User talk:Γνῶθι σεαυτόν

September 2015

Hello, I'm Toddy1. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine‎ seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. The relevant Wikipedia policy can be found at WP:WikiVoice; this says "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Toddy1 has given you a Pork pie. Pork pies are full of meaty goodness, and are wonderfully delicious! On Wikipedia, they promote love and sincerity. Hopefully, this one has made your day happier.

For your good work at Talk:Yulia Tymoshenko#Allegations of torture

in his own article

Spread the goodness and sincerity of pork pies by adding {{subst:Pork Pie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Give one to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

@Toddy1: Thank you for the pork pie! As regards George Soros, every one else mentioned in the article is introduced. For example, just above you can read Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and not just Stephen Harper. Since George Soros is not necessarily universally well-known, I thought he needed an introduction too and I added 'American business magnate', which are the very words used to introduce him in his own article. So, could you be so kind as to clarify what appears to you to be "less than neutral" in my edit? Againstdisinformation (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be best if a lot of the other editorialising were removed from the article as well - for example the claim that our president is/was "pro-Russian". Western sources often claimed he was - but as the Financial Times pointed out at the time, he was no more pro or anti Russian than his opponent in the the 2009-10 presidential election.

Your English is sufficiently good to know that describing Soros as an "American business magnate" in an article about Ukraine is negative.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Soros not being well-known - is it not lucky that Wikipedia has the technology to do Wikilinks! It would of course be malicious to link to the wrong article. A neutral description of Soros would be "Hungarian-born businessman".-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: That George Soros is a Hungarian-born American business magnate is an incontrovertible fact. This is precisely the way he is described in the article devoted to him. As you have noted, I fully realize that this fact may be embarrassing. Especially for a man who calls on the European Union to consider itself at war with Russia. Is this a reason to push this fact under the rug? Calling him a "Hungarian-born businessman" looks to me like an attempt to obfuscate rather than to be neutral. After all, who on earth would be interested in what he has to say if he were just an ordinary Hungarian businessman? My impression is that, rather than for the fortune he made speculating against the pound in 1992 ($1 billion in a single day), he is quoted because he is a geopolitical activist who is very influential in Washington . Were it not for his outstanding contributions to colour coded revolutions and, more generally furthering Washington's agenda, he would never had made it into Wikipedia. At any rate, not in an article about the "Russian invasion" of Ukraine. Had I wished to be malicious, I would have provided a link to this. Againstdisinformation (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

OK - "Hungarian-born billionaire". Words like "Jew", "American" and "magnate" are editorialising and should not be used. That other articles have horrible features is not a justification for copying those features.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Reality	Advert
Reality	Wikipedia infobox photo

I love the contrast between what she really looks like, and what she looks like in the Wikipedia infobox photo.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Thank you for the two faces of Victoria Nuland, It's really funny. As for Soros, I would never dream of calling him a Jew. Even though it is true, it is totally irrelevant and, in this context, would look antisemitic. However, American seems very relevant, not only because it is true, but also because he is a strong advocate of the American model of financial capitalism. In my opinion, it would be more to the point to describe him by a reference to the ideology he defends rather than his wealth or origins. For now, I don't have a formula that would be at the same time short, neutral and informative. If you have any suggestion you are welcome. Againstdisinformation (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Since it was so courteously erased for you by user Bishonen, I send you again what I wrote on your talk page: It took Lute88 (no doubt someone you approve of) only 10 minutes to erase the section I opened on the talk page of the article Russian intervention etc.. and after I restored it it took you only one minute to erase it again. All this with no explanation from you or Lute88 apart from the edit summary WP: NOTAFORUM in Lute88' edit summary and a childish "Too bad so sad" in yours. Not only is this extremely rude, but it goes against Wikipedia's policies. You should know that, since you are an admin. One wonders what you are afraid of, that you find it necessary to erase so swiftly a new section. In my naivety, I thought that article talk pages were made just for that, discussions, proposals etc. Apparently I am wrong, there are some texts that no one should be allowed to read under any circumstances. Especially, if they are in any way not toeing the line about Russia. Lute88, an extremely neutral Ukrainian user has made it a habit to delete without explanation any edit I make on that subject. It seems he has now found some backing. The fact is that I challenge the impartiality and neutrality of a good number of articles on Russia. You may not like it, but this is my right. The best way to achieve objectivity is through the confrontation of ideas. I hope you will give me a response, but I have few Illusions. Erase this section too as you did the other, if you so wish. By the way, Lute88 seems hellbent on having "Politkovskaya was found dead in the lift, in her block of flats in central Moscow on 7 October 2006, the birthday of Vladimir Putin. Where does this this kind of libelous insinuation fit better, an encyclopedia or the British tabloids? I let you be the judge. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bishonen: What gives you the right to erase almost instantly entire sections from another user's talk page? Even in the Soviet Union, you would not have expected such behaviour, it's censorship at its worst. I guess you won't deem any clarification necessary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Againstdisinformation (talk • contribs) 3:24, 5 September 2015

