User talk:Wanderer602/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Mediation Cabal
Hi Wanderer602! Sorry for the few days' gap in discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard. I've gone ahead and started a thread at the Mediation Cabal about Battle of Tali-Ihantala to get the ball rolling. The mediation page is located at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/24 October 2011/Battle of Tali-Ihantala. You don't need to do anything just yet - the next stage is finding a mediator. If you want to fill out more details about the dispute itself then that's fine, but there shouldn't be any discussion there just yet. Hopefully we can all find a speedy and peaceful resolution to all the issues there. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi again. I have decided to mediate the case myself at MedCab, if that's ok by you. I've made some ground rules which I'd like you to sign - they are at the mediation page linked to above. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- I see things have been pretty quiet in the mediation today. Are you still thinking of finding encyclopaedia articles for step one, or would you be ok with proceeding to step 2? Let us know on the mediation page. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Operation Northern light
I've left a message on the talk page, but if you've no objection I'll do the move, as I outlined. Xyl 54 (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Result of your edit warring complaint
Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:Goliath74 reported by Wanderer602 (talk) (Result: Both warned), which contains a warning for you. I take note that you've been previously warned of Arbcom sanctions under WP:DIGWUREN. You've also been blocked twice for edit warring, with the most recent block in October. If you don't show you can edit neutrally on articles concerning Finland's wars, you may be banned from that topic by any administrator. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear Wanderer602/Archive 2: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, your edits were discussed.
Please note your edits in Russophobia were discussed here. FeelSunny (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear Wanderer602/Archive 2: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
 Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Wanderer602. 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. 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! 11:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Strength and casualty figures in Great Patriotic War articles
I see that you have tried to revert some of the changes to casualty figures that User:Alexander Pastukh is making to articles on the Great Patriotic War. Do you think it would be a good idea for one of you to edit the changes into strength and casualties sections into these articles? You could then have the infobox as a summary or a conclusion?
The advantage of editing these sections would be that you could put in what you believe to be the correct figures - with citations, but also have the alternative figures, if cited. If you have sources that explain why one set of figures are to be preferred to the other set, you could put those explanations in the section, with citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Until the edit war ends such action is rather pointless as i do not like to be hanging near 3RR violation limit regardless on how justified my point of view would appear to be. Also there is the problem that very few if any of User:Alexander Pastukh edits have any citations, and even those that do (like with regards to Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive and Continuation War) are so far of rather questionable value since the scope of the source the user in question used does not correspond with that of the article. However should the revert/edit war end then i have no problem (indeed i would welcome it) with such an approach. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at the renewed editing binge by the user in question i think this issue is no longer relevant, the user does not seem to have any intent to participate constructively in editing wikipedia articles. Despite of numerous prompts to use talk pages. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
You are or are close to breaching the 3RR rule in the Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive. I suggest that you stop reverting for the moment and spend more time discussing. -- PBS (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that is exactly what i planned to do. Though discussing the issue has not provided any solutions, actually despite of the discussions the opponent in the discussion went ahead and replaced the result regardless. To be honest I'm at a loss what should be done with editors who are not willing to participate constructively. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, why can't you participate constructively?
- Your failure to respond is not exactly a sign that the discussion was going on... -YMB29 (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- So the fact that i was still taking part into the said still ongoing discussion on the talk page (as can be seen from the logs) is evidence that i didn't take part into the discussion? How exactly does that logic work? I'm willing to participate constructively however so far your suggestions have only involved your POV, none of the other. That is not what being constructive is. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just because you don't like what sources say, does not make the information biased.
- You stopped discussing the result until you were made aware of it today. You only added comments in an off-topic discussion. Anyone can check this in the history. -YMB29 (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- I never said i didn't like it. I said that it is not representative of the article at hand. The statement you offered was not biased but the method you did it, ie. using just one aspect of the offensive to represent the whole of it while knowing full well that there were other aspects that would disagree with that statement. Before that you had disagreed with the used of compromise in the result.
So far last i checked the consensus in the talk page remained that separate aftermath section would be used. Only you disagreed without any supporters. Given that the discussion still continued i fail to see how you could determine that it had already ended. As you said it is in the history that the discussion continued and that majority of editors opposed you point of view which you forced into the article later on. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- I never said i didn't like it. I said that it is not representative of the article at hand. The statement you offered was not biased but the method you did it, ie. using just one aspect of the offensive to represent the whole of it while knowing full well that there were other aspects that would disagree with that statement. Before that you had disagreed with the used of compromise in the result.
- So the fact that i was still taking part into the said still ongoing discussion on the talk page (as can be seen from the logs) is evidence that i didn't take part into the discussion? How exactly does that logic work? I'm willing to participate constructively however so far your suggestions have only involved your POV, none of the other. That is not what being constructive is. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Unless another admin takes action before I get to it, I am going to close the 3RR discussion with this warning. Wanderer, you breached 3RR, and your comments show you don't understand how the policy works. The only reason you are not being blocked is because since the discussion began you have not edited the article. Also your comment about not wanting to make changes to another article shows some sensitivity to the issues involved. Remain on the article Talk page. Stay away from editing the article, at least for the time being.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Copy that. Can I still bother you to take a look at Continuation War article? - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Without analyzing the content - which I'm not about to do - it looks like similar behavior to the other article (many of the same editors) but not quite as contentious in the edit history. My advice to you - and to anyone else reading this - stick to the Talk page, don't assume you can change the article for content reasons and claim an exemption from 3RR. It may be frustrating, but that's just the way it is. If you can't abide by the rules, then edit a different article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Copy that. Can I still bother you to take a look at Continuation War article? - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I have blocked an account and two IP addresses as suspected sockpuppets of Alexander Pastukh. The user account is blocked indefinitely. The two IP addresses for a week as they may be shared ones. I suggest that in future rather than edit warring with IP addresses, or new user accounts, (reverting once and asking for discussions on the talk page is not edit warring), if you think that the they may be sock puppets then either inform Bbb23 or myself or follow the advise on handling suspected sock puppets -- PBS (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- I had thought of doing that but since i had no evidence to support my claim or rather my supposition that it could have been use of sock-puppets i chose not to forward my opinions since without any evidence it remained just my opinion. However if the situation renews itself in the future i will know what to do next time. Thank you for the advise. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
August 2012
Your recent editing history at Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, Talk:Continuation War". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 01:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Continuation War". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 September 2012.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)