete lack of sources in the new subsections & redundancy. Elysander (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously my block is already used [9]. It is very strange that the conflict in leader will start again as in the other parts too. It is not my responsibility. Elysander (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Elysander (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Definitely no edit warring exists in this part of the article. I did remove just inserted subsections which lack any sources. A lot of rumours were introduced without citing any sources. Few informations are already available in article's infobox, therefore redundant.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, you clearly reverted multiple editors over editorial issues. I can see no exceptions to the 3rr rule here; are you claiming WP:BLP somehow? I'm not comfortable unblocking if you cannot understand what was done against policy. Kuru ^talk 19:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Elysander (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did read again 3RR. And obviously I misinterpreted "edits against consensus, ... are not exempt." I did interpret such edits as de-facto-vandalism.

Decline reason:

Which they are not; see WP:VAND and William below. — Sandstein 21:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The 3RR exemptions for vandalism are only for obvious vandalism, and it says so: Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding bad language. Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep .. therefore I said as comment to Kuru: "And obviously I misinterpreted "edits against consensus, ... are not exempt."" My misinterpretation: "I did interpret such edits as de-facto-vandalism." ;) Elysander (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look

I don't know if you have seen it yet but apparently we both have been declared anti-Russian [10]. Seems like some people can't see the difference between Putin and Russia. Närking (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we now declare Russavia, Offliner,Igny and FeelSunny officially as "Putinistas"?? :)) But IMO espec. Offliner did make the SOW article to a RiaNovosti version in many single parts (therefore he did systematically remove the timeline character) which should revert to an appropriate version.

It's ridiculous the same Red Star article which is still disturbing obviously some "fellow travellers" for months is an explicitly used source in a SPIEGEL article which appears as an important source. - Elysander (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

А еще они жалкие ничтожные личности! И Путин, хотя вы знаете, как я его уважаю, но он - жалкая ничтожная личность! (Igny (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Very putin-esque!! :))) - German proverb: "Wie der Herr, so's Gescherr!" - Elysander (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you qualify to edit anything related to Russia if you do not recognize this quote. (Igny (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Are you sure to be qualified to edit anything ?? :))) Elysander (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, this source features some absolutely essential sacral knowledge needed to understand bolshevism and putinism. If you think you can not recognise it, you surely do not qualify to be a fellow Russia-related articles editor and a party member. Viva KPSS! :)) FeelSunny (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like some editors don't like the official picture of Putin after all [11] :) Well, tomorrow I will go on a short vacation to Estonia (or eSStonia as some would say :), but I will probably keep an eye on what's going on here since my hotel has Wi-Fi. Närking (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will go to Bruxelles only for 2 days next week. Debate about Photos of St. Putin: I have rarely seen such a nonsense debate. Obviously some contributors are not more able to realize the plain ridiculousness. Elysander (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is the German historian and Scandinavist Jörg-Peter Findeisen a respected scholar in Sweden? He did publish a great biography about Karl XII. in the beginnig 90's. Elysander (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mir kommen die Tränen ... vor Lachen!!" ;) Happy Xmas! :) Elysander (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frohe Weihnachten! Närking (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jörg-Peter Findeisen

Well, I can say he is known among scholars but as he isn't translated to Swedish for example he is unknown among most people. Hope you had a great time in interesting Bruxelles. I surely had an interesting trip to Tallinn and Estonia. It's really a well-preserved medieval city with lots of common history with both Sweden and Germany. But guess which is the biggest tourist group there? It's in fact Russians who apparently aren't so afraid to visit eSStonia. In fact I would say Russians are treated very good there. Närking (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely most Russians prefer visiting Tallin (some would say Talinn:)) and Riga to visiting Barcelona and Paris - after all, you can go on a tour to these stars of Baltic for the same sum. And, for example, Bruxelles is no match to Tallin, that's for sure:)

Oh my Goodness! Are you sure even Russian tourists are treated good in estonia? My, my... And what about Jews and cyclists? (to make sure you or someone would not be offended by another unknown source, I'll give a link: [12]). Regards, FeelSunny (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For FeelSunny's information I can tell I was in Tallinn together with a Russian friend and we can both say that Estonians gladly spoke Russian and were very friendly (by the the way it was the same thing in Georgia in August last year). Maybe you also should try to go there and see with your own eyes and not only listen to Russian state-TV propaganda as my Russian friend says. Närking (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly come there and see yet another European country, the problem is that I can not think of a one thing I would like to see in Estonia. Not that I do not like middle ages German cities, I just feel that I can get much more in terms of sightseeing and in terms of service going to Greece, or France, or Spain.

