Кто-нибудь, разблокируйте меня! Это полный произвол. Я веду уже блокнот правок, колторые мне нужно будет сделать сразу после разблокировки, бред в википедии множится. На каком основании можно просто вот так взять и заблокировать человека на неделю, ничего не объясняя?????? Подайте, кто-нибудь жалобу на Rdsmith4 за превышение полномочий!!!!--Nixer22:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your block expires at 19:21, 6 January 2006, Wikipedia time (in slightly more than two hours from now). If it does not (i.e., if there's a glitch again)—feel free to let me know then.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)17:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
can you move the German sub-box with Generaladmiral, Generaloberst, etc. above the sub-box with Admiral, General, etc.? I do not have the editing skills to do that.
By the way, a General in the Wehrmacht generally had an elaboration to his rank, depending on the service branch he was in or had come up in -- such as General der Infanterie or General der Artillerie or General der Panzertruppe or (in the air force) General der Flieger -- and this may be worth a footnote.Cosal16:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the above is a message from Cosal (talk·contribs) accidentaly placed on Nixer's userpage [1]
1. You're right, I'll correct.
2. In Soviet Union also they were General of... If you make a footnote, I will not oppose.
That's merely a matter of German grammar. "der" means "the". The rank or title is without article, but if one refers to the holder of it one uses the article. One would, for instance, also refer to "Der Reichsführer SS".Cosal17:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again German grammar intricacies. It is either "der oberste" or "oberster". The word "oberste" by itself and without article is feminine, while "oberster" is masculine.Cosal18:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We had a test vote for the deletion of category:Dene-Caucasian languages. It was deleted with the consensus that it is a fringe theory. I noticed that you recently changed the classification of Abkhaz language to Dene-Caucasian: this seems to be a clearly non-neutral edit. Your belief in this hypothesis is likely to
If you don't want your work reverted then stop reverting other people's work! You are in a minority in your views on rank equivalency and transliteration. Add your footnotes, but don't keep reverting perfectly good work. -- Necrothesp19:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generalissimo is rank that always superior to any Marshal. These ranks are equal: Field Marshal of RAF, Marshal of Air Force and Generalfeldmarschall der Fliegel. Reichsmarschall des Grossdeutchen Reiches is the same as Marshal of Soviet Union. Soviet Air Force was headed by General-Leutenant some time - should you say he was the same rank as Goering? Putting Generalissimo and General of the Army on one grade is a nonsence.--Nixer22:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Generalissimo is rank that always superior to any Marshal". Says who? Generalissimo is usually a title made up by dictators for themselves. They are not acknowledged as being superior by other countries. Where is it written that Göring and the Marshals of the SU were senior to any other marshals in the world? These equivalencies are simply your opinion, apparently based on the fact that they were senior to other officers in their own country (irrelevant to other countries). There is no basis for them in fact, nor can there be. Don't put forward your own opinions as fact. -- Necrothesp22:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were many Generalissimos in Russian history. None of them (excepting Stalin) was head of state. Soviet marshals were equivalent to General of the Armies in the US and to Goering's title. Field Marshal usually rearer than full Marshal (Marshal of the state).--Nixer23:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are different names. What the Russians called Generalissimos, the British call Field Marshal. They are the same rank. Izehar23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who did say you such a delirium? I know Field Marshials in Russian history that were promoted to Generalissimos. These ranks existed at the same time.--Nixer23:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you understand? In ENGLAND the highest rank, what the Russians call Generalissimos, is the Field Marshal. The are the same rank, doing the same job, the only difference is the name. Are you deliberetly not understanding, are you some kind of troll? Izehar23:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Luxemburg the same job does colonel, but it is not the same rank. Stanin being Marshal did the same work as Stalin being Generalissimo, bu those are not the same ranks. Dont you understand this? You like a child.--Nixer00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have no basis for any of your assertions. "Soviet marshals were equivalent to General of the Armies in the US and to Goering's title". Proof? No. You can't provide that can you (since it does not and cannot exist), so you just rant and insult people. Why exactly do you think Russian officers are more senior than anybody else? No ranting, just explain why they are the world's most senior officers. And before you start on about them being called "Generalissimo" or suchlike, an over-inflated title does not make them automatically senior. It's just a word. -- Necrothesp11:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not only word, but it is a military title. I do not say Stalin was better strategist than King George. But historically Generalissimos outranked any marshals and field marshals, especially of specific arm. Why do you think Generalissimo was equal to General of the Army of the US? You have no proof. With certainty we can say 1.Soviet General of the army was equal to US General of the Army (there is a link), 2. Generalissimo outranked Soviet General of the Army. We cannot establish correspondence between Generalissimo and any US rank. So please do not indicate Generalissimo as having the same rank as General of the Army. --Nixer22:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Generalissimo outranked a General of the Army in the Soviet Union. This does not mean he outranked a General of the Army (or Field Marshal) anywhere else in countries that did not have Generalissimos. You cannot say that if a country has three top ranks, two of them outrank the top officers in a country that only has one top rank. That is merely a difference in the number of ranks, since the positions held by a General of the Army, Marshal and Generalissimo in the Soviet Union would all be held by a Field Marshal in Britain. The rank designation is different, but the position held is the same. It is possible for two or three ranks in one country to correspond to a single rank in others (e.g. three ranks of Lieutenant in the SU correspond to two in Britain - it does not mean that a Russian Senior Lieutenant outranks a British Lieutenant or is equal to a British Captain; the fact that Britain had two ranks of Commodore does not mean that the senior equated to an American Rear Admiral). -- Necrothesp01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Luxemburg the same position as Brithish Field Marshal is held by Colonel - this does not make Luxemburgish Colonel correspond to British Field Marshal. I agree, we have not any DIRECT data that approves Generalissimo did outrank British Field Marshal. Though, on the other hand, we have no data that allows us to indicate them as having corresponding ranks of the same level. Generalissimo DOES NOT correspond to Field Marshal.--Nixer02:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Luxembourg army is tiny. They make no claims as to having officers senior to colonel, otherwise they'd call them generals. The British Army and US Army, however, were large forces with every bit as much infrastructure as the Soviet Army. Their commanders ranked equally with Soviet commanders. Claiming otherwise is ridiculous. -- Necrothesp10:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
British and US armies are strong, they were not involved in the war to the same extent. Compare the number of divisions on the East and West fronts.--Nixer11:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Nixer, you cite a source that confirms that the head of the armed forces of one country can outrank the head of the armed forces of another. Izehar10:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Izehar, I already gave the sources in the talk page of the article. Please, read my latest posts. By the way, I already said that Luxemburgish military is headed by a Colonel. Do you need this source? --Nixer10:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Giving Russian sources that nobody else can read is irrelevant to English Wikipedia. Give proof from the British and US governments that they acknowledged Stalin and all his Marshals as being senior to any of their officers or your argument is fatally flawed. -- Necrothesp10:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is there was NO official correspondence before 1955. So this table in general can be based on not more then speculations. I give a link to a Russian military historian, which himself says this ranking subjective, though he describes general principles of estimations. If you have another source - this would be welcome.--Nixer11:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there's no correspondence then you have no proof. Case closed. Can you stop these stupid edits and leave the table as is. -- Necrothesp11:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any British or American or any other sources to support your version? And Wikipedia policy does not prohibit using Russian sources, you know.--Nixer11:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Здравствуйте Nixer! У меня нет диких фантазий. Во многих случаях ты прав, но не во всё. Я полностью поддерживаю тебя в споре о Генералиссимусе СССР и о других высших званиях. Но вынужден не согласится с тобой о советском Адмирале и советском Генерал-майоре. Генерал-майор в 1940 году сменил звание Комдив и до этого года было советское 100% эквивалентное звание бригадным генералам других стран - это Комбриг, было советское звание Комдив - 100% эквивалентное звание Генерал-майорам других стран, было советское звание Комкор - 100% эквивалентное звание Генерал-лейтенантам других стран, было советское звание Командарм 2-ого ранга - эквивалентность которого спорна, так как оно может быть эквивалентно и к OF-8 и к OF-9 разрядам других стран (то есть и к Генерал-лейтенантам и к полным Генералам других стран), было советское звание Командарм 1-ого ранга - 100% эквивалентное звание полным Генералам других стран и было звание Маршал СССР - 100% эквивалентное звание Маршалам других стран. После введения в 1940 году в СССР генеральских званий звание Комбриг было упразднено и вместе с Комдивом было заменено на Генерал-майора, поэтому его эквивалентность тоже спорна , так как оно может быть эквивалентно и к OF-6 и к OF-7 разрядам других стран (то есть и к бригадным генералам и к Генерал-майорам других стран). В советской и в современной российской армиях бригадой командовают или Полковник или Генерал-майор. Всё это имеет отношение и к эквивалентности советского Адмирала - его эквивалентность также спорна , так как оно может быть эквивалентно и к OF-8 и к OF-9 разрядам других стран (то есть и к Вице-адмиралам и к Адмиралам других стран).
