User talk:Varsovian

Welcome !

Hello, Varsovian! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Skäpperöd (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Reproaches

Against you, and me, at User_talk:Sandstein#I_noticed_that_Matthead_could_be_a_sockpuppeteer. -- Matthead Discuß 12:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything I can do about that? I can't post on his talkpage because it is semi-protected and I'm a new user.Varsovian (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, User_talk:Sandstein is currently protected "[edit=autoconfirmed]". But User talk:Sky Attacker is not, and it was Sky Attacker anyway who brought this up at the talk of Sandstein who filed a Sockpuppetry case against me in regard to another new user. Seems Sky Attacker figured since you and Jacurek are at odds at that London Parade article, and Jacurek is at odds with me everywhere, we two must be linked, notifying Sandstein. It does not help that Sky Attacker made some remarks at my talk, too, exposing, among other things, a lack of knowledge towards German history, and in capital letters, too. Well, you can choose to ignore the matter (Do not feed the trolls), or ask Sky Attacker about his reasoning. Or lack thereof. -- Matthead Discuß 14:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes "Varsovian", you are a new user. right. just an advise next time you try the new user thing try to behave like one, you might look more convincing. Loosmark (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any "new user" courses around which teach "new" Wikipiedians to be so experienced as you are Varsovian? :)--Jacurek (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you make no attempt to in anyway discuss the topic of the article and instead both assume (and publicly state) that I am editing in bad faith and adopt uncivil language towards me. Is there any reason why I should not file a Request for Comment on user conduct with regard to your behaviour?Varsovian (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know about the Request for Comment thing? Loosmark (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to want to have a dispute with me and about this article, so I checked Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You can find it by looking near the top of this page and clicking on Wikipedia:List of policies. Has anybody ever filed such a request about you?Varsovian (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, you deleted tons of sourced material from the article, and then you felt I want to have a dispute with you and from the tons of links on the page you clicked the right one. Makes sense. Now just another question, how did you, the new user, know of Scurinae existance? Where have you clicked for that one? Loosmark (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"you deleted tons of sourced material from the article" Could you perhaps go into detail as to those tons? http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=London_Victory_Parade_of_1946&action=historysubmit&diff=316679556&oldid=281897176 shows very clearly that the only info I deleted is: "The parade is also notable for the exclusion of all Polish servicemen" and even you agree that that claim is false; "The 303 squadron was the only Polish unit invited" which I removed because it is an unsourced statement which is directly contradicted by the available sources; "Poles were expected to attend the Moscow Victory Parade of 1945" where I have made it clear that Poles actually did attend such; "since the Western Allies did not want to antagonize Stalin" because firstly it is given to support a statement which even you agree is false and secondly because it is erroneous to say that the Western Allies other than Britain had any say over who was invited and thirdly because the claim flies in the face of reliable sources from the time.

As for your other statements: where else would I look for WP's policy on dispute resolution than in Wikipedia:List of policies? As for Scurinae, I was wondering why you and Jacurek are so incivil to me and why you both used the word 'troll' in connection with me, so I did a search for Jacurek. Found some interesting reading. I must admit that I don't know who Kurfust is or what the complaint was but I'll be sure to check it out, thanks for the tip.Varsovian (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did a "search for Jacurek". How? Loosmark (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By using the cunning plan of typing his username into the search box and clicking on "Go"! On the next page it says "Did you mean: javůrek" but there's a button marked "Everything" Click that and you get 330 hits. Try it for yourself.Varsovian (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Could you please stop leaving me messages on my talk page? You already noticed that I do not wish to continue this conversation since in my opinion you are trying to provoke me. Thank you and good luck.--Jacurek (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to engage you in discussion. According to Wikipedia:List of policies "The first step to resolving any dispute is to talk to those who disagree with you." Is there any reason that you do not wish to discuss the article and wish solely to make edits which reflect neither the facts of the matter nor the statements in the the sources which you quote?Varsovian (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to contribute and make changes, just leave me alone and please do not post anymore messages on my talk page. I do not wish to continue this conversation. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not wish to discuss this dispute? I would much prefer that we talked about it and resolved it rather than you simply constantly editing the article to include unsourced claims.Varsovian (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop reverting the London Victory Parade article?