How many times have you been pointed to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and still refuse to heed them? Bishonen's right to remove WP:SOAP, WP:ADVOCACY, incessant general badgering of other editors, ad nauseam: WP:TALKNO; WP:TPO and, most importantly, WP:RPA.
Removal of your ongoing use of article talk pages as a soapbox, and for the explicit purpose of advocacy and WP:CANVASSing in order to be disruptive (hence encouraging any other trolls and POV-pushers to join ranks with you): WP:NOTFORUM, not advocacy, and plain ol' WP:CANVASS.
Your right to bring in other user's ethnicity is zero to nought per WP:WIAPA.

You have been behaving like this since you started editing and, despite other editor's patience with you, you have continued to confirm that this is an ongoing pattern of behaviour you have absolutely no intention of stopping. Having exhausted the principle of good faith, Drmies edit summary is WP:SPADE. When you spend all of your time accusing everyone else of bad faith, of being POV-pushers, and make it clear that your only interest is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, don't pretend to be surprised when you get the kick in the arse you've earned. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Nicely phrased, Ms. Harpy. AD, you may have noticed we're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an activist website. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: The point is that, with articles that emphasize that the day Anna Politkovskaya was murdered was Putin's birthday, Wikipedia may not be the place for activism but it looks like a place for libel. If you are honest, which I assume, please address this issue. Againstdisinformation (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• At the risk of sounding like I don't know what you're talking about, I have no idea what you're talking about. If there's libel, tell me and I'll take care of it. Have a nice day, Drmies (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I gratefully accept the rebuke. I confess I may not have done my best to elicit sympathy. My not entirely innocent choice of username signaled from the start my intent to act as an ‘agent provocateur’. In my defense I can only say that it has never been my intention to damage Wikipedia, quite the contrary. It is an experiment in swarm intelligence which, in non-controversial areas of knowledge, has exceeded the wildest expectations. However, in subjects likely to arouse controversy it has failed miserably. My sole purpose has been to point out bias, which is so obvious in articles which have the potential to arouse human passions. Being bold, I chose the most controversial subject of all, Russia. This, as I expected, attracted a lot of venom. I have constantly been dismissed by legal quibbling about my conduct, but the content of my edits has not been addressed a single time. Let me focus on one example. The sentence "Politkovskaya was found dead… on 7 October 2006, the birthday of Vladimir Putin”. Such an accusation of murder made without a shred of evidence is not bias, it is libel. What is the rationale for keeping it in Wikipedia? Please address the issue, give me a convincing reason why this libel must remain in the article and I’ll apologize and go back to improving non-controversial articles. Againstdisinformation (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should look at sources.