Ты прав что звание Маршал СССР не полностью эквивалентно к званиям Главных маршалов рода войск, но так как в этих родах войск, а в особенности в авиации не было звания выше этого то эти звания могут быть приблизительно эквивалентны когда мы их сравниваем со званиями OF-10 разряда других стран. Ты пишешь что звания Главных маршалов рода войск не только для авиации и они выше званий Маршалов рода войск - в этом ты абсолютно прав и это хорошо видно в временной статье. Ты не прав о British army of that time there was no commodores of 1st and second class - смотри WWII Вritnavyranks и ты не прав о Japan army had no rank correspondent to Brigadier General - had Jün Shō. О there was no Midshipman rank - я тебя не понял. В действующей версии этой статьи также отсутствуют или не эквивалентны некоторые итальянские звания и так думают многие. Где и в какой стране ты имел ввиду его не было. Ты писал раньше: "спасибо за поддержку надлежащий версии этой статьи" - это значит что моя версия этой страницы не плохая. Прошу тебя написать местоположение твоей страницы или полслат по E-mail tt1@mail.ru и я обещяю что без твоего согласия я не буду изменять её. Спасибо за внимание и прошу прощения, что ты был блокирован много раз из-за Roitr как и я. Они считают что мы с ним одно и тоже.--Tt114:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Translation:
Hello Nixer! I do not have wild fantasies. In many cases you are right, but not in all. I completely support you in dispute about the Generalissimo of the USSR and on other outrank ranks. But about the Soviet General-major will disagree with you and about the Soviet Admiral. The general-major in 1940 has replaced rank Komdiv and till this year there was Soviet 100% equivalent rank to brigade generals of other countries - is Kombrig, there was Soviet rank Komdiv - 100% equivalent rank to the General-majors of other countries, there was Soviet rank Komkor - 100% equivalent rank to the General-lieutenants of other countries, there was a Soviet rank the Commandarm of 2-nd rank - which equivalence is disputable - it can be equivalent both to OF-8 and to OF-9 categories of other countries (that is both to the General-lieutenants and to full Generals of other countries), there was a Soviet rank the Commandarm of 1-st rank - 100% equivalent rank to full Generals of other countries and there was a rank the Marshal of the USSR - 100% equivalent rank to Marshals of other countries. After introduction in 1940 in the USSR generals ranks - rank Kombrig has been abolished and together with Kombrig has been replaced by the General-major, which equivalence too is disputable - it can be equivalent both to OF-6 and to OF-7 categories of other countries (that is both to brigade generals and to the General-majors of other countries). In Soviet and in modern Russian armies the commander of brigade - or the Colonel or the General-major. All it concerns to equivalence of the Soviet Admiral - its equivalence also disputable - it can be equivalent both to OF-8 and to OF-9 categories of other countries (that is both to Vice-admirals and to Admirals of other countries).
You are right that the rank the Marshal of the USSR is not completely equivalent to ranks of the Chief Marshals arm of the services, but as in these arms of the service, and in particular in aircraft there was no rank above and these ranks can be approximately equivalents when we compare them to ranks OF-10 category of other countries. You write that ranks of the Chief Marshals arm of the service not only for aviation and they above ranks of Marshals arm of the service - in it you are absolutely right and all it is well visible in the temporary page. You are not right about British army of that time there was no commodores of 1st and second class - look WWII Вritnavyranks , also you are not right about Japan army had no rank correspondent to Brigadier General - had Jün Shō. About there was no Midshipman rank - I have not understood you. Where and in what country you had in view of it were not. In the current version of this page also are absent or are not equivalent some Italian ranks and are absent French ranks - So many users also think as I. You wrote earlier: " Thanks for support the proper version of the table" - is meansthat my version of this page not bad. Thanks for attention and I am sorry that you have been blocked many times because Roitr edits as well as I. They consider that we with him the same user.--Tt114:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Именно потому что не все из комбригов стали полковниками автоматически, а аттестационная комиссия решала какое звание присвоить вчерашнему комбригу и некоторым им присвоили звание "генерал-майор" то и судить о их эквивалентности трудно и спорно. В советской и в современной российской армиях бригадой командовают или Полковник или Генерал-майор, хотя редко. У меня есть дядя в России - генерал-майор и он командовает бригадой. Поэтому я считаю что и я и ты правы. Мы можем оставить мою версию только сделать пометку об этом:"equivalence of this is disputable - it can be equivalent both to OF-6 and to OF-7 categories of other countries (that is both to brigade generals and to the General-majors of other countries)". Ты сам писал что Chief Mashal of service выше Mashal of service почему теперь ты их сравниваешь.Я считаю это не совсем правильно и по моему мнению Chief Mashal of Aviation более эквивалентен к British Marshal of the RAF и к General of Air Forces of USA. My link about British army corresponds to WWII period WWII Military Ranks Archive. About Japan ranks I am right too. Прошу тебя написать местоположение твоей страницы или полслать по E-mail tt1@mail.ru --Tt115:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because not all from Kombrigs became colonels automatically, and the certifying commission decided what rank to appropriate yesterday's комбригу and the some it have appropriated a rank "general-major" that and to judge their equivalence difficultly and disputably. In Soviet and in modern Russian armies the commander of brigade - or the Colonel or the General-majorthough, it is rare. I have a uncle in Russia - the general-major and he is the commander of brigade. Therefore I consider as I and you are right. We can leave my version only to make a mark about it: "equivalence of this is disputable - it can be equivalent both to OF-6 and to OF-7 categories of other countries (that is both to brigade generals and to the General-majors of other countries)". You wrote that Chief Mashal of service above Mashal of service, why now you compare them. I consider it not absolutely correctly and in my opinion Chief Mashal of Aviation is more equivalent to British Marshal of the RAF and to General of Air Forces of USA.
My link about British army corresponds to WWII period WWII Military Ranks Archive. About Japan ranks I am right too.--Tt115:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Here I am only right. The rank corresponding to Brigabier General (or Kombrig) was abolished with the reform. There was no corresponding rank after the reform. General-Major was corresponding to Major General of British army and General-Leutenant - to British Leutenant General. Your sence is not significant unless you presented the sources. --Nixer15:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Даже на уважаемом вами сайте http://armor.kiev.ua/army/titul/titul_1.shtml написано что сравнивать звания разных стран трудно и спорно. По вашему генерал-полковник равен полному генералу в других странах, но это не совсем так. Полномочия у них разные. С уважаемым сайтом Еремеева в том что Генерал армии 16-ого разряда и ниже Маршала России (СССР) я не согласен так как и тот и тот - Почетное звание, даваемое за особые заслуги и Главнокомандующий, Командующий округом (фронтом), заместитель министра обороны, министр обороны, начальник генерального штаба, другие высшие должности. Следуя твоей логики Маршал России (СССР) ВЫШЕ МАРШАЛЬСКИХ И ФЕЛЬДМАРШАЛЬСКИХ ЗВАНИЙ В ДРУГИХ СТРАНАХ? Но ты сам доказывал всем что это не так. О том что именно потому что не все из комбригов стали полковниками автоматически, а аттестационная комиссия решала какое звание присвоить вчерашнему комбригу и некоторым им присвоили звание "генерал-майор" то и судить о их эквивалентности трудно и спорно-я думаю что прав мой дядя лучшее доказательство для меня. Твоё право думать по другому. Почему ты не выскажешь своё мнение о итальянских и французских званиях? My link about British army corresponds to WWII periodи они правильныеWWII Military Ranks Archive , а если нет напиши твои источники. About Italian ranks and absent French ranks I am right. И почему не указываешь где находится твоя страница ведь я обещал что без твоего согласия я не буду изменять её. То что ты заявляешь что только ты прав - это по моему не правильно и нам всем надо придти к компромиссу, ведь я поддержал тебя во многих твоих спорах раньше. И ещё просьба - ты сам страдал от не справедливости администратора не один раз, так не надо призывать их к моему бойкотированию на User talk:Husnock.--Tt1 16:21, 5 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Даже на уважаемом вами сайте http://armor.kiev.ua/army/titul/titul_1.shtml написано что сравнивать звания разных стран трудно и спорно. По вашему генерал-полковник равен полному генералу в других странах, но это не совсем так. Полномочия у них разные. С уважаемым сайтом Еремеева в том что Генерал армии 16-ого разряда и ниже Маршала России (СССР) я не согласен так как и тот и тот - Почетное звание, даваемое за особые заслуги и Главнокомандующий, Командующий округом (фронтом), заместитель министра обороны, министр обороны, начальник генерального штаба, другие высшие должности.
Мы рассматриваем период Второй Мировой войны. Да, Маршал Советского Союза выше генерала арми. Это факт. Сейчас звание Маршал РФ не используется, но в военное время для управленя войсками нужна более длинная шкала званий - это делается в любой стране.--Nixer16:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Следуя твоей логики Маршал России (СССР) ВЫШЕ МАРШАЛЬСКИХ И ФЕЛЬДМАРШАЛЬСКИХ ЗВАНИЙ В ДРУГИХ СТРАНАХ? Но ты сам доказывал всем что это не так.