Can you please stop reverting[[1]] the London Victory Parade article??--Jacurek (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YOU AGREED[[2]] THAT YOU WILL LEAVE ME ALONE AND THAT YOU WILL STOP HARRASING ME BY LEAVING ME PROVOCATIVE MESSAGES ON MY TALK PAGE--Jacurek (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You agreed to a 1RR four days ago and now you have reverted this article twice in one day. Why?Varsovian (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I DID NOT REVERT TWICE AND YOU KNOW IT. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS EDIT WARRING THERE[[3]]. DO NOT FOLLOW ME AROUND AS YOU DO FROM THE BEGINNING. DO NOT LEAVE ME ANY MORE THREATENING MESSAGES. LEAVE ME ALONE. I FEEL HARASSED BY YOU.--Jacurek (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about your editing

A brand-new user who is bothering Jacurek might become the subject of scrutiny. Jacurek has been making special efforts to stay out of trouble, so bothering him might be viewed unfavorably by admins. If you could somehow manage to stay away from articles frequented by Jacurek for one week, you might be on safer ground. As you might have heard, admins can use discretionary sanctions on this kind of issue, and brand-new users with your type of behavior could be among the candidates for these sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice but I do feel that I am not 'bothering Jacurek'. I am attempting to stop him from editing incorrect information into an article, information which specifically does not reflect what the sources he provides say. So far he has accused me of being a sockpuppet [[4]], of editing in bad faith [5] (twice on that single page) and has called me a troll [6] and implied that I am a liar [7]. Is any of that acceptable under WP policies?

I have attempted to engage him in dialogue so that we can amicably resolve the differences which we have about this article and work together (I assume this is what is meant by "collaborative editing environment") but he refuses to discuss anything and continues to be incivil to me. I continue to assume good faith on his part but he continues to claim that I exist solely to provoke him [8]. He says "He is constantly trying to provoke me into the controversial discussions or edit wars" and that he wants me to "stop focusing on [his] person" but if you actually look at my history you will see that there is a grand total of one article which Jacurek and I have both edited, so much for edit wars. You will also see that there is only one discussion which I have attempted to engage him in: the one about that article! If I wanted to provoke him into edit wars, I wouldn't discuss anything: I'd just edit articles and refuse to discuss why I'd changed his edits. I'm not doing that, although he is editing my work and refusing to discuss his changes.Varsovian (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Soviet invasion of Poland

I am a bit busy ATM, may I suggest you take this point to the talk of that article? I and others users will try to review it there. PS. Please don't fight with Jacurek. He is a good editor and if you give him a chance I am sure you'll see it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure which statements are unsourced and in contradiction; but if there are such statements you should move them to talk of the article so we can discuss it there. I removed your addition per WP:RS / WP:OR, briefly, we should avoid using primary sources to draw conclusions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already mentioned the problematic statements in the discussion page. Please discuss it there. Can you please outline the conclusions which I drew from the primary source?Varsovian (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop harrasing me on my talk page by repeatedly[[9]][[10]] inserting this message:

I love how you think you can just delete 16 sources which don't suit your point of view. You've just signed a ban for yourself with that pathetic effort. Say hello to a complete ban. You want to edit? Bring the sources.

Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wikistalking me and stop removing sourced material from articles. I now understand why you've been banned and repeatedly warned. I tried to be civil to you: you were unable to be civil to me. The gloves now come off. You've been spoiling for a fight, I suggest that you once again think whether you really want one. Varsovian (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please self revert ASAP

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on London_Victory_Parade_of_1946. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please self revert ASAP to avoid being reported. Thanks --Jacurek (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Due to your behaviour I reported you here:[[11]] Hope it will be not necessary in the future. Repeated reverting and leaving threatening messages[[12]] is not the way to go. Sorry.--Jacurek (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and incivility. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom sanctions warning

With edits like this [13] and this [14] you have been engaging in tendentious "original research". You have also been aggressively edit-warring on multiple pages related to Polish WWII history. In addition to the block mentioned above, I am therefore also giving you a warning under the terms of the Arbcom discretionary sanctions rules that you may be topic-banned and/or placed under a revert limitation if you continue disruptive editing in this area. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthead for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See: findings/ FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Info on shit stirrer ******

No, I think I'll just keep communicating with him via his talk page. ~~Thank you all the same.~~

And I would be grateful if you could please sign your comments on my talk page, whoever you are.Varsovian (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a request