• Maybe it is libelous to say that Putin's birthday was 7th October 1952. But the article on him cites a tolerably reliable source for this.[1] There does not seem any good reason to disbelieve the source. If you have reliable sources to support some other date (e.g. 20th April), then you need to say what they are in discussion. If President Putin regards the source as libelous, they have good law courts in London that Renat Akhmetov has used to deal with publications in Ukraine. Putin should copy Renat's example.
• There does seem to be any doubt not that Anna Politkovskaya was murdered. There have been a number of murder trials in Russia concerning her murder (there are reliable sources for this). It is not libelous to report that she was murdered. In any case, Anna is dead so cannot sue for libel.
• As for "Politkovskaya was found dead… on 7 October 2006, the birthday of Vladimir Putin” Who is this libeling? In any case, attention to this is drawn by reliable sources. Политковская и Путин. День смерти и день рождения. Все, что Анна Политковская писала о Владимире Путине в "Новой газете"

-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Dear Toddy1, since you sent me the hilarious photographs of Victoria Newland, you earned a special place in my heart. However, I know you are aware that your argument is a complete logical fallacy. Not even a lunatic would maintain that the statements that Putin's birthday was 7th October or that Politkovskaya was murdered constitute libel. By contrast, if a theft had occured and I were to say: when the money was stolen, Toddy1 was in the room, I am certain your reasoning would be somewhat different. You understand very well that the implication is libelous, not the facts. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I might add that in the case of Putin's birthday it is also preposterous. After all, it was also Desmond Tutu's birthday. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I am sorry, this time you are right concerning the Politkovskaya article. You won't believe me, since I am so determined to have the libelous mention of Putin's birthday out, but it was a genuine mistake, I just read the wrong reference. It is true it is in the source but then the source is Радио Свобода, a propaganda outlet paid for by the American Congress. No wonder they have libelous statements about Putin, they belong there. However, do you think it is proper to include statements that any court of law would call libel in an encyclopedia? Againstdisinformation (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Dear Iryna, you should apply to be an admin, so that you can have the pleasure to block me yourself. Lately, you sent me a vituperative message where, among other things you accused me of violating WP:WIAPA and badgering other editors. In stark contrast to you, I responded to your post in a sober and composed tone. I earnestly tried to explain to you what my motives were and I asked you to address a particular issue instead of dismissing me with a WP Do as you are told. You did not deem it necessary to respond, which is not a surprise. With regard to my right to bring about Lute88 and other's ethnicity, I am afraid you may not entirely grasp the spirit of WP:WIAPA. I mentioned Lute88 ethnicity because I think that, combined with his consistent POV on the Ukraine crisis, it constitutes a conflict of interest. Had he been Russian and had he stridently defended Russia's positions, I would have done the same. Now, about the issue I raised concerning Putin's birthday, will I be graced with an answer? Againstdisinformation (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Your silence speaks volumes. You love lecturing people on generalities about Wikipedia's policies but, when asked to express a reasoned opinion on a specific issue, not a peep. Againstdisinformation (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thank you for your answer, you seem to be the only editor who wants to listen to my concerns. Therefore, even though I am tired of it by now, I will once again explain the issue. In the first sentence of the 'Murder, investigation and trial' section of the Anna Politkovskaya article, one can read "Politkovskaya was found dead… on 7 October 2006, the birthday of Vladimir Putin”. This is a case of libel by insinuation. What would your reaction be if, in real life, I were to say: when the money was stolen, Drmies was in the room? Those who oppose removing the mention of Putin’s birthday argue that it is a fact confirmed by sources that Politkovskaya was murdered on his birthday. To show how preposterous this is, I replaced ‘birthday of Vladimir Putin’ by ‘birthday of Desmond Tutu’ (also an incontrovertible fact). I was then accused of being disruptive, a vandal and what not. This only confirms that there is on the part of some editors a malicious intention of libel. There is no doubt how a court of law would rule. Such accusations should not be made unless one has evidence to support them. I think Mr. Putin couldn’t care less about these accusations. The only victim is Wikipedia, which looks at once libelous and ludicrous. Thank you if you had the patience to read me until here and, please, let me know your opinion. Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop feeling sorry for yourself! Tutu's birthday being the same as the day her corpse was found is not mentioned in any source. Trying to link the two events is breach of WP:ORIGINALSYN. Linking the discovery of her corpse to Putin's birthday was done by a source, so it is arguably OK for Wikipedia to mention it.