О том что именно потому что не все из комбригов стали полковниками автоматически, а аттестационная комиссия решала какое звание присвоить вчерашнему комбригу и некоторым им присвоили звание "генерал-майор" то и судить о их эквивалентности трудно и спорно-я думаю
Твоё право думать по другому. Почему ты не выскажешь своё мнение о итальянских и французских званиях? My link about British army corresponds to WWII periodи они правильныеWWII Military Ranks Archive , а если нет напиши твои источники. About Italian ranks and absent French ranks I am right. И почему не указываешь где находится твоя страница ведь я обещал что без твоего согласия я не буду изменять её. То что ты заявляешь что только ты прав - это по моему не правильно и нам всем надо придти к компромиссу, ведь я поддержал тебя во многих твоих спорах раньше. И ещё просьба - ты сам страдал от не справедливости администратора не один раз, так не надо призывать их к моему бойкотированию на User talk:Husnock.--Tt1 16:21, 5 5 February 2006
Просто отменили этот ранг и всё. Что тут обсуждать? Ни генерал-майор, ни полковник не эквивалентны комбригу в этом хотя и не полностью я с тобой согласен для компромисса, но что советский генерал-майор - 100% эквивалентен генерал-лейтенантам других стран а не бригадным генералам и что следуя твоей логики советский генерал армии равен американскому, но это не так - полномочия их разные: американский - Почетное звание, даваемое за особые заслуги и Главнокомандующий, Командующий армиями, округом (фронтом), а советский генерал армии - Почетное звание, даваемое за особые заслуги и Неглавнокомандующий, Некомандующий армиями и фронтами, а Командующий армией или округом. Я не уверен и вообще я считаю что было ошибкой с самого начала сравнивать звания по кодам НАТО. И ещё один вопрос? Ты считаешь что моя версия этой страницы хуже действующей версии этой страницы? То я так не считаю в действующей версии этой страницы намного больше ошибок чем в моей.-Tt117:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Советский генерал-майор соответствует генерал-майорам других стран, а не генерал-лейтенантам. В современной России министр обороны - это генерал армии. В США как во времена войны, так и сейчас, главнокомандующий - это гражданская должность, с военным званием не связанная и принадлежащая президенту. Советский генерал армии официально был эквивалентен маршалу рода войск.--Nixer17:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ты прав что Советский генерал армии официально был эквивалентен маршалу рода войск и Адмиралу флота (1940-1944), но ты не прав говоря что в США как во времена войны, так и сейчас, главнокомандующий - это должность принадлежащая президенту. В США президент - ВЕРХОВНЫЙ главнокомандующий, как и в России, а просто главнокомандующий - министр обороны США. У тебя устарели данные - В современной России министр обороны - это гражданская должность, с военным званием не связанная. То что Иванов - генерал это факт, но был указ президента что должность министра обороны России - гражданская и поэтому даже военный парад Иванов принимает в гражданской одежде! Кому по твоему равен ГЕНЕРАЛ ПОЛКОВНИК? Почему ты не высказал своё мнение о итальянских, французских и английских званиях после таких серьёзных доказательств? В своих утверждениях ты основываешься на сайте Еремеева, а я кроме его и на многих других сайтов. И ты не ответил на мой вопрос считаешь ли ты что моя версия этой страницы хуже действующей версии этой страницы? То я так не считаю в действующей версии этой страницы намного больше ошибок чем в моей. И не высказался насчёт что было ошибкой с самого начала сравнивать звания по кодам НАТО и насчёт твоего призыва их к моему бойкотированию на User talk:Husnock. Что ты думаешь о Outranks в моей таблице и пометки для них и для OF-10 званий - правильные они или нет?-Tt118:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
И президент, и министр обороны, и главнокомандующий, и верховный главнокомандующий - это гражданские должности. Генерал-полковник соответствовал, например, немецкому Generaloberst. Согласен, что сравнивать по современным рангам НАТО - не очень хорошая идея. Если тебе не нравится сайт Еремеева, предложи другой источник соответствия званий разных стран. Я другого источника не знаю. Поскольку другого источника нет, а с ним не все согласны, можно сделать пометку, что информация приводится в соответствии с этим сайтом (и дать ссылку). С твоей версией я абсолютно не согласен (Маршал советского союза не был ниже Геринга).--Nixer18:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Все эти источники посвящены современным званиям. Как ты не можешь понять, что их нельзя проецировать на времена WWII?--Nixer20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Да я считаю что Маршал Советского Союза был ниже Reichsmarschall des Großdeutschen Reiches и ниже Primo Maresciallo dell'Impero в Италии. Все сайты и книги сравнивают Маршала Советского Союза с Маршалами, Фельдмаршалами, Генерел-фельдмаршалами других стран. Даже Еремеев ставит Маршала Советского Союза в код 18а, а эти звания код 18Б на ряду с Генералиссимусом, но с этим сравнением я не согласен. лучше всего для примера взять Китайские звания и мою кодировку: 17а. Da Jiang - генерал армии или полный генерал, 18а Zhong Hua Ren Ming Gong He Guo Yuan Shuai - Маршал Китайской республики равен Маршалу Советского Союза, 18б Zhong Hua Ren Ming Gong He Guo Da Yuan Shuai - Главный (Большой) Маршал Китайской республикии равен немецкому Reichsmarschall des Großdeutschen Reiches и Primo Maresciallo dell'Impero в Италии и есть 19. Zhong Hua Ren Ming Gong He Te Ji - Генералиссимус Китайской республики равен Генералиссимусу СССР. Также для примера можно взять и звания кореи где есть 17а полный генерал, 17а маршал рода войск, 17а или 18а главный маршал рода войскм, 18а маршал кореи, 18б главный (большой) маршал кореи и 19. Генералиссимус Кореи. Я бы так кодировал их.
Я также не согласен с тобой что Генерал-полковник соответствовал, например, немецкому Generaloberst ведь в германии Generaloberst был выше даже полного генерала и если уж их сравнивать, то по моему Генерал-полковник более соответствовал немецкому генералу -"General der Infanterie" и т.д .
Я так понял что если ты не высказался против моих замечаниях о итальянских, французских и английских званий, то ты не против их и согласен со мной.-Tt119:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Я не знаю об этих системах званий. Я против любой информации без источника. Admiral of the Navy - такого звания во время WWII не было.--Nixer20:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Все эти источники посвящены современным званиям. Как ты не можешь понять, что их нельзя проецировать на времена WWII" - подавляющее большинство из них не изменились до сих пор, а особенно звания наивысших офицеров, просто сейчас они никому не присваиваются и существуют чисто теоритически - их ни кто не отменял и они предусмотрены на случай большой войны!
Эти звания одни и теже: Маршал он и сейчас Маршал, Фельдмаршал он и сейчас Фельдмаршал, Генерал-Фельдмаршал он и сейчас Генерал-Фельдмаршал и эквивалентность их тажа, только они существуют чисто теоритически и никому не присваиваются - эта вся разница!-Tt120:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Есть источник с соответствиями или опять фантазии" - есть много посмотри сайты о званиях китая и о званиях кореи. Я китаиский и корейский не знаю и читать на этих языках не могу и поэтому все приведённые звания я выдумать не мог, а взял их с источников!
Все звания Китая относятся именно к времи WWII и соответствие тоже к тому периоду. В современном китае таких званий сейчас не существуют.-Tt120:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Генерал-полковник соответствовал обоим. В немецкой армии в этой клеточке было больше званий, чем в других странах". Тогда и в советского Генерал-полковника надо писать в одной клетки вместе с генералом армии.
Нет. Потому что в других странах тоже были соответствующие звания. А двум немецким званиям соответствовало одно звание в армиях всех других стран.--Nixer00:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Я не знаю об этих системах званий. Я против любой информации без источника". Я о них предоставлял выше много источников информации и что касается итальянских и французских, то эти данные ты можешь проверить на сайтх министерств обороны этих стран! Admiral of the Navy - такое звание во время WWII на практике не было, то есть его никто не носил, а теоритически было - его никто не отменял из системы американских званий!
Нет не ошибаюсь. Flag Admiral - звание существует в некоторых странах и соответствует Командору! Укажи источники где указанно, что звание Admiral of the Navy официально отменено и напиши источник о проекте ввести соответствующее ему Flag Admiral звание.-Tt120:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Я нашёл твою станицу и там тоже много неточностей и недоработак.
1. У тебя генерал армии OF-10, то есть равен Британскому Фельдмаршалу и немецкому Генерал-фельдмаршалу но в твоем любимом сайте Еремеева генерал армии он под кодом №17 http://armor.kiev.ua/army/titul/sovarm_1943-55.shtml, немецкий Генерал-фельдмаршал под кодом №18 и под кодом №17 у немцов Генерал-оберст. Звание адмирал флота во время войны меняло своё значение: 1940-1944 оно было равно генралу армии, а 1944-1955 до появления звания адмирал флота Советского Союза было равно Маршалу Советского Союза, даже погоны заменили с четырёх звёзд на одну большую!
Ничего не меняли. Ввели новое звание "Адмирал флота Советского Союза", не отменяя "Адмирал флота", и было это в 1955 году.--Nixer00:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Нет изменяли. Звание адмирал флота во время войны меняло своё значение: 1940-1944 оно было равно генралу армии, а 1944-1955 до появления звания адмирал флота Советского Союза было равно Маршалу Советского Союза, даже погоны заменили с четырёх звёзд на одну большую! Смотри http://marshals.narod.ru/admirals.html, только там небольшая неточность и там написано что с мая 1945 адмирал флота было равно Маршалу Советского Союза а на самом деле с мая 1945 - адмирал Кузнецов, но эта ошибка и спор в дате не существенны так как и май 1944 и май 1945 - период WWII. В сайте Еремеева это просто не оговарено. У тебя генерал армии OF-10, то есть равен Британскому Фельдмаршалу и немецкому Генерал-фельдмаршалу, но в твоем любимом сайте Еремеева генерал армии он под кодом №17 http://armor.kiev.ua/army/titul/sovarm_1943-55.shtml, немецкий Генерал-фельдмаршал под кодом №18 и под кодом №17 у немцов Генерал-оберст.-Tt120:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2.Где британский Second Officer если ты убрал мичмана, то это звание было выше чем Commissioned Warrant Officer. WWII Military Ranks Archive.