Stop poluting my talk page. Thanks. Loosmark (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Polluting" your talk page? Referring to a polite request as 'pollution' is precisely the type of tone which I was referring to when I said that "your tone continues to be incivil and hostile, it is not in the slightest bit helpful". I am sorry to say that your behaviour is rapidly reaching the point where it will be impossible for me to assume that you act in good faith. I again ask you to work with me on this project. I also repeat my request that you moderate your tone. Thank you in advance for your co-operation. Varsovian (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was the polite request again? Loosmark (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[15] "While you may not mean it to be, your tone continues to be incivil and hostile, it is not in the slightest bit helpful. I would be grateful if you could moderate it." Varsovian (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My continues to be incivil and hostile? I don't think so, I was merely making an observation. Loosmark (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, referring to a polite request as 'pollution' is precisely the type of tone which is incivil and which I am politely requesting that you moderate.Varsovian (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me of being incivil and hostile on my talk page before I've asked to stop with pollution, in fact that was what triggered my request in the first place. So again where was I being incivil? Loosmark (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[16] Referring to a proposal as “garbage” and alleging that an editor is “anti-Polish” (and thus not editing in good faith) is not what is commonly considered to be civil. Repeated accusations of editing in bad faith is most certainly hostile, as is repeated insinuations as to an editor being a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet or a troll. I once again politely request that you refrain from doing so. In the unlikely event that you find yourself unable to refrain therefrom, I shall be left with no option other than to file a request for comment on your behaviour. Varsovian

You filling a request for comment? I see you have sense for humor. By all means, do fill the request for comment, I can't wait. Loosmark (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Varsovian (a person from Warsaw, hope you know what it means) please do not leave any more messages, requests, notices etc. on my talk page either. Please discuss everything on the articles talk pages. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that you will now actually discuss things on the discussion pages for articles?

Unfortunately I am required by WP policy to notify you of certain events (such as filing for arbitrtation/requests/enforcement) and so will unfortunately not be able to comply in full with your request. Varsovian (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fine but please keep it short. At this point I still do not believe that you account in not run by somebody else. Regards--Jacurek (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please be so kind as to either file formal requests for checkuser for me and whoever you think is 'running' me or refrain from making such allegations. If you continue to insult me with your groundless accusations that I am a sockpuppet and a liar, I will be forced to file a request for comment on your behaviour.Varsovian (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Varsovian. In the talk page of the London Victory Parade 1946 you said: Yes I am aware of what Varsovian means, I have lived in the city for more than a decade and have written a book about it. Could you please tell me what M-ka is? You should know the answer right away. I'm just trying hard to convince myslef that you are a real account. Please help me by quicly answering this quiestion. Thanks and regards.--Jacurek (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet invasion of Poland

Don't worry, I'm an old hand with this article and wrote the draft that passed FAC. The trouble is that these days I haven't much time for Wikipedia and I'd forgotten what it felt like to have a whole evening's work reverted. My work on that article was generally considered by all nationalities not to favour their own POV enough, which I took as a compliment. qp10qp (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a pretty impressive bit of work. I've rapidly learned that there's no higher praise on WP than writing an article which all sides claim is biased against them!Varsovian (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI report on you

I have reported you: [17] Loosmark (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to review who dunnit but I want to recommend that Varsovian tries to stay away from Loosmark and Jacurek, and vice versa. A voluntary restriction on commenting about others and reverting them may be a good idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi concentration camps

Thanks you for your input on my suggested change to this article. As stated for now I am dropping out in the hope other editors will work with you on a better wording. Jniech (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

racism

Since I have not accused anybody of racism I request you withdrew the accusation. Dr. Loosmark 01:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If accusing editors if being "The anti-Polish lobby" and making "continued attacks on Polish editors" isn't accusing people of being racist, I have no idea what could be accusing people of being racist. What would you describe it as an accusation of being? Varsovian (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no idea what could accusing people of being racist then please do no launch such accusations. Dr. Loosmark 17:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me spell it out for you: when you accuse somebody of being 'anti-Polish' you are accusing them of being racist. Kindly refrain from doing so in the future.Varsovian (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tylman