Regarding your claims that Putin is being libeled. The source does not say that Putin murdered her, nor does it say that he ordered her murder. It merely says that her dead body was found on his birthday. It is not libel.

Do you have access to shops that sell DVDs? If you do, try to find an episode of a late-1970s English TV series called "The Professionals" - they used to sell DVDs of English TV programmes in Donetsk Citi before the Russians invaded. The episode you need to see was called "Everest was also conquered". The episode title is a reference to this. If you watch the episode you will understand.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Sorry for myself? Everything is fine, thank you. Isn't "It merely says that her dead body was found on his birthday" just a little bit disingenuous? I am quite confident that you don't believe that yourself. As for the DVD, I'll buy it on 7 October, Putin's birthday. Provided of course that, by then, the Russians will not have invaded the place where I live. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: One piece of advice: you should stick to poetry, you are much better at it than at reasoning. Please take no offence.

@Drmies: I see that you have deleted the innuendo about Putin and I congratulate you. However, Lute88 almost immediately reverted you, as he did each time I tried to restore some neutrality in that article. I think this is a real problem and I am not going to revert him in turn, since I have had my share of being called an edit warrior. However, something should be done if we don't want wikipedia to very soon have the same reputation as the English tabloids.

@Drmies: I am just trying to help keep Wikipedia neutral. This is not a very rewarding task and has earned me a lot of animosity. I have chosen to respond to heinous attacks with humour. And no, I don't receive money from the Kremlin as suggested by Lute88. You will no doubt have noted that he used exactly the same kind of duplicitous innuendo as in the case of the birthday thing. Please, try to convince him not to delete any single edit I make. Otherwise, I am afraid I will have to take the matter further.

Your constant need to be the centre of attention speaks volumes. You are, of course, the only reasonable person here, and everyone else is a mere satellite who must orbit around you. No, we're not. You've become too WP:TEDIOUS and, despite saying that you've learnt the error of your ways, you continue to canvass, forum shop, and be as annoyingly obtrusive as possible. You haven't even learnt anything about crying wolf. The most important part of my missive here, however, is to stop pinging me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Don't worry, this is the last time I ping you, it is too obvious that you dislike me, even though the reverse is not true. I wish you the best. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with liking or disliking you. I simply find that any positive input you've made regarding article content and bias has been overwhelmed by your disruptive tactics. Understanding that you still lack experience, I think you're mistaking how much personal contact editors actually make after years of working collaboratively (I have no personal relationships with any other editors, nor do I know any more about them other than agreeing and disagreeing on various issues on talk pages than I did when we first encountered each other years, months or days ago). That's how editors work: we're individuals tapping away from our own little nook somewhere on some part of the planet.

You also seem to be under the impression that every detail must be addressed immediately. It's a long term project, therefore (other than real BLP issues), regular editors move across hundreds of articles and talk pages. I get pinged by users I'm aware of, and numerous editors I'm not aware of asking for a third party opinion on a daily basis. Right now I'm going back and forth from No Gun Ri to Kosovo, from the Comoros to the economy of Russia, Greece... you name it. There are a hell of a lot of articles that need to be cleaned up, but you have to learn how to pace things. Are you even aware of the fact that the "War in Donbass" article is currently fully protected after an outbreak of edit warring over three separate issues? Everyone involved is taking some time to cool off before we can regroup and address the issues again. We have time to think on it because it's protected until the 15th, so I'll leave it for another day until I break the issues down into sections and we can work out the priority order and discuss each one at a time... But, no, you had to shove this piece of canvassing into the talk page a couple of days ago, refuse to get the point of the reversion, and reintroduce it because you want to throw a "pramtrum".