У тебя он отсутствует также как отсутствует Commodore 1st Class и Commodore 2st Class. Я привёл свои источники, укажи на другие каторые это опровергают!.-Tt120:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Твоя версия тогда - полнейший бред. В нём отсутствовают звания и твоя эквивалентность званий ещё более спорная чем у меня.-Tt120:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you stop wasting out time please, this is ridiculous, we KNOW WHO YOU ARE ALREADY - Dude, give up. Хуже всякого глухого, кто не хочет слушать. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*17:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lysy doesn't have to explain himself - you are not allowed to revert more than three times within the same 24 hour period under any circumstances except clear vandalism. You have been blocked countless times for 3RRvios, you should know this by now. What are you, the clever one who is exempt from the 3RR, while everyone else isn't? Izehar11:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for 1 week. 3RR is an "electric fence". There is no reason to violate it except for clear vandalism. You have been blocked for it no fewer than 10 times. Wikibofh(talk)16:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My opponents does not present any support for their point of view, deleting my edits without comment. This is a clear vandalism. Please unblock me. You're violating the Wikipedia policy. You cant block me for 3RR for a week.--Nixer20:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have violated 3RR 10 times. It's not vandalism. You are engaged in an edit war over several articles. I looked at them to see if anyone else violated 3RR on them, and they didn't. 3RR is supposed to slow down edit wars, but you are simply choosing to ignore it. It is not vandalism, and the block is appropriate. I will post a comment to WP:AN/I for other admins to review, but I have a hard time believing that this won't be seen as reasonable. Wikibofh(talk)20:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He wouldn't be able to block you for 3RR violation for a week on the first or second occasion, but since you had multiple warnings before and did not listen, this block is quite justified. And heed my words—if you violate 3RR again, I myself will block you for no less than a month.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis)20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked them to answer four questions about sources. They refuse to anwer because they havent ANY source for the topic. Wikipedia is not democracy - I give my sources, they dont.--Nixer20:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize that your inane apologism on the Stalin page does little more than prove your that your infinite ignorance is tainted by less insight than that of most people? Good thing you're blocked for a while. Dietwald17:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "without a comment". The talk pages of the articles in question and you very talk page is full of desperate people trying to reson with you. You cannot expect to be able to impose your POV on articles and we have to accept it. Why don't you take the time during this break to find and cite some sources. Izehar20:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, correct the Basque languages article! No it is confusing the North and South Caucasian languages. It is not right. It seems some users tend to revert any of my edits. Please, correct the mistake.--Nixer20:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nixer, before presenting yourself as an innocent victim, how do you explain your edit warring. You knew that you would be blocked, and yet proceeded. I did not revert your edits to Basque language because you made them. I (and all other editors) reverted because this North and South Caucasian theory is very dubious indeed and they way you wrote it is obviously biased. I was tempted to unblock you, but since your persisting in your POV-pushing against the will of all other editors of those articles and Wikipedia policy even while blocked, I think that would be a bad idea (they'd hate me). While you are blocked, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:NPOV. You nominated a perfectly fine article for deletion just because you couldn't get your way. That is disruptive and I personally, would characterise it as trolling. That alone could justify this block. Please consider stopping revert warring, or you could end up permanently blocked (à la User:Gibraltarian). As long as your views are in the minority and are controversial, there is no way that you can win a revert war against multiple users and there is no way you will get you way if you don't explain your edits. It's all very well asking other users to explain themselves, but so must you. The mere fact that you user the word "opponent" to describe us, shows your approach to these disputes. So far, I have assumed good faith, but I think it will be extremely hard to get me and most other editors to take you seriously after that obviously bad faith AfD nomination.
If you still believe this block is unjustified, please add the text {{unblock}} to this page along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified; your request will be considered. You can also take this to the mailing list or to IRC, it's up to you. I advise you to be polite and to show signs of rehabilitation if you want to get anywhere. Izehar20:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Izehar, OK, let's discuss the edit (though, as I see it is actually impossible to show you anything). This theory is not debilous and is based on works of many famous liguists, for example, Edward Sapir, Sergei Starostin, Edward Vajda and so forth. It looks like the most probable theory. Only one point it has not to become a scientific fact is regular phonetical correspondence, though for Sino-Caucasian branch they already stated by Starostin. In any case, if there presented much more political than linguistic theory about relations with Georgian, this theory also should be presented. I did not add infoirmation on the Dene-Caucasian theory (it already existed in the article) but prevent confusion between Georgian and North Caucasian languages (many non-specialists make such mistake).--Nixer21:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please change the phrase The urban area constitutes about 1/10 of the Russian population, thus making it the most populous city in Eastern Europe. to The urban area constitutes about 1/10 of the Russian population, thus making it the most populous city in Europe.
Why do you support this dibilous version without Soviet Marshal of specific arms ranks, without supreme SS rank, in which Himmler placed above Russian Marshal of the Soviet Union? Please answer.
I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). Lets move on and make together our Wikipedia an even greater place abakharev09:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect, although I haven't researched this, that there were no exact equivalents to some ranks, and no formal agreements between countries on what equalled what. If I have time I will look into it. Grant65 | Talk08:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of Hitler having a formal SS rank per se (certainly he was Himmler's superior regardless of rank). Do you have a source for the existence of anything above Reichsfuhrer-SS? —Kirill Lokshin16:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as this states, Hitler's title was honorary. We should probably list Hitler and Himmler both in the separate table; the idea is to divide titles created for specific people from ranks held by "regular" officers. —Kirill Lokshin22:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May be his title was "honorary". "Chief marshal" also a honorary title. Himmler according official (German) correspondence between SS and army ranks was the same level as Grossadmiral and Fieldmarshal. If we take a criteria to separate titles that held by only one person, we should also separate for example Главный маршал авиации. There were also officially existing titles that nobody held (for example, Главный маршал инженерных войск).--Nixer03:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re. your last post on my talk page: I don't think it was a deliberate deletion; the same thing happened to me recently when I and another editor both posted simultaneously and there was no "edit conflict", as there should have been. Someone should take it up with the software people. Grant65 | Talk19:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty, pretty please. Could you please stop blind reverting? It took me some time to corrrect all the footnotes and the HTML, and you blind reverted all of my changes in a matter of seconds after I posted them... Please, if you have some corrections - feel free to add them, but please do not ruin my work. Please. Halibutt17:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not revert the proper version. It had been discussed for more than month. and was located in Comparative military ranks of World War II/temp since the page was protected from editing. Now I copied the result of discussion in the article page. There is too many to correct in your improper version - table form, ranking, need add a number of strings, footnotes and many other.--Nixer17:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I responded here and reverted to the full version. If you believe your version is better, feel free to add it, but please do not delete my work. I too spent some time on the table and I see no reason why should my work be dumped and not yours. Please, just add Poland, correct footnotes and correct UTF, and we could replace the article with your version. How about that? Halibutt18:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also spent time, and moch more than you. And you're reverting to a version of the last month. If you want to add, please add Poland to the proper version.--Nixer19:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Nixer, you are removing both Poland and Greece. We are adding information, you are subtracting it. If you want to use a fancy table format, you will have to integrate Greece and Poland into your version, not remove valid information. Latinus19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not revert the proper version. You're adding it to a vandalized version. You will be reverted again.--Nixer19:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a vandalised version? It seems fine to me - please don't remove accurate information (the Greek and Polish ranks). Latinus20:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, Nixer. What are we going to do about our little edit war? You do realise that the Greek and Polish ranks are staying - so what do we do? Latinus23:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given that Halibutt had already added them to the live version before you added your version, you should add them to the temp version - it'll give you something to do while you're blocked. Latinus23:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He added it not to live version, but to vandalized version full with Tt1's own wild fantasies. Discussed and live version was in the talk page.--Nixer00:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I get it - I'll see what I can do. I have a large essay to complete though, so it could take a while. If you like, you could be getting on with it as well. Latinus00:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea Tt1's versions were good or bad, I simply added it to the only official version of that article out there. Halibutt11:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The one in the article's namespace. I already told you, it might've been vandalized or not, I don't really care. Even if it was, it does not make your vandalism right. Just add your corrections to the article and all will be fine. Halibutt16:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, since combining both versions rather than respecting the work of others seemed like a huge problem to you, I did it myself. Is it ok now? Halibutt17:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is not right now. For example, in British army of that time there was no commodores of 1st and second class, Soviet General-Major is not correspondent to Brigadier General, Japan army also had no rank correspondent to Brigadier General. Soviet Chief Marshal of service was superior to Marshal of service, there was no Midshipman rank, Marshal of specific arm was not only in aviation, Soviet Admiral correspondent to British Admiral, not Vice-Admiral, and many other mistakes, big and small. This is mixture of ranks of different times with wild fantasies of Tt1.--Nixer18:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Alai19:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though I sympathise with your situation as you appear to contribute to Wikipedia, you have been blocked for 3RR violations far to many times for an unblock to applied. Your block expires in 18 and a half hours, I urge you to stick it out thanks. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk01:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't think you are part of the nasty sockpuppet army that has invaded Comparative military ranks of World War II (if you were I hope you would tell me!). You seem to be reasonable and have never violated Wikipedia policies to the extent that we are seeing from User:Roitr and his many sockpuppets. You are to be commended for that. -Husnock23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nixer. I'm sorry for my arguments with you about that wikiproject in ru. Besides, now I agree that I misused my sysop rights. It was really a good lesson for me and I made conclusions, excuse me. MaxiMaxiMax05:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
your vandalism of Gravitoelectromagnetism is being reverted.