Why have you added a COI template? I have removed it, it is totally unnecessary, everyone knows about the issue and it is referenced all over the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't added a COI template to the Tylman article. Please look more carefully before making accusations about me. Although now you have brought the issue up, can you explain how "everybody" who uses WP can know about the COI? Does everybody look at the talk page?Varsovian (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thats fine, don't see everything as accusatory its a simple mistake, you made a bunch of edits today and I thought you added it as well, it wasn't there yesterday, so apologies that I thought it was you, as to your question, we don't need it, COI is a essay not a policy, editors who are themselves so to speak are actually to be considered reliable concerning information about themselves, all you need to do is apply some good faith in such cases and suddenly the person with a coi becomes the most reliable source in the world about themselves. I for example know more about myself than anybody else. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You most certainly do know more about yourself than anybody else. But the fact that you make that point shows you have fundamentally misunderstood what WP is about: WP is not about what editors know, WP is about what reliable third-party sources say.Varsovian (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have strong indications that the admin who edit protected the Tylman article and harassed me, User:Malik Shabazz is coordinating with User:Poeticbent via back channels. Could be a coincidence, but not very likely. Just to make sure that you know what you got yourself into. One editor in good standing got already burned in the past by trying to ensure basic Wikipedia principles such as verifiability in this article. Pantherskin (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tylman ... again

As I said it is a direct translation in polish english, it is not a blp issue to leave it, ask for a RFC bio if you think there is some need to change it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit warring over wanting to insert Magisters is extremely petty and tiresome. Off2riorob (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is a polite 3RR note, not discussion about the article., so it belongs here and not on the article talkpage.Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider accusations of edit warring to be polite. I am well aware of the 3RR thank you.Varsovian (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my talk page

I asked in the past to stay off my talk page, I will assume good faith in that perhaps you have missed that. So I am politely asking you again to stay off my talk page. Dr. Loosmark 14:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you told me "Stop poluting my talk page." Now that you have requested that I do not post on your talk page, I will not do so. While it is good to see that you have decided to assume good faith, it is difficult to assume good faith about an editor who claims to have knowledge of sources that support his PoV but then refuses to go into any detail about those sources when repeatedly asked over a period of time to do so. Varsovian (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

303 Squadron

I probably have this Skrzydlata Polska and could scan a letter and send you, so mail me. I have no article by J. Alcorn. Pibwl ←« 16:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dialogue from Chumchum7's Talk page about London Victory Parade

Do you have a sandbox we can use to work up a section we both agree on? Varsovian (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, I'm just about to take a WP:Wikibreak. In the meantime, perhaps take this up with some other editors. By the way, I'll tell you honestly your edits start to concern me and you might want to think about your behavioural profile a little, and how it could come across to other editors and Wikipedia moderators. You appear to have something to prove about Poles or the Polish character, which is fine in the real world, but very far away from the ethos of Wikipedia. What is it all about? You tried to interpret the Stephen Fry Auschwitz gaff as an accurate statement rather than an offensive mistake, you tried to re-open the 1st Armoured war crimes issue after it had been closed, you made a sweeping generalization about Poles' view of Chopin, you tried to disprove Kazimierz Świątek's Polish roots, you appear to have utilized a citation that downplayed the 303 Polish Squadron without having read that citation, and now this very insistent effort to disavow Polish grievances about the Victory Parade - to the point of pushing the original idea that the Poles weren't there because some had been forced conscripts in the Wermacht. Those are just the things I've noticed. You'll appreciate this could come across as a pattern of editing behaviour that seems to have very serious WP:NPOV issues. As I say, you are personally entitled to these views; but often, I get the impression you haven't thoroughly read Wikipedia guidelines and you are allowing your views to interfere with your great potential as a Wikipedia editor. You have the energy, and I'm sure you can achieve the neutrality. I may ask a veteran moderator or administrator to take a look at this message, and he or she may become the editor to work with on the Victory Parade article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that you could perhaps take more care to no accuse me of being a racist? That is precisely what your comments about me being anti-Polish are. I could reply by pointing out that you also appear to have something to prove about Poles and that is why you change the first sentence of the relevant section of the London Victory Parade article to make a false statement about Poles being excluded and then use to support that statement a source which in reality says the exact opposite (i.e. that Poles were invited). I could also go into all the other accusations you level at me. However, I'm going to WP:AGF and not accuse you of having a NPOV problem that causes you to POV push the Polish POV. Perhaps you could extend me the same courtesy? Varsovian (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up I'm asking User:Someguy1221 for friendly guidance on this issue. Thanks, Chumchum7 (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also left a note at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a coincidence that of the two admins which you approached with regard to this issue, one just happens to be the only admin who has ever blocked me and the other is the only admin who has ever warned me about anything. What are the chances of that happening? Varsovian (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Thanks for drawing my attention to RFC. Will comply. Communicat (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please self revert ASAP