Enough said on the matter. I always have a backlog of real editing work to get on with, and I don't want to spend any more of my editing time on personal banter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Thank you. I think you are a nice person. It shows through the lines even if you are doing your best to hide it. As for me, I am certainly clumsy but I mean well. Perhaps you won't believe me, but I have absolutely no stake in the crisis in Ukraine. Before I started editing I really loved Wikipedia. I learnt so much from it, about history, for instance. One day, I just happened to read the article on RT after having heard about it in a conversation. I was horrified by the tone, it was just a long list of accusations. Justified or not, I felt that this had no place in an encyclopedia. Therefore, I decided naively to rid WP of inaccuracies, bias and disinformation. I thought that, if successful, that was one of the best thing I could do for Wikipedia. I can see now that this is a very arduous task and I doubt that I will have the required energy to go on for much longer. Cheers. Againstdisinformation (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment

If you really think that behavior by another user was problematic in this subject area, you should file a complaint on WP:AE. But remember that the statement you just made on ANI [2] shows nothing except your own problems. You must provide diffs showing a problematic behavior by another user. Was behavior by another user really problematic? Well, at the very least, your last statement can be easily disproved. For example, she/he did participated in discussions on some pages where reverts occurred, but you did not [3]. And remember that many users simply watch pages of their interest. If people follows you on pages where they contributed before, this is definitely not wikistalking.My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Look, I am getting tired of all this. It looks like a game for teens involving a lot of testosterone and adrenaline. I am too old for this. Simply stated,

Lute88 has been very rude to me and he ought to apologise. Not because of sanctions, just as any decent human being would do. As for your comment on Lute88' talk page ,"I tend to believe that he simply does not know anything at all about this subject (he called her "Anna Palitkovska"on your talk page above", it shows two things: 1) You do not agree with Lute88's claim that I am paid by the Kremlin, 2) you have an unfortunate tendency to rush to conclusions. It never occurred to you that 'Anna Palitkovska' might just be a typo? Anyway, I hate this kind of adversarial behaviour. Is it impossible for Lute88 to say that if, indeed, I am not paid by the Kremlin, then he regrets having offended me? Or is he afraid that, doing so, he would lose face? If this is the case, then he has more to learn about life than I have about Wikipedia. Cheers. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If you "hate this kind of adversarial behaviour", then why do it yourself?