There is no such thing as "gravitoelectromagnetism". There is gravitomagnetism. Please do no invent new terms.--Nixer02:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the lit (cited in the 2nd section) says "gravitoelectromagnetism" or "GEM". these GEM equations (that looks like Maxwell's Eqs.) also define a "gravitoelectric" field (i would call it "gravitostatic", but i don't write the lit) in addition to a gravitomagnetic field. i was dubious about the name of the main article as "gravitomagnetic" but left it alone until Chris Hillman put on the ToDo list he created for the talk page, an entry to change the name. that was the sufficient authorization i needed.
when i do a Google search on "gravitomagnetic" or "gravitomagnetism" without "gravitoelectromagnetic" and "gravitoelectromagnetism", i see web hits like "Gravitomagnetism: The Myth and the Legend", "Gravitomagnetism. The orphan child of gravitational physics", "The Nature of Gravitomagnetism", "Gravitomagnetic Field / 'Gravity-Shielding' Experiments" [7], but when i reverse the terms, i see a bunch of hits of published research papers [8].
i was willing to leave it the other way (even though it didn't seem to me the term most used in the published lit) until i read that User:Hillman was planning to change it [9], so i did it for him. r b-j05:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Compare 13900 hits for gravitomagnetism with 295 hits for gravitoelectromagnetism. Please bring the article back to the proper place.--Nixer09:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop mass-reverting NI tank[10][11]. You keep reverting a good edit to the article and removing an important reference, with no explanation in your edit summaries or talk. The empty infobox serves no purpose, except to make the article look unfinished, so please leave it off. —MichaelZ. 2006-02-16 15:44 Z
Right, the infobox contains a statement about the armament of a model whose armament varied between individual vehicles, as if it was a hard fact. This would not only make the article permanently look unfinished, but it is misleading compared to the description in the text which you removed. Besides this, your lazy reversion also removed other information and a reference from the article text. You call that constructive? —MichaelZ. 2006-02-16 19:02 Z
Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.
If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Ba27.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Halibutt12:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an old vintage image that can be found on several sites.[12],[13] If all these sites even have any copyright notices, they cannot posibly expand their copyright to a PD image they don't own to begin with. So, I think Halibutt should not make problems for others just to promote another image of Soviet-German cooperation in partitioning of Poland. The image he pushes for is valuable for Wikipedia but not for this article where it serves no illustrative purpose at all. --Irpen04:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear, the copyright of that page claims that anyone can use the pics for any purpose except for commercial use. So, it is fair to assume that it is fair to use it in any article in wikipedia, which in itself is not commercial at all. Halibutt03:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in, but I think Wikipedia's GFDL licence requires images to be republishable for commercial use. Recently, a whole whack of images from Canadian government web sites have been deleted, specifically because they were only redistributable for non-commercial purposes. Sorry that I don't have a link to a definitive statement on this, but do investigate further. Cheers. —MichaelZ. 2006-03-11 03:36 Z
Ah. I wasn't aware that you have a past history of such things, perhaps I was giving you too much benefit of the doubt. Please don't do that again, Nixer, or you will, as Michael said, get blocked again. -- The Anome00:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:092str.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
The source information already exists. Why tag the image "unfree" instaed of contacting the author? Both I and User:Ghirlandajo contacted the author by e-mail. There was already discussion on these images in my talk page. See the archive. How many times it will repeat? Nixer01:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Schofield_1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Sani1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Sempl_2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:T90_3.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Хватит всех обвинять в том что они являются личинками блокированных юзеров. Вы что больны соксоманией. Также почему все должны следовать Вашим данным с вашего источника. У меня они другие и англоязычные - http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/179.0.html , http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm
. Эта статья общая и не является копией вашего источника. Эквивалентность генеральских званий в разных странах спорна и нет ни одной официальной статьи ни на английском ни на русском языке в которой написано 100% точная их эквивалентность. Ни НАТОвский, ни сайт мин. обороны России не имеют такой таблицы. Нельзя их сравнивать по их должностям, то есть кто каким воинским образованием руководит, так как в разных странах высшие звания и должности не всегда одинаковы. Ведь судите сами не могут быть генерал-полковник в Белоруссии, в ЮАР и в др. странах и генерал-лейтенант в Израиле, Латвии и в др. странах где они являются высшими званиями и офицеры имеющие их занимают в этих армиях так же и высшею должность, не могут быть равные Генералу армии в США, Фельдмаршалу в Британии и Маршалам в России или во Франции. И ещё Вы ведёте себя, как маленький ребёнок и вечно жалуетесь и плачете на всех юзеров, которые не согласны с Вами User:Husnockу и просить всех заблокировать. Это не решит вашу проблему и так может продолжаться вечно: Другие юзеры исправляют Вас, а Вы их возвращаете снова и снова. Это глупо и не смешно! User:Sergeybakh. 13:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Генерал-лейтенант в Израиле не равен генералу армии в США. То, что все ваши "юзеры" - это одно лицо, уже давно установлено.--Nixer13:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
То что Генерал-лейтенант в Израиле не равен генералу армии в США Вы сами и ответили на вопрос. Хотя Генерал-лейтенант в Израиле и имеет должность нач. ген. штаба и генерал-полковник в Белоруссии мин. обороны или руководитель группой армией, армией, округом и т.д они не относятся к ОФ-10. Должности и звания в разных странах имеют спорную эквивалентность и поэтому их надо распределять по количеству званий в определённой категории от низшего к самому старшему или по погонам где по "звёздочкам" приблизительно видно какое звание равно какому. Ещё раз говорю, что нет ни одной официальной статьи ни на английском ни на русском языке в которой написано 100% точная их эквивалентность. Ни Натовские, ни сайт мин. обороны России не имеют такой таблицы. Так что и Ваши исправления не имеют 100% доказательств. Насчёт Вашей соксомании, то если Вы внимательно посмотрите то увидите, что все юзеры которых вы обвиняли в последние время не доказаны на 100% что они это личинки блокированных юзеров.О User:Markdanilе сказано что он может быть таким, но это ещё не доказано. О Valentinnakshе ни User:Husnockи ни другой админ не уверены на 100%, если он личинка. И относительно меня нет у Вас доказательств. Ни кого нельзя обвинять в чём-то без суда и следствия - это основное правило правосудия. Так что хватит заниматься детством - это Вам ни к лицу.User:Sergeybakh. 14:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Нет, по звёздочкам не годится потому что в СССР и Китае традиционно у генералов было на одну звёздочку меньше, чем в США.--Nixer14:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
В СССР и в России высших офицерских званий 5 в Китае и в США тоже. В Китае кроме звёздочек внизу венок. Я имел ввиду кол-во знаков и они равны. Исходя из них мой идругих юзеров вариант более точен. --User:Sergeybakh. 14:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've reverted them right on sight! BTW, 3RR doesn't apply to restoring pages that are clearly vandalized ;) --DmitryKo14:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Latinus asked me not to violate 3RR until the articles semi-protected. BTW, this is not clearly evident for other users that the articles were vandalized.--Nixer14:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 3RR applies per article and you didn't broke it yet ;) I'd suggest placing "rv [[User:Roitr/sockpuppetry]]" in the edit summary. --DmitryKo14:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest using the following text for taggin the images and articles he re-uploads:
{{db|already deleted [[Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 March 14]], recreated multiple times by persistent vandal
(see [[Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Roitr#Activity_report]])}}
and
{{db|already deleted [[Chief Marshal of the Air Force of the Russian Federation]], recreated multiple times by persistent vandal
(see [[Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Roitr#Activity_report]])}}
No need to add explanation to the main text of the article.
I've also made new redirect so that edit summary looks little more nice:
I think the origin of the Cold War will be a matter of opinion rather than fact and I have removed from the article on Churchill until you can quote sources to support your assertion that Churchill started it. As I said before, he was alerting the world to breaches of the Yalta Treaty. It is true that from this point people recognised that there was a conflict, but there had been previous events. For example, Stalin's speech in Feb 1946 had been seen by the US Government as a direct threat. JMcC23:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you had notification of this. You are welcome to re-upload the image and provide the supporting documentation in English -Nv8200ptalk03:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that some of these usernames have been blocked as Roitr sockpuppets. The ones that haven't been - are they also confirmed sockpuppets or are you still awaiting checkuser? Petros47114:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only want to block them because I am sure they are sockpuppets. If it is nessecary some additional procedures, let it be so..--Nixer18:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Sherool(talk)18:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first is the map link which is troublesome, there may be others like it. The next one down from it opens up properly.
Peter Horn 03:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Peter Horn 16:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block[14] is 48 hours. Here are the reverts in question[15]. (ESkog)(Talk)02:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That user had not been warned of the rule and may not have been aware of its existence. You clearly have been warned (and blocked) in the past for this rule, and after 12 such blocks it is clear to me that you have no interest in following it. (ESkog)(Talk)22:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you should be back already, since your block has expired... Meanwhile, all the known sockpuppets of Roitr are blocked! :) The last one really made me laugh my arse off... --Dmitry11:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, would you mind making that picture {{NoRightsReserved}} instead of the current (obsolete) tag? This would allow me to move it to Commons and use it in the German Wikipedia. -- H00522:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cant. The author insists the attribution to him to be re-distributed with the image, the NoRightsReserved tag allows redistribute with no attribution.--Nixer12:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can e-mail the author. I cant anwer indefinitely such questions. I and some other users did. How many times I should do this? --Nixer10:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to trouble you--I was only asking as a courtesy. I've tagged the images {{pui}} and {{nosource}} respectively. You say you can't indefinitely answer such questions, but it is inevitable that people with questions about images you've uploaded will ask you about them. If you'd rather not deal with that, you should post something at the top of this talk page saying so. Chick Bowen20:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can answer, but I do not want answer 10th time and such way up to infinity. You can contact the autheo. All information on source and licensing exists. Please do not vandalise the articles.--Nixer20:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not attempt to bypass the PUI process. The page is for discussion of the image. If you believe it was listed improperly or in bad faith, say so there under the listing. -SCEhardT20:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I added the license to the image page and added a comment to the PUI page, but the image still was deleted because of existance a PUI entry in spite that even the license existed. You will not succeed keep this entry this time.--Nixer20:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image as well as 7 other images by the same author explisitely allowed by author to use under free license. The image pages contain full license text as well as links to the author's site. Anyone can prove the statement. Deleting obviously free-licensed images I consider as pure vandalism. Such peole as you should not be admins in Wikipedia because your actions make damage to the project.--Nixer21:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Tpb.jpg is not tagged for deletion. It is tagged as 'possibly unfree' to facilitate discussion. If you have information to contribute to this discussion, please do so at WP:PUI after your block expires. -SCEhardT21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As shows the past events, any tagged image will be ultimately deleted anyway. You have no reason to tag images with all license information existing as "possibly unfree".--Nixer21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, I am a little suprised by your contention that the picture Image:Leonid Brezhnev as Marshal.jpg represents Brezhnev's wax sculpture. I would have to disagree, as the picture seems 2D and not possibly a picture of a 3D statue. However, I could be wrong and I would love to hear any evidence/your reasoning for why this would be his wax statue and not a painting. Thanks --Colonel Cow13:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your image is not properly tagged and supported. I deleted the image because I cannot verify the tag. Please feel free to escalate the issue but do not upload the image again until the dispute is resolved. -Nv8200ptalk14:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nixer. You live in Moscow, do you not? Could you perhaps help us out with this, please? We are having hard time determining whether the news about renaming the square were a hoax. Your help would be much appreciated. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Impersonators and socks are blocked permanently, some IPs for a month (do not know how effective it is as I can not block the entire Beseq range). Semiprotection of all the articles he attacks is to much, but I could semiprotect a few articles of your choice abakharev11:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Policies and guidelines are edited differently than articles are. As WP:RUS is not an article, this edit summary of yours is not applicable.