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on London_Victory_Parade_of_1946. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please self revert ASAP to avoid being reported. Thanks--Howelseornotso (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Varsovian, firstly: Don't bite the newcomers. Secondly, what's good for the goose is good for the gander: You are equally engaged in edit warfare with Howelseornotso yourself, and could equally be warned. Thirdly, you went overboard and deleted my work on the paragraph outright, moving it to another article - despite the fact that your 2-time section blanking was discussed on the LVP Talk page, and I already flagged I would report this as abuse if it happened again. Fourthly, as Loosmark has already told you, you need to establish WP:Consensus rather than make unilateral changes of this kind. It doesn't look like you have consensus yet. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howelseornotso, welcome. Please read the guidelines. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that I have already posted the welcome note on Howelseornotso's talk page (after first erroneously posting it on his userpage). Secondly your own actions are very close to the wind, feel free to report my actions, I'm sure yours will also be of interest. Thirdly, the idea that Polish participation may be better as a separate article was first raised by user:Jacurek on 8 October 2009 saying “perhaps a separate article about the fact that Polish Armed Forces were not invited should be created.” Then on 25 October 2009 I myself proposed that a separate article be created. In your reply to that proposal you do not have even a single word of objection to that proposal, instead you accuse another editor of being a racist. On 29 October a completely uninvolved editor, Stephan Schulz, creates a new section titled “ WP:WEIGHT issues”. I again propose a new article. Nobody objects, including you. On 21 November another uninvolved editor, Bobanni, comments “The fact that Poland did not participate in the parade is noted on the article. It should not be the focus of this article. That does not take away the insult that many Poles feel. The article should reflect the joy felt in England that the horror of WW II was over. This probably deserves an article all to itself, ie Betrayal of Poland by the Allies.”. I again agree that a new article is needed [6] and nobody objects to the idea of a separate article. As we have had many different editors complaining about WP:WEIGHT problems and/or proposing that a separate article be created to cover Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946 and the only editor who has ever had a word of objection to that proposal was me (and I have obviously now been convinced of the wisdom of creating such an article), we can very much conclude that the new article has overwhelming support from editors and that consensus has already been gained. Any comments? Varsovian (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Dzierzon

Mowisz ze jestes zainteresowany historia Polski, a dlaczego zmieniaz w Wikipedii nazwisko Jan Dzierzon na Johann Dzierzon. To jest niemiecka pisownia. W Britanica ( http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/175400/Jan-Dzierzon) pisza Jan Dzierżoń i tak powinno byc. --Soujdspo (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bierz zawsze pod uwage ze: 1) w okresie Bismarck'a zniemczano imiona celowo 2) Poszukiwania liczbowe zapisu imion na internecie sa falszywka - autorzy wtedy i dzisiaj powtarzaja to co zostalo zniemczone i wprowadzone w pismie, clowo, przez nieuwage lub niewiedze. Jedyna droga czy jego imie powinno byc pisane Jahann czy Jan jest stwierdzenie ze Dzierzon uwazal sie za Polaka i kultywowal polskos, i tak jest zgodnie z dokumentami opisanymi w pracach Brozka, Gladysza i ks. Mazaka etc. --Soujdspo (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Please note that this is English Wikipedia and so we use English for all communication (so that all editors can take part in discussions). Please note that Johann Dzierzon is the most commonly used name for this man and as such it is the name which Wikipedia uses.

If this popular name is a result of enforced germanization it should be changed, and it is done in serious scientific world. Example given above. The wrong unjust name can be given as additional with explanation)

Please also note that Johann Dzierzon is the name which is on the man's tombstone.

The tombstone is historical piece and was funded by Austian Beekeepers association before Poland recovered independance. We Polish (you are probably not a Pole) respect history and facts. This is unfortunately used by german chevinists. We consider you act as wrong moraly. You do not know Dzierzon biography and his strugle with Germans but doing thinks on base of unresponsible imagination. Please read scientific and true books not a internet junk and fix you error. You sell Polish heritage.

