User talk:Miacek

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
--(John Donne)

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

Just a few of the people I happen to collaborate with more frequently:

• Sander Säde (talk · contribs)
• Termer (talk · contribs)
• Martintg (talk · contribs)
• Colchicum (talk · contribs)
• Russavia (talk · contribs)
• Checco (talk · contribs)
• Gabagool (talk · contribs)
• Vecrumba (talk · contribs)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Viktor Suvorov shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Dodo19 (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Your POV-pushing has already been reverted by another user. If you don't cease with patently disruptive actions, you may end up being a permabanned user sooner, than you expect. As, btw, your admirer Molobo can tell you based on his own experiences. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 18:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Governorates

Would you support Estonian Governorate and Livonian Governorate? Then also Lithuanian Governorate should be moved. For me this is fine. It is more consistent than the current situation. Schwyz (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't really made up my mind yet on that, at the moment I'd still prefer G of Estonia. I'm waiting for more comments by hitherto uninvolved users. I would like to hear Ezhiki's opinion on that, too.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. At least for Estland there are now Ezhiki, Petri Krohn and me, supporting Estland Governorate. For Livonia(n) / Livland I still see no consensus coming. Schwyz (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Made a listing at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baltic_governorates&action=historysubmit&diff=378240236&oldid=360339552#Listing Schwyz (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Preview

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Party for Freedom, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. 78.53.47.215 (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't add messages and warnings [1], [2] meant for newbies to an editor who has been here for almost two years with around 7,000 edits. It is considered rude, in addition, it will very much undermine your own cause, once I report you. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Effects of World War II . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not revert him anymore (Effects of World War II ), in fact, others can re-add the titles at any time, this is not that important.
Funny, how you reject long term POV pushing issues in certain articles on living persons. In my report, I detailed how this guy has been pushing his propaganda since 2009. I'm just his newest victime, as he started to stalk my edits after I disputed his additions at Talk:Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt.
And now come and block me for 'edit warring' by having added the valid name of the German guy an oak in Prussia/ present day Poland was named after. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 18:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You, Todd, are not really a neutral arbiter here, right? Thanx to 'self-less efforts' of some people - you hopefully excluded ? - some vandals can go on, and on, and on. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 18:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

NPA

Please retract (as in "remove") the personal attacks you made here: [3].radek (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've rephrased my comments in order to be more matter-of-fact. Considering your editing history, however, I do not think that I made any personal assaults, as it is easily verifiable, how things go with the POV agenda of your team. It's clear to anyone, what is the real problem that you have with German authors and some German-speaking users here.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 21:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no "team". I have no "POV agenda". I only have problems with German authors who represent extremist views - both right AND left, btw. I only have a problem with authors, German or otherwise, who engage in historical revisionism and Holocaust denial. And I only have problems with German speaking users "here" who violate Wikipedia rules on NPOV, OR, NPA, TE etc. You are continuing with the personal attacks.radek (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed exactly HOW you "rephrased" those comments. This is a very serious matter now.radek (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(ac)

Connecting ones' opponents with 'Holocaust denial' just proves my point. By agenda I was actually referring to the Arbitration Committee finds on some of the members of our list. As you remember, no POV pushing or related edit warring was acertained on my party. And “only hav[ing] problems with German authors who represent extremist views” shows the amount of self-deception needed. After (ec) what exactly could be wrong with my changed comments? I though I changed the part that could be resented? Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 22:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. You need to remove that link. You know which one I'm talking about.radek (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I used asterisk in it anyway, as the site is spamlisted, but removed the whole link now. If you think it is necessary, the version with an ED link can be oversighted, but I doubt if it's worth anything. The page has been linked already during the EEML case. And it wasn't my fault in the first place that such a smear page could be created. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 22:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If you

don't know what you are doing - leave it alone! --78.53.45.99 (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

m

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.45.99 (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Your refs ...

Your Refs) are actually quite a mess. Please consider consulting the Wikipedia:Embedded citations guidelines on how to improve them. --78.53.40.172 (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)