In general, you cannot "improve" a guideline without going through a formal process. You can improve grammar, spelling, formatting all you want, but content can be amended only when no other party objects to your changes. In this case, there are at least two people opposing you.
The process of amending a policy/guideline is very well described at WP:HCP.
This particular policy is also discussed at WP:CYR. It is moving really slow, I know, but there is nothing preventing you from trying to speed it up.
If you continue changing WP:RUS without going through proper procedures, I will be forced to start imposing short blocks on you. I am sorry, but I do not know how else to explain you that what you are doing is not right.
My main argument is that you refuse to provide proof for the changes you are making. All rules in the current system are either taken from BGN/PCGN or are a modification the community agreed upon. I merely want you to utilize proper procedures when suggesting modifications of a guideline; why I agree or disagree with them is mostly outlined at WP:CYR and I am more than willing to explain it when you submit a formal proposal.
As promised, I am blocking you for going against consensus, for refusing to cooperate, for pushing your point of view against the will of other editors, and for making disruptive changes to the policy without submitting them for formal review. You have a good day.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nixer, this is the next item up for discussion. Please join us in the discussion pages before you change this. We are doing a decent job preventing revert wars.--JohnFlaherty18:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|I was blocked by my opponent [[User:Mikkalai]] for removing antisemitic propaganda from the article. Besides I did not formally violate the 3RR rule (he did).}}
I was blocked by my opponent User:Mikkalai for removing antisemitic propaganda from the article. Besides I did not formally violate the 3RR rule (he did).--Nixer20:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There nwill not be formal games here. you foor times removed several of my edits, most of which are not related to the Lenin issue you contested. You even did not bother to check what are you actually reverting. Your partisan attitude will eventually drive you into big troubele, colleague. `'mikka(t)20:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue (Bolshevik) itself: I do not see why you want to include the Nazi views in the introduction part of the article. Giving it this much prominence is in fact "antisemitic propaganda".
I do not think what the Nazis thought or said in their propaganda is noteworthy or encyclopedic. It does not deserve mention, except in articles on Nazis and their propaganda. -- Petri Krohn21:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mikkalai, I always precisely check what I revert. Only reason why I reverted various your edits is the Nazi propaganda that you include in the article.--Nixer03:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your request to be unblocked has been denied for the following reason(s):
You clearly violated WP:3RR. Mikkalai also violated 3RR, and I have blocked him for 24 hours accordingly.
You are blocked for 48 hours for blatant disrespect of wikipedia policies and guidelines. You jumped headling into 3RR despite warning. Instead of discussing the issue in the page where it really has to be discussed. Since you are blocked, I initiated the discussion in Talk:Vladimir Lenin for you. If you will not change your "revolutionary" attitude to editing, your blocks will grow longer. `'mikka(t)20:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has not unblocked himself. He is blocked for now. However, you have SUCH a long 3RR history that a 48 hour block is fair. If you wish not to be blocked for so long, stop violating 3RR. Sasquatcht|c03:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, you have 12 3RR blocks prior to this one. What part of "Don't violate the 3RR" are you not understanding? Sasquatcht|c03:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not violate 3RR for now. The fact I'm blocked for 48 hours while he's blocked for 24 is the double standard. Better look for which I've been blocked - by such POV-pusher admins that even does not feel necessary to argue their point of view in the talk page. By the way, it is prohibited in Wikipedia for an admin to block his opponent and he should be punished. -Nixer05:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you think that IPA can't indicate palatalization. Please read any one of the following pages before reverting IPA transcription of soviet:
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- Lost08:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Eroad.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
There's nothing wrong with removing information from an article if it's not important or not written well. We shouldn't just keep information in the article just because it was there originally. joturner20:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I looked at the block log and the last block was from 12 June. There is no current outstanding block. --pgk(talk)06:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that one IP of my office though is blocked and sometimes there a "user is blocked" message appeares.--Nixer07:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not your username which is directly blocked, then you need to give us the information such as the name of the person "autoblocked" and/or the IP address blocked. We can't see that other information and without it we don't know what to unblock. --pgk(talk)07:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, 88.155.204.241 no it mine IP. It is Roitr/sockpuppeter vandalism proceeds. But I am not him!!! Please trust me.-- N.i07:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
...certainly is a well-known phrase in English, and is generally attributed to Stalin. Whether this attribution is correct is a different question, and I have no idea if it was used in Soviet times. It does make a lot of sense in a military conflict, though. --Stephan Schulz20:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this may be a well-known phrase, but in English, not in Russian. If you insist Stalin said this phrase, please say when or where he allegedly said this. And how to translate it into Russian.--Nixer20:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. But neither should we create new ones ("niether such common idiom exist" - of course it does, although maybe not in Russian).--Stephan Schulz22:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where your objections to this name are coming from, but in my opinion moving articles unilaterally without first proposing it on the talk page is a bad practice.
At present, the article nicely explains the origin of the name, and in my opinion makes a good case for using it. Moving it to "Western Europan flag" is of course incorrect as many EU member countries are not in Western Europe. Furthermore, it would suggest that there are other flags ( Eastern European flag etc.) , when in fact there are no other ones, as far as I know.
You made this revert saying I had made a mass deletion. Nothing was deleted; I simply moved a section and added a couple references (as the edit summary stated). Would you care to explain? Or was that just a mistake? -- joturner17:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nixer, why did you revert my change? We shouldn't include the S-Bahns of German cities in counting their stations, just for consistency, otherwise there's a lot of suburban rail systems around the world that would quickly clog up this list. - ҉Randwicked҉06:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can see no good reason for reverting my edit to False cognate, and I have restored what I wrote. German haben is a cognate of English have, and French avoir is a cognate of latin habere, but the Germanic root is no cognate of the Latin one. The Latin cognate of have/haben is capere. What do you have against this fact? garik01:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Кусок идиота. Хватить приписывать ко мне всех в подряд. Если ты ещё не полный кретин, то поймёшь что остановить меня не возможно. У меня миллионы IP и все их ты не заблокируешь за сто лет! Так что от-вянь от меня уже раз и навсегда и хватит плакать администраторам. Из-за твоих тупых действий страдают не виновные пользователи. Если не прекратишь лезть в мои статьи, то я начну беспорядочно стирать все твои вправки во всех статьях которые ты редактировал!--88.152.239.2510:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Да, я перешёл к угрозам и твой жалкий плачь к Alex Bakharev тебе не поможет.
Я за тобой слежу. Я вижу что ты продолжаешь плакать к Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Я ещё подожду и дам тебе шанс заткнуться, а потом приступлю к действиям.--88.155.222.21811:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Я вижу ты совсем тупой. Ты что не понимаешь что заблокировать весь порт провайдера Безек и все мои множества IP не возможно и против правил Википедии. Тебе уже писал ранее об этом сам Alex Bakharev к которому ты любишь плакаться. Так что если ты ещё не понял то этот бой ты не выиграешь никогда. А то что ты в прибавок антисемит я - не сомневаюсь--88.155.45.23011:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Продолжай вносить в Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr мои новые IP. Тебе это не поможет. Я их тут же сменю. Ну и дурак ты как я погляжу.--88.155.8.13611:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Очень скоро я начну осуществлять свои угрозы, так что ты замучеешься исправлять мои изменения твоих статей. А у тебя их не мало.--88.155.8.13611:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
То что ты предлагаешь временно блокировать весь порт Безека чушь и это нарушает права всех пользователей этого провайдера, а это 80 % пользователей интернета в Израиле. И даже если его всё же и удастся заблокировать, то у меня есть друзья подключённые к другим провайдерам и не к одному. Так что ты и здесь проиграешь.--88.153.10.10312:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request concerning you was posted to my talk as well as that of Dbachmann. I presume it's becase we have both blocked you in the past. Looking at the talk of those who have blocked you, it seems to be a pattern. Wikibofh(talk)15:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4.Moscow became Summer Olympics site not because its "sport atmosphere" and the atmosphere changed during the 26 years.