I absolutely beleive the majority of Estonian citizens does not give a flying f*ck about neo-fascist movements and SS veterans, and does not have anything against Russians as an ethnos. However, when you encounter a commentary like "In fact I would say Russians are treated very good there" - it looks a little nationalist, to say the least. Would you say like "I feel Jews are treated good there"? Why shouldn't they be? Why do you think it's right to speak about treating an ethnos good or bad? FeelSunny (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote was to contrast what Russavia is writing here and there about eSStonia and what Russian media say about how Russians are treated there.

And by the way I can tell the service is as good or even better in Estonia than it is in Spain or Italy. So there is no problem visiting Estonia. And by the way there still is a huge Soviet war monument in Tallinn to visit, in fact rather close to the ruins of the Swedish Birgitta monastery. Närking (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What have I written "here and there" about eSStonia? The only thing I have written is User:russavia/eSStonia, and I have not yet finished it. Part of the reason for its creation was a question which I asked, in that would the editors who voted to keep a fringe term at AfD, that being Putinjugend, also vote the same way for an article such as eSStonia. For example, would Elysander also state an opinion of "wikipedia should be a neutral protocol of realities, actually used terms etc. and not decided by individuals' displeasures." if eSStonia was taken to AfD? Or would you, Narking, vote to keep it with the comment along the lines of "I can't see why this widely used term should be deleted just because some doesn't like it. It's a wellknown term and it's not up to Wikipedia to decide if it's a correct naming of some Russian youth movements or not." Well, would you? --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like your Talk page is a popular page Elysander :)

And about eSStonia I can't say how I would vote about such an article before I see it. But without reading it I would suggest it should be mentioned in the article about Estonia–Russia relations. And by the way my Russian friend had never heard of eSStonia before I told about it. Närking (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Einige Tage nicht online. Ich werde schliesslich "nicht bezahlt" für meine Anwesenheit hier. ;) Findeisen würde sich köstlich amüsieren, was für ein Unsinn unter seinem Rubrum verzapft wird. :)) Russavia bestätigt seinen Ruf als quasi-tibetanischer Alleinunterhalter; er braucht allerdings schon Hilfstruppen. :)) What I really can confirm Russians are not generally "Putinistas", and the notorious "tacit deal" could come soon to an end. - Elysander (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"My Russian friend had never heard of eSStonia" - (S)he becomes as popular as the Elysander's talk page is:)) Is (s)he living in Russia? then I really doubt (s)he could have missed this term if only (s)he has any interest in politics. FeelSunny (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your information my friend lives in the same city as you. And by the way I have visited that city several times also and wouldn't mind going there again but months of work with invitation and visa surely doesn't make it my first choice. Närking (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual rules for getting a visa for EU and Russia are absolutely identical. In case you book a hotel, you surely need no invitation. In case you live in a friend's house, you need an invitation, that's quite reasonable. And of course, I would prefer both EU and Russia abolish these bureaucratic rules, but that's solely for EU to decide. FeelSunny (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the rules are not the same in Russia. It's very easy for me to write an invitation for a Russian citizen since I write it myself. In Russia you need to have the invitation checked by the authorities that can take everything from one week to several months. Faster of course if you bribe someone, but I'm not the one to do such things. Then when you arrive to Russia you also need a day to spend to register you are there. Russians don't need all this when they go to Sweden. Närking (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to discuss documents, it may take days (believe me, it ususally takes several days) just taking the visa application to a EU country embassy yourself. I personally spent 3 days in a queue at Finnish embassy and however, never entered it. I gave in and went to see friends in St.Petersburg instead of visiting Finland last time. Please take into account it was -30 Celsius in the street and these guys make you wait in the street not even providing the basic heating. Most people go to the nearby cafes, but there you have a perfect opportunity to miss your turn, as they let people in in groups, sometimes 30, sometimes 5 persons. Overall, from your side this all seems to look stupid, from my side it looks disgusting. FeelSunny (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about your bad experience with the Finnish embassy. I mainly know about the Swedish embassy in Moscow and it's surely not difficult to get a visa there. And by the way Swedes have to stand in line outside the Russian embassy in Stockholm also. Närking (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Talk page Elysander! Above here FeelSunny writes: "I would prefer both EU and Russia abolish these bureaucratic rules, but that's solely for EU to decide". I don't see why that is solely for the EU to decide, Ukraine abolished it's Visa rules for foreigners years ago... Although you still have to fill in a stupid form and wait hours at Boryspil Airport before you can give customs that form but that's still way simpler then what the parents of my Crimean friend have to do to get to W-Europe, they have to travel all the way to Kyiv to get a Visa... It would be great if EU would abolish the Visa-rules for Ukrainians and Russian. Does Jörg-Peter Findeisen agree? P.S. Ich can aug Duetch spreggen, aber nigt gut written :) — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Närking: unfortunately, it's not only my personal experience, most people here are afraid of applying for visa to Schengen states embassies themselves. Vast majority does it via travel agencies with good connection to people from embassies just b/c they are afraid of not getting a visa/ getting it with a delay. Queues are another problem - I was going to go to Austria for this new year holidays, but I had no chance to - in late November they were booking places in a queue for applying for visa for early February. It makes three months to just apply. And you can not just "choose another Schengen state" for if you get a Finnish visa and first fly to Germany, they may (or may not) let you in, but later you will have problems with getting a Finnish visa again.