Varsovian (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a change to withdraw you action. It is just requested delite what you did in "Jan Dzierzon" article. In this way you will proof you good will. If not you will be marked as you deserve. --Begasnui (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "stay off my talk page" do you not understand serafin? Varsovian (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

I'm hereby notifying you that I have posted a new entry at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, Varsovian. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I'm hereby notifying you that I have complained about your behaviour at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement warning: discretionary sanctions (WP:DIGWUREN)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision.

This concerns this discussion on WP:ANI. Sandstein 16:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racism.

You have made repeated accusation that I called other people racists. I have not done anything like that. I suggest you either report me for that and prove your accusations or immediately stop throwing such uncivil and defamatory accusations around. And please read WP:CIV, WP:BATTLE and WP:AGF. Thank you and have a nice day. Dr. Loosmark 14:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to accuse other editors of being racist (and that includes claiming that they display racist behaviour) and to lie about what other editors say (with particular reference to your continued lies that I called Chopin a bastard), I will most certainly file a request for enforcement. You've already been topic banned for lying about what other editors say and warned about your behaviour. Yet again I urge you to read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Varsovian (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not accused anybody of being a racist. Stop defaming me. Dr. Loosmark 14:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[18] and [19] are two examples. I will be happy to provide more if needed ([20] for example). Varsovian (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to see how this edit is not describing another editor as "racist". Certainly it is describing another editor's actions as "racist". JamesBWatson (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please self revert ASAP

huh? I have not reverted you even once. Please stop making bogus accusation. Dr. Loosmark 21:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning your comment to WP:AE

Varsovian, this concerns this and this edit by you. It is unacceptable to make accusations of substantial misconduct without diffs. Please add a statement to your AE comment in which you provide the diffs of any current edits by which Dr. Loosmark (in your view) calls you a racist, and also diffs for the edits by which Piotrus (according to you) engages in discussion about whether the subject of an article should be described as wholly or partly Polish. If you do not do so within an hour of your next edit, I intend to ban you from EE-related AE discussions to which you are not a party, and possibly apply further sanctions. Sandstein 17:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be online much for the next few days. Next weekend is a long weekend here in Poland and I've taken Monday, tuesday and Wednesday as holiday from work, so I'm limited to posting via my iPhone. However I can certainly find edits in which Loosmark calls me anti-Polish (see two sections above for a comment of his regarding Dr Dan and Poles). As to Piotrus, the discussion is about whether Chopin should be described as wholly or partly Polish. Piotrus has said that in his opinion Chopin should not be described as purely Polish but please note that I have not stated to the contrary. Varsovian (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided the diffs to back up your allegations, as requested, within an hour of your next edit. This leads me to conclude that you are unwilling to comply with the community's expectation that allegations of serious misconduct may not be made except accompanied by clear proof in the form of diffs. Moreover, your participation in the AE request concerning Dr. Dan has not been helpful, as explained here. Consequently, according to WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, you are hereby made subject to the following restrictions within the Eastern Europe topic area, broadly interpreted:

You may not comment on WP:AE requests that have not either been made by you or against you.
Whenever you allege misconduct by another editor, you must with the same edit provide all diffs that are required to substantiate your allegations, or link to the place where you have already provided these diffs, if you have not already provided them in the same section of the discussion at issue.

Failure to comply with these restrictions may be sanctioned with escalating blocks or additional sanctions. Sandstein 19:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AE filing

I have made an AE filing on you here: [21] -Chumchum7 (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

report

Hello, unfortunately your recent behavior left me no other option but to report you here. [22]. Dr. Loosmark 21:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement interaction ban (WP:DIGWUREN)

This is to inform you that you are banned from interacting with Loosmark (talk · contribs) for two months, for the reasons given and under the conditions described at this AE thread. This sanction may be appealed as described at WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, subsection "Appeals". Sandstein 21:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked for a period of 24 hours from editing . Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Sandstein 15:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

This is in reaction to your violation of your ban from interacting with Loosmark, which you did by undoing their edit [23] at [24]. Sandstein 15:34, 24 June 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Block was given for "undoing an edit". I did not undo an edit, I corrected an inaccurate addition. WP:MOSBIO states that nationality should be included in the opening sentence and that ethnicity should not be. Before the edit which I corrected, there was no statement regarding nationality.

Decline reason:

As block was pursuant to an Arbcom remedy, I see no grounds to unblock at this time. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2010 (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.