Go for a better wording if you want, but the Olympics certainly is an important part of the city (and sports are somewhat important in the article). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original intro was choppy; it had one- and two-sentence paragraphs. The intro is supposed to be a summary of the article and, in my opinion, this intro covers most of the major sections briefly. I also don't see any weasel words. However, feel free to write another intro if you think you have one that is better. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Nixer. The admin who blocked you is on holiday for a fortnight so I can't consult them. However, I will assume good faith and unblock you now based on your promise above. However, I'll tell you now: I will be stalking your edits. If anyone complains in good faith about your editing or behaviour on Wikipedia in the next 6 days, I will simply block you again for a full week. It is in your own interest to edit harmoniously and to avoid trouble in that time. If you find yourself clashing with another editor over anything, disengage immediately. You can always come to my talk page and I will happily try to mediate. But you must not edit war with anyone, for any reason, in the next six days.
Hi. You should possibly note the above kind advice. You are obviously going for the big time, conducting edit wars on the World War 2 article of all places. So as the man says, just take it easy. These articles will still be around for a long time yet. There is no hurry. Wallie12:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me again. If you find yourself clashing with another editor over anything, disengage immediately. Did you read this? And the other parts? Don't keep on calling me out all the time. As far as I am concerned, you don't have to disengage, as I am a big boy and can take it. However, others around can be less accommodating. As far as WW2 is concerned, it is best to take a step back, and try to take a neutral position. Remember if you say something bad about a country, it hurts the people in that country. They can retaliate by saying something bad about your country, and then you will be hurt. You can always give facts, but best to leave the judgemental stuff out. Let the reader make up his/her own mind. Wallie08:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the quickest way to get his sockpuppets banned - just report him for obvious vandalism at WP:AIV! It's slightly off rules (you are typically required to issue several warnings), but otherwise the powers that be have shown little interest in tracking activity reports at User:Roitr/sockpuppetry.
Provided that you take your time and provide some evidence from edit histories (like I did in [17][18][19][20]), admins will gladly block him with no furhter warning even if there were no prior warnings. They are usually reluctant to bother tagging him with {{indefblock}}, so that is left upon the reporting person. --Dmitry(talk •contibs )18:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably a good idea to begin placing formal warnings as required by WP:AIV then report as outlined above, that is provide a diff which shows similarities in edit patterns - for ex. [21][22]
Alternatively, you could post to WP:AN/Incidents and complain that admins don't watch WP:LTA/Roitr and take no automatical action when new reports arrive, which defies the purpose of this page.
I'm currently trying to make most out of my few remainting vacation days, so I'm afraid I'm not able to devote too much attention to the matter... sorry. --Dmitry(talk •contibs )11:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You recently moved Venusian terraforming to Venerian terraforming citing a more correct form. The "proper" adjective form from latin is "venereal", but as mentioned in the article on Venus, "venusian" is more common. In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), I've moved it back. siafu15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Stalin Prize was renamed into the State Prize. The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia never calls a person a Stalin Prize winner, but rather a State Prize winner. Furthermore, you comparison with Noble Prize and Hero of Socialist Labour is not proper, because these awards were exceptions, while the Stalin/State Prize was awarded to dozens people each year. Almost every notable Soviet actor or opera singer would automatically fall into this category. Isn't it enough to mention the fact in the bio? --Ghirla-трёп-17:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I do not insist it to be "Stalin Prize" though there was a delay between Stalin Prize and the new State Prize institution. Saying about the number of winner, it is not a point: there are exist even categories such as "Russian scientist"--Nixer17:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nixer, I advised you to cool it. Why in hell you nevel cool off? Just get it, you have to work with people, even when you think they are assholes and even if they really are. How many blocks you have to go through to get the message? --Irpen20:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You and User:Ryulong are both at the limit of 3RR. Revert warring is disruptive. Please take your disagreement to the talk page and agree how to proceed. The next revert from either of you will result in a block unfortunately. Thanks. --Cactus.man✍08:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. Firstly, whether or not anyone exceeded 3RR is dependant on exactly where one measures the starting point of the full revert. From examining the history I deemed you and User:Ryulong to be on exactly 3 full reverts at the time I left my message to you both. The intent was to stop the disruptive revert war, and I'm glad to see that it had the desired effect.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying "...your edit [should be] reverted by an administrator." I didn't edit the article, and I am an administrator. I have no desire to block anyone, but I would have done so if the revert war continued. I see that a report has been filed on WP:AN3, and I'll leave that for the regular admins who deal with that page to resolve. In the meantime I'm glad you've both stopped, and I suggest you engage in some civil and meaningful dialogue with each other to agree acceptable wording. Good luck. --Cactus.man✍09:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I regard this edit to be the first full revert in this petty edit war. The substance appears to be over the paragraph structure, and whether Pluto is referred to as a dwarf planet or a celestial body. You were both on exactly 3 reverts when I intervened. User:Ryulong's subsequent edits have not been reverts, merely edits. He even edited the article to include your preferred wording of celestial body, as well as dwarf planet. Stop this petty squabbling and try working together to improve the article. As far as I can see for now, the revert warring has stopped. --Cactus.man✍10:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That revert, on some minor wording, is not what I consider to be part of the revert war proper, which I explained above. I am not "supporting" anybody or any particular position, just working to ensure that Wikipedia and the integrity of its articles is not disrupted. I would have blocked either of you had you continued reverting. That the revert war is stopped is a positive thing, would you not agree? I urge you again to work with fellow editors to work things out co-operatively. I have processed your report at WP:AN3 and declined to block User:Ryulong. If you feel aggrieved at this decision you are welcome to take it further with other admins, at WP:AN or via dispute resolution. I would suggest however that you let the matter drop, move on and work towards improving Wikipedia. Thanks. --Cactus.man✍10:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That edit was the part of the edit war and all the way he continued reverting to the same. The present state of the article is the version by User:Ryulong with all my changes reverted.--Nixer10:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nixer, I've explained to you above that I'm not supporting anyone or any particular version of the article, merely working to protect Wikipedia. Please see The Wrong Version for some light relief. I see that you also changed my edit to the result of your posting to WP:AN3 again from "Not blocked" to "No consensus". Please do not do so again, or you will be blocked for disruption. I've explained to you above how to seek further opinion if you feel aggrieved by my decision, please heed it and stop reverting the AN3 decision. Really though, the substantive content of this dispute is so minor, why all the effort over so little, which is now just about the paragraph structuring and minor semantics. Please move on. Thanks. --Cactus.man✍11:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The matter is just would the rules in Wikipedia work or not. The case is clear and the violation of the rules also. And we see now that the admin sides with the party that violated the rules to protect them.--Nixer11:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nixer, whether or not you are correct, the block isn't going to occur at this point so I suggest you just drop the matter. In any event, in the future I recommend you try to be a bit more diplomatic. JoshuaZ19:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nixer, I have blocked you for 24 hours for disruption and repeated revert warring on Pluto. It looks as if the revert war has resumed between you and Ryūlóng. As I advised before, you are welcome to request a review of my actions in the appropriate channels. You may still post to your talk page in the meantime and request a review of your block by placing {{unblock}} here on your talk page with your reasons for requesting the unblock. --Cactus.man✍20:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nixer, you have had plenty of notice about this disruptive behaviour here on your talk page, on WP:ANI and WP:AN3. Other than to say that, I leave the review to other admins. --Cactus.man✍21:03, 26 August 2006 (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).
I have been blocked without notice by an admin User:Cactus.man. Although I have twice reported the 3RR violation by Ryūlóng[23], [24] in the article Pluto, User:Cactus.man sided with the violator refused the both requests and blocked me instead. See also [25]
Decline reason:
Cactus.man has not "taken side", but merely made a decision which doesn't satisfy you (and this makes a lot of difference). If this makes it easier for you, I would have done the same (especially given all the disruption caused around), so either call both of us sided against you or realize you were wrong. Also, don't say it was done "without notice" - you were blocked before and know well that edit warring and disruption are blockable offences. Misza1321:37, 26 August 2006 (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.
Reporting the 3RR violation is the disruptintg behavor now? Where I was not right? All my edits were reverted, and when I report the violation by the user, I have blocked instead. It seems the rules completely obsolete in Wikipedia: some users allowed to do what they want and others arent allowed anything.--Nixer21:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, reporting is not disruptive. However, an admin made a decision, but since it wasn't in your favor, you found it fit to change it ([26] & [27]). Since these edits were (obviously) immediately reverted, you brought the issue to WP:AN/I where, despite being advised to drop the issue by multiple parties, you continued your merry way - that's disruption. Please understand this and wait the full block stretch. Misza1322:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken again. Applying to AN/I was fine, but when other admins ther told you to drop the matter, you didn't and that was disruptive. Misza1322:45, 26 August 2006 (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).
This block is in the direct violation of the WP:3RR rule, which stands that "In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally"
Decline reason:
A block can hardly be in violation of the 3RR rule. Also, see my reply above. If you continue to abuse the unblock template, this talk page may be protected from editing as well. Misza1322:12, 26 August 2006 (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.
I placed the notice to the Cactus.man's talk page about the violation and placed a report to the AN:WP:3RR
Cactus answered in his talkpage that he will let the other admins to manage the case, but himself placed a decline on my request in the AN:WP/3RR saying that the revert-warring was over.
Other users reverted Ryūlóng, Ryūlóng reverted back again.
I reported this new violation
Cactus.man warned me to cease reporting about Ryūlóng's behavior, otherwise I will be blocked, but himself immediately blocked me without any action from my side. It is evident that this warning was a trick to make an image that I was blocked after being warned.