Mariah-Yulia: That's exactly the reason why I am saying it's solely for EU to decide - even if Russia follows Ukraine's example and unilaterally abolishes visas for EU citizens, EU would not answer with abolishing visas for Russians. Try to [Google] for "Fortress Europe" and you'll see a big problem exists. Of course everyone here will be ready and willing to abolish visas, though we're not going to do it unilaterally, as Ukraine did.FeelSunny (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: casualty lsits, official (Georgian)

Hi, thanks for the head's-up. It may also still be the case, that personnel from the sunk vessel were not military but classified as border police, and for that reason, not listed. Yeah, a loophole, but a convenient one. Or they never died. :) 5 killed from the Navy seems to indicate no naval vessel sunk in action and we know the ones in Poti were evacutated before being disposed of by demolition crews. Best, --Mareklug ^talk 14:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 South Ossetia war title vote

There is a vote up again at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war#Article name vote. Närking (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry .. just came back. 2 months of an archaeological project in a nearly I-net free zone :)). Elysander (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! We missed you. (Igny (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Good to see you're back! Not much have changed here I guess. As you maybe have seen already the vote was hijacked [13]. So I'm sure the archaeological project must have been much more exciting! Närking (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must replace an ill colleague (Virus): I was the only one who could and wanted too. ;) Here: The same ridiculous actions as always but guarded by dubious administrative activities. You know whom I mean. ;) Situation in SowjetRussia must be disastrous in the light of Putinistas' actions on minor topics. :)) - Elysander (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Notice of editing restrictions

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, "any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

Editors are cautioned that the purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia that approaches its subjects from a neutral point of view. While it is possible for editors with strongly held opposing viewpoints to collaborate and produce neutral articles, it is extremely difficult, and requires editors to be patient, flexible, respectful of their fellow editors, and willing to negotiate and compromise. Editors are further cautioned that when a change to an article becomes contentious, such as through a few early reverts or a strong objection on the talk page, they should stop reverting and discuss on the talk page until a compromise or consensus is reached. Use the content dispute resolution mechanisms including content request for comment, request for third opinion, mediation, or the content noticeboard. Reverting without discussion is very bad. Reverting during discussion is almost as bad, as it shows disrespect to the editors participating in the discussion. Thatcher 11:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion of Germans / Warsaw

An RfC has opened about this issue at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II#RfC: Nazi atrocities in Warsaw. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing survey

Hi Elysander. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic current events articles on Wikipedia. I noticed that you have been a key contributor at 2008 South Ossetia war. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below. An explanation of my project is included with the survey.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=kLMxj8dkk_2bls7yCBmNV7bg_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion

Hello, Elysander. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anonimu (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Năstase

With regard to your recent edits to our Adrian Năstase article, can I remind you that material needs to be based on published reliable sources, and that it is certainly not encyclopaedic to write that someone "should have tried to shoot himself in the head". I suggest you find appropriate sources for any further proposed edits, and then discuss them at Talk:Adrian Năstase. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Elysander. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Elysander. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] WP:Possibly_unfree_images#Image:Life_goes_on_p1.png

[2] WP:Possibly_unfree_images#Image:Life_goes_on_p2.png

[3] WP:Possibly_unfree_images#Image:Life_goes_on_p3.png

[4] WP:Possibly_unfree_images#Image:Life_goes_on_p4.png

[5] WP:Possibly_unfree_images#Image:Life_goes_on_p5.png

[6] WP:Possibly_unfree_images#Image:Life_goes_on_p6.png

[7] WP:Possibly_unfree_images#Image:Life_goes_on_p7.png

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]