User talk:Miacek

For some months to come, Miacek is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This user has a zero tolerance policy towards trolls on Wikipedia.

I have nearly 1,000 pages on my watchlist. I don't have enough time to address all the problems I may spot on Wikipedia. For my own reference, below I'm listing various active and constructive contributors. (Don't be offended if I forgot you! I only quickly skimmed my talk page and watchlist to refresh my memory in drafting this list.)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Gnomsovet

I can't do much about the content disputes you are having, and I am sorry I cannot at this time offer myself in a mediator capability due to time constraints. I will, however, give this user a warning regarding unacceptability of copy-paste moves and will monitor his contributions for compliance. As you know, copy-paste moves are unacceptable in that they interfere with GFDL compliance, so continuing to do them without regards to proper procedures qualifies as disruptive editing, which is a blockable offense. On the same note, reverting such disruptive copy-paste moves would be exempt from the 3RR rule. Seeing how the rest of this user's contributions are written in an incomprehensible and illiterate English, I am inclined to classify them as disruptive editing as well, but would advise to seek further input, as the content dispute component is undoubtedly also present in your interactions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:19, March 16, 2009 (UTC)

CPRF

I have removed part of your latest additions to the CPRF article because it is weasally in wording and isn't attributed to those who hold the opinion. Just in case you were wondering why I did so, just letting you know here. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all available on p. 51 of the books. There are simply too many people with such opinions to be listed, but I'll do it one day, as I was asked. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But are they notable opinions? An anti-fascist journal of dubious notability? And the other people? I dunno. But attribution of the opinions is the way to go on all articles for opinion IMO. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you aren't implying that I am stalking anyone. As one can see, I have edited the article before as demonstrated by this only the other week. Any articles I edit are automatically placed on my watch list, which has led to it being several thousand articles long. I will admit that seeing your removal of information from the other article, and then an edit to the "Criticism" section of this article straight afterwards did draw my attention to it. As I have said above, I don't have a problem with opinions being present on WP, so long as they are attributed to those who hold said opinion, rather then being presented as a matter of fact, etc. I hope you understand that. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say comparing criticism by Teinonen with criticism by Stephen Shenfield's works and certain Radzikhovskii (2000) and Proshechkin (1999) is creating false equivalencies, though, indeed, I couldn't get the corresponding bibliography page so I don't know yet who these two authors are. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well when I get back from my block, I will help you find this if you like. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOUR

Hi,

my graphomania kept poking me with a pointy stick until I wrote an brief essay about Wikipedia. You can find it at User:Digwuren/WP:SOUR.

Comments are welcome. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of Twinkle

Hello Miacek. I see that you've been using Twinkle to revert in content disputes, using the edit summary of reverting vandalism.[1] This sort of behaviour has led to other editors losing the privelege of using Twinkle, so please don't do it again. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it happens once in a while (out of absentmindedness) that one pushes the vandalism button right hand side instead of the revert button left hand side. As for 'losing the privilege', I don't know... It's just a setting in preferences menue, and honestly, I don't care too much, having seen how a sysop (!) passes with 3 RR violations with no action taken. --Miacek (t) 13:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning constitues a subversive act against pro-Western Euro-Atlantic forces in Ukraine and Estonia

Miacek:

regarding the warning that you left on my page.

As Wikipedia editors, we should work towards making the articles as NPOV and useful to Wikipedians as possible. Your systematic reverts of the articles on Ukrainian culture and Ukrainian pro-Western democratic struggle do not help the Wikipedia community to achieve this goal.

We, Wikipedians, should collaborate to make the articles better, and not revert them endlessly to excercise the anti-Western anti-Ukrainian and anti-Semitic censorship.

Please continue your contributions as a Wikipedia editor, and not anti-Ukrainian and anti-Estonian pro-Russian censor.

Thank you,

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.160.171 (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]