By "other users" I assume you mean Verger who just happened to revert all of the way back to your version and then revert the page move vandalism? And I did not revert back to anything yesterday, I just editted it to where it was a much better written version, one that was free of your apparent poor grammar and constant misspellings. And Cactus.man did not block you immeadiately, you had been warned about filing another 3RR report about me, when it was clear that I was not going to be blocked. You are well knowledged in the rules of WP:3RR, and it just appears that you want to get me blocked for some period of time to make a point. Ryūlóng03:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are not making any friends right now. Sockpuppetry is a very bad way to resolve an editorial dispute (actually it's a great way to escalate it into an indefinite block on your account and all subsequent accounts you create). Reviewing your edit history it appears to me that you are well-informed, but overly dogmatic. Wikipedia is not on a deadline, and all disputes can be resolved with patience. If you do not urgently show a commitment to modifying your editing practices, including undertaking not to revert-war, you are very likely to be indefinitely blocked as having exhausted the community's patience. I don't think you want that to happen. It is not uncommon for new users to be blocked a couple of times as they learn the ropes, but there is no sign here that your rate of offending is dropping, and you do not seem to have accepted the fundamental principles of managing content disputes, which is "talk first, edit later".
The situation as it stands is that there is some support for an indefinite block due to persistent edit-warring, and also support for taking this to arbcom. You can probably salvage the situation by showing a commitment to working with, rather than against, those with whom you disagree. If you carry on as you are the future holds nothing but blocks of escalating length, up to and including indefinite. The ball is very much in your court. Just zis Guy you know?11:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nixer, I agree with the advice offered above by JzG, you would do well to heed it. I didn't come here to lecture you however, but just to point you to the location of the relevant discussion regarding your editing behaviour and block history. Good luck, please consider all commentary carefully. --Cactus.man✍14:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry to hear that you have a bad traffic accident and wish you well.
You are a productive user with all of your contributions made in good faith and with a number of a good quality. On the other hand you have quite a long block list for the 3RR violations. If you are caught next time, with such a block list the next logical step would be a long block measured in weeks not in hours or indeed a community ban. Nobody who are familiar with your contributions wants this, but this is a fact of life. Please stop revert warring, work on the two revert basis. After the second block try to seek a third opinion. If it is Russia-related then an anouncement on P:RUS/NEW maybe an option, you could ask for the third opinion from a user you know (e.g. me), also there is a special board WP:3O, just for the people seeking the third opinion. The third person may help to find a compromise or just support you by his reverts or advise if the battle does not seem worthy. Please avoid the grammatical/stylistic war with the native English speakers like it was with the Pluto and of course, please, never use abusive sock puppets. It is cheating, it makes a lot of additional work to busy people and you usually are caught anyway. In the past sockpuppeting led to permabanning of very productive users, do not go their path.
You're right, so it would be better to create a new account with clear history. I though fear it can be determined as mine by similar edit patterns. So I plan to finish my work with Moscow and several other articles and then abandon this account.--Nixer07:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may or may not be obsulete. it appears in several thousand pages. when you have removed it from all of them we can consider deleteion.Geni12:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, same as the poster above I don't want to get into a revert war with you on the article about Ceres if possible, especially someone that adds to space articles as much as you do. The problem I have with it is the word 'possibly' because that doesn't really portray much - it's possible we'll be on Mars, Venus, the Moon, Jupiter, just about anywhere before we go to Ceres, who knows. A better way to phrase it might be something along the lines of "some believe that Mars is a necessary stepping stone before getting to Ceres" (well, phrased better than that) so that we can provide a source there and then it will be a sourced opinion as opposed to a "this will possibly happen before colonization of Ceres" which doesn't really say all that much. Later on in the article I will be adding the note on the lower delta-v from Venus to Ceres than from Earth though, but that won't be in the first paragraph since Venus is mostly on the back burner regardless of how I feel about the place. So, how shall we rephrase the first sentence to make it more concrete and less speculative? Mithridates12:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me that consensus had been reached; I don't see any reason that this move shouldn't take place; discussion on the move seems to have stopped. Nfitz21:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"It was moved back because Ryūlóng is a member of wikimafia.--Nixer 12:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)"
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ryūlóng04:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And never ever move anything without proposing it first, at least informally at the article's talk. Take this advise! It's a good one! --Irpen07:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The opening paragraph of the article says "The national Enlightenment differed from its Western European counterpart in that it promoted further Europeanisation of all aspects of Russian life and was concerned with attacking the serfdom in Russia." Someone just changed the spelling to europeanization in dyk. Or did you mean something else? - Bobet18:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is unsourced original research. How a european country can be europeanized? I suggest to change it to "westernization".--Nixer18:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know much about the subject, but the Europeanisation article itself states that the term refers to general increase in pan-european sentiment rather than just added european influences in other parts of the world, which would make this usage correct. I'll leave your comment up at the template talk page in case someone else wants to change it. - Bobet18:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He uploades copyvio and falsifies licenses. For example here:[28] he inserted in his image a license which was copied from another image (the author explicitely gave me permission for a number of images, it was very long ago).
He now vandalizes the Moscow article without stop, deleting the proper relevant images and inserting his copivio and comletely irrelevant. He also moves images so they appear inproperly. He does not discuss any changes any way.--Nixer21:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. I will look into this, but please note for the future that leaving a message on one admin's talkpage is usually not very effective. For one thing, that admin might not be online. It is best to leave it on one of the admin noticeboards like WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Stifle (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read Russian so I cannot verify that the licensing is incorrect. If you feel that an image may be unfree, add {{PUIdisputed}} or {{imagevio|source URL}} to the image desription page. I don't see how the edits he has made at Moscow are vandalism, but on the other hand you (and he) have violated the WP:3RR in the process. I'm blocking you for 48 hours (bearing in mind that this is something like your 10th 3RR violation, it should by rights be nearer 48 days) and him for 24. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These edits are clear vandalism: he removes the gallery and refuses any discussions. You're not right blocking. me. I've inserted the copyvio notice the image [29]. Blocking nme for different term you violate the WP:3RR rule which states that all users should be treated qually.--Nixer22:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the article into your userspace. As it is now it does not look like a helpful article so I am not prepared to wheel war with another admin over this article. On the other hand it indeed can potentially be very good article. Please continue to work on the article in your userspace and after it would be in the condition that nobody would consider it nonsense, then just move it back into the mainspace. Happy editing abakharev12:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You would have "won" overturn and listing at AfD had you not chosen to userfy. Once you have completed the article, I will happily procedurally nominate it AfD, preventing any speedy deletions. Don't forget to mention the Ferengi! :) Best wishes, Xoloz15:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nixer - so we can avoid an edit war, I've opened a discussion on the lead sentence at Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet). It would be a good idea to expand the discussion, actually, so that we can come up with a strong, cohesive opening line for all of the dwarf planet articles. --Ckatzchatspy01:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I wouldn't block a user for a move agaisnt consensus. But considering your block log, and this may be a point violation. I am blocking you for 72 hours. Please think your role with Wikipedia over, and come back and contribute with a positive mind and attitude. Yanksox16:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
unblock|Blocked circumventing rules for my point of view without any reason. No WP:POINT or other rules violation. Users should not be blocked for their block logs, it triggers umotivated chain blockings
I've given the rationale behind the block, and you also have experience in being blocked. I'm backing off and letting another sysop look at this. Yanksox16:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're being non-sensical. You are not being blocked for your block log, however, your previous history does not favor you. Yanksox16:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note for other administrators handling this case: note that this guy has managed to get 36 previous blocks in barely over a year. [30] Despite a unanimous consensus against doing so, he moved the page Sanhedrin to Synedrion (Judea). He does not know anything about the subject and it seems to me, after looking at this talk page, that he was only interfering there because he knew that people would get mad at him. It seems to me that this guy is here with only one purpose: triggering fights. That seems to be his main occupation on Wikipedia. After 36 blocks, maybe it's time for him to say goodbye forever. (And to top off the list, he is also an established sockpuppeteer.) --Daniel575 | (talk)17:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not judge about other's purposeness. I have more edits than most users in Wikipedia. And my contribution is huge (you can reviw my edit histary). I know well about Sanghedrin and the all topic. You have no right to block people for one edit. Long block history makes admins to feel free to block me (for example, last time I have been blocked for reverting a vandal, which is proven by many other users).--Nixer17:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am prepared to unblock you if you acknowledge moving the page against the weight of comments on the talk page was a bad idea, and promise not to act similarly in future. Being excessively bold isn't in itself a problem, but I am concerned this might form part of a pattern of disruptive behaviour. The Land17:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked you. Please be aware that your track record of 3rr violations means you need to be very careful to abide by policy and not to make people unnecessarily angry. The Land17:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was a unanimous consensus against moving the article. All other users, even Historian2, opposed your proposed move. First of all, you have not shown any knowledge of the subject involved: you know nothing about it, as far as I can tell. Next, this behavior is well in line with the classical behavior of trolls. When you behave like a troll and your user page and block log show 35 blocks in barely more than a year, that makes your intentions very suspicious. Despite unanimous consensus against moving the article and the fact that the discussion had ended 10 days ago (with a unanimous decision against your proposed move), you just went ahead and did it anyway. This is not civilized. I do not tolerate such behavior. Stay away from that article, unless you can make constructive edits. I am going to keep a very close eye on your contributions, and if you are going to make similar trouble in other Judaism-related articles, you can count on meeting me again. --Daniel575 | (talk)17:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not treat me. I know enough about the subject. Probably we should establish a special rule on naming entities which have both international naming and widely-used local one. It is you whose behavior is very abuseness and at the edge of community'ds patience. You're a known civility breaker and maker of personal attacks. (for admins, look here:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel575).--Nixer17:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
. --Irpen
![[28]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Namnl%C3%B6s3.JPG){kind=link}