Can I butt in and suggest, since clearly this specific situation is going to keep coming up and causing problems, that there needs to be some kind of specific restriction (either on named editors, or on everyone who's been made aware of it) against making knowingly contentious assertions of nationality without citing explicit sources (or something like that). Being realistic, if you just ban two editors from reverting each other, without addressing the underlying issues, then the effect will be that one of them gets to write certain articles to his POV, the other gets to write other articles according to his, and Wikipedia will suffer both ways.--Kotniski (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly work in my opinion. However, please note that I did provide a link showing that the subject is a member of the "Conference of the Catholic Bishops in Belarus". I deliberately did not simply delete the word "Polish" because firstly undoing that edit would break my restrictions and secondly if we are going to go by WP:MOSBIO (as was asserted by a previous edit), it needs to be "Belorussian". Varsovian (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I haven't time to get into the details of another of these disputes, but it seems at first sight that neither editor was sourcing their claims here - anyway it needs to be learnt that sources that say something else, like "was a member of [organization with the word 'X-land' in its name]", are no justification for saying that someone is X-ish. Nor does MOSBIO (which anyway qualifies what it says with "usually" and other things) justify overruling core content policies about verifiability and neutrality.--Kotniski (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't need to be learned: the source has more to say about the subject than just he was a member of a certain organisation. Perhaps you would like to read the source I provided before you accuse me of making unsourced claims? Varsovian (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AE enforcement request

This diff [25] is a clear violation of the DIGWUREN restriction [26]. For this edit (where I remove the link to Category:Polish bishops) I give the edit summary "Subject may be Polish but he is not a Polish bishop, he's a bishop in Belarus in the Catholic church of Belarus". Loosmark then inserts into the article the claim that the subject is a "Polish bishop" ([27]). If going into an article which Loosmark has never edited before, changing my "Belorussian" into "Polish" is not a violation of the "stay out of each other's way" then I don't know what is.

It possible that Loosmark made a deliberately provocative edit purely so that he would have something to try to have me blocked over after he was blocked previously for violating his interaction ban ([28]).

That would seem to be a reasonable assumption: Loosmark blocked as well. (Uninvolved admin speaking here.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the fact that I've fallen victim to a deliberate provocation, combined with the fact that I've arguably not broken my restrictions as I did not actually undo an edit, not sufficient for me to be unblocked? Varsovian (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you knew it was Loosmark's edit you were interacting with. Regardless of whether you were baited, it's your responsibility not to take that bait. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I assume that next time I'm baited I should just report that and let an admin deal with it. One question: in this specific situation would adding a 'citation needed' tag to the assertion of Polish nationality have been "interacting"? Varsovian (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, yes. Taking it to the talk page with "I'm banned from interacting with the editor who made this edit, but I believe it's inaccurate and would like more opinions" might squeak by, but it would probably be better to wait and let someone else deal with it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your misrepresentation of sources at LVP46

[29] - I notified FP@S since he recently dealt with a similar (though more blatant) case.radek (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported your proxying here and will be taking the matter further. Varsovian (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I requested clarification if your actions broke the interaction ban

[30] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical facts no puzzling rules for manipulation

You have my answer on my talk page. Please act by science and historical fact not by "rules". --Showasw (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a polite request

In the future, when responding to my comments on talk pages, would you please make your responses in your own section, below the comment you are responding to as is standard practice on Wikipedia, rather than arbitrarily breaking up my comments and responding to them piece by piece. If I wrote a series of sentences as a single comment then I intended for them to remain a single comment, not several disjointed sentences. Thank you.radek (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your AE report

Varsovian, unless I'm missing some big elephant in the room or something, your AE report seems rather groundless to me. I just commented on it. Would you perhaps consider requesting closure yourself, to avoid unneeded drama? Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours for this edit. Saying you're not commenting on a post doesn't mean you're not commenting on a post. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement article ban (WP:DIGWUREN)

Because both you and Loosmark (talk · contribs) have now been blocked for violating your mutual interaction ban in connection with the article Johann Dzierzon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it is apparent that both of you are not able to work on this article without getting in each other's way. Consequently, in application of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, you are hereby both banned from that article, i.e., you may not edit it, its talk page, or discuss this article on other pages. This ban lasts as long as your mutual interaction ban. In the event of any violations, both of you may request enforcement by an uninvolved administrator under the same terms as with respect to your interaction ban. Sandstein 17:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That (by "that" I mean banning me from that particular page) probably is for the best, all things considered. Thank you for again making the right decision about what should be done with me and sorry that you needed to take action towards me. Varsovian (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein#I.27m_sure_you.27re_sick_of_hearing_about_this radek (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement topic ban (WP:DIGWUREN)

This message is addressed to Loosmark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Varsovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and copied to both of your user talk pages.

I know I said that I've tired of AE, but since you both had the bright idea to come to my talk page and continue your mutual aggressive drama there, I'll make an exception for you. As an administrator who has been taking part in trying to moderate the disruptive environment surrounding Eastern European topics for what must be years now, I've seen both of you take part in nationalist dramafests time and again, notably at London Victory Celebrations of 1946. Both of you have, by your persistent POV-pushing pursuit of your silly causes and your animosity towards each other, contributed measurably to the disruption of the disruption of Wikipedia's editing environment. Now, as soon as your mutual interaction ban has ended, you are back to reverting each other at Jaroslaw Bilaniuk and Jakiw Palij, and having at each other at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland.

This will stop now. Since the interaction ban clearly did not make you reconsider your approach to editing, you need a longer opportunity to distance yourself from the topic and from each other. It may well be that one of you is more to blame than the other for this development, but because your disruption appears to be mutually reinforcing because of your conflict, the distribution of individual blame is not of great importance to me. In application of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, you are both hereby topic-banned (as defined at WP:TBAN) from the topic of Eastern Europe, broadly construed, for the duration of six months. For the sake of clarity, this topic ban also prohibits you from making enforcement requests against each other. Please do not make any appeals on my talk page or via e-mail; use WP:AE instead. Sandstein 22:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AE

[31]--Jacurek (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AE Decision

Pursuant to the discussion on AE:

You are admonished for making accusations without proof of wrongdoing and participating in an Eastern Europe related discussion in violation of his ban.
You must get approval from an uninvolved administrator before participating on any dispute resolution or Arbitration board or process, requests can be made on AE.
You are not not to interact with Jacurek until December 1 as part of an interaction ban.

Please contact me with any questions or clarifications. --WGFinley (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe your topic ban

I'm not going to go running to the admins asking for a block, but your edits here [32] are a clear and straight up violation of your topic ban. This is particularly worrisome since this is a page on which you edit warred extensively before. Please stop. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting to see you of all people defending nationalistic PoV pushing and removal of sourced content which does not agree with that nationalist PoV. I see that you have not learned at all from the EEML experience. As for my topic ban, if you would like to request that I am sanctioned for not mentioning anything Eastern Europe related (do feel very free to argue that Germany is part of Eastern Europe), go right ahead. Perhaps you feel that I should have followed the example of your good chess buddy Loosmark and set up my own sock farm? --Varsovian (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you a fair good faithed warning, to which you chose to reply with personal attacks. All I can do. Now don't violate your topic ban again. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do forgive me from not taking advice from somebody who deliberately tried to destroy WP and who clearly still considers nationalist PoV-pushing to be completely acceptable (provided of course that the PoV being pushed is the same one his crew used to push). I note that you have nothing to say about how a German's nationality and decision to play for only the German national team is in any way related to Eastern Europe, how surprising. Varsovian (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violating your topic ban imposed here by continuing to argue over nationality here after being reminded about the ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm banned from discussing Eastern Europe: Germany is not part of Eastern Europe. My edit clearly states "a German". I have been banned for arguing 'over nationality' but a) there is no argument over the nationality of this German and b) I am not banned from discussing nationality (apart from the nationality of people from Eastern Europe (which this German is not) and Eastern European nationality: Germany is not Eastern Europe). I have not edited the article in question because it could have been interpreted as being covered by my topic ban. It is astounding that I have been blocked but an editor who repeatedly removes ([37]) sourced information I put into an article ([38])is permitted to do just that. Varsovian (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't quite get how insisting that a person is not Polish would be avoiding writing about eastern Europe. Avoiding writing about eastern Europe would take the form of writing about unrelated topics, like Australian football, or jazz music. If you have to make arguments to try to explain why a subject doesn't really count under your topic ban... it probably does. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:42, 16 December 2010 (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.

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Varsovian. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]