Part of me will be sorry when you get yourself indefinitely blocked. Irving Janis's book Victims of Groupthink explains why it is desirable to listen to people whose views we disagree with.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I am very grateful for the part of you who is sorry for me. Thank you for pointing out the book Victims of Groupthink, I had not heard of it before and I will certainly read it. But there is no need to be sorry, there is a life outside Wikipedia. We should rather be sorry for Wikipedia. The systematic bias which pervades the articles on current affairs will eventually destroy what originally was a wonderful project. One example: "Psychologists have noted that 'write name here' grew up in an unhealthy environment, and his predisposition for violence stems from his early childhood development and family". Never mind who this is about, is this the style you would expect to see in an encyclopedia? Personally, I would rather expect to find it in the English tabloids. Again, thank you for comforting me. Cheers. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I have just seen that you supported me on the ANI and I thank you for it. You noted that on the Yulia Tymoshenko article, among others, my sole purpose was to rid WP of fallacies. You are the only editor who has thanked me for it, all other editors I have encountered call it WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Again, thank you. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• OK, I might be wrong that you do not know this subject. That was my conclusion based on your comments and edits. For example, you made this edit related to the subject. Well, this is either vandalism or WP:POINT on your part. If you made other edits that show your knowledge of the subject, I would came to a different conclusion. Let's speak informally. What books written by Politkovskaya did you read, and what books that describe her life did you read? My very best wishes (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: 'Desmond Tutu's birthday' is just as valid as 'Vladimir Putin's birthday', which happens to be the day when Anna Politkovskaya was murdered. As for my knowledge of Politkovskaya's biography, I don't feel I have to justify myself. You are not my judge. Besides, it is totally irrelevant. Can't you see the absurdity? Even if I was an alien and I didn't know anything about Russia, the story would still sound preposterous to me. I am sorry to say this, I don't want to hurt your feelings if you really believe in this. You saw that it didn't convince Drmies either, or do you believe that she too is on the Kremlin's payroll? My advice is this: if you believe this is true, investigate. If you can prove it, there is no doubt that you will get the Pulitzer Prize. Againstdisinformation (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, not answering my question and making this analogy with 'Desmond Tutu's birthday' means that you do not know the subject, and you certainly did not read the books. Not knowing the subject is not a problem if you are ready to read and learn the sources. But instead of reading and following RS, you are trying to simply fix something that does not "make sense" in your personal opinion and ask admins to punish people who do know the subject and happened to disagree with you [4]. Not only you are not helping here, but actively prevent productive work by others. This is main reason I voted for your block at the ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:Which book did I not read? 'Is Journalism Worth Dying For?' for example. But I already told you, this is irrelevant. If you think I prevented productive work by removing the mention to Putin's birthday, why do you not put it back? For you, accusing someone to be a paid agent is benign but, removing a ludicrous innuendo amounts to "actively prevent productive work by others" and deserves an indefinite block. Anyway, your recent actions (like trying to conceal your bias against me by erasing your own words on Lute88's talk page, or bringing false accusations against me), make it harder and harder for me to believe in your good faith. Sorry. Againstdisinformation (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, after looking at a number of your edits, such as edit warring to include irrelevant political rants [5], [6], I can not see them in any other way than intentional disruption of the project. Or consider this example. What "conspiracy theory" are you talking about? Why do you suggest a psychiatrist and for whom? My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:By the way, just to make things clear, I have the greatest of respect for Anna Politkovskaya. Againstdisinformation (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I hope you will not consider my writing to you as harassing. I know it's foolish for me to talk now, but I am troubled by your claim that I have been uncivil in other ways. Read the Putin's birthday and the lead of the Anna Politkovskaya talk page and, please, tell me how I have been uncivil. I may be clumsy, but I am not trying to game the system, I just want to correct fallacies. Was I wrong to correct the Anna Politkovskaya article? In the Yulia Tymoshenko article, it was falsely asserted that the ECHR had recognized she had been tortured, should I have left it there? As for my pro-Russiand slant, I have corrected other articles like the account of Gaddafi's death or the false claim that waterboarding is not torture. None of my opponents mentions them because it doesn't fit in well with my being a Russian agent. And, yes, to the risk of alienating you, I still consider that various articles concerning Russia are substandard. If my edits are judged disruptive and designed to harm WP, I suggest to revert them all and have the blatant lies reinstated. Have a nice day. Againstdisinformation (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

open

I am turning to you for help in a completely unrelated issue. There is a mistake in the article Edmé-Antoine Durand. It should be spelled 'Edme-Antoine Durand', since he died in 1835 and the spelling 'Edmé' only appeared around 1850. I corrected the body of the article, but I don't Know how to correct the title. Could you help me?

This is a question of WP:COMMONNAME. I've checked around and can't really establish which version is more prominent. It isn't difficult for me to do, but it might be best for you to start a section on the talk page of the article as to which variant is more commonly used. Either way, the alternative should also feature in the opening paragraph of the WP:LEAD. I don't want to move the article and start a tug-of-war over the common English language usage. I'm adding the article to my watchlist, so if no one responds within a few days, you can ping me so that I can move it, or you could follow the instructions here (there's a step-by-step series of instructions for a DYI job). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:Thank yo very much for your help,I will open a section. However I fear there will be few visitors, no one has yet written on the talk page. Perhaps a good idea would be to ping the page creator. I'll do both. Againstdisinformation (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that'd be a good idea considering that the article was only started in February and has had a handful of editors. Those who've been involved so far might have an opinion on the matter (or may well have already checked for the more common English language convention). In the meantime, I'll check Google Scholar for English language results there. It seems to me that it's neck and neck issue to me, so I'd favour dropping diacritics (with a redirect from 'Edmé-Antoine' to the main article). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. Anyway, the diacritics are seldom used in English. I think the mistake stems from the fact that people believe that, in such position, it is required in French. This is the case now, but it wasn't in the time of Durand. Then, it was spelled Edme-Antoine Durand.Againstdisinformation (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: "the personal accusation ("go see your shrink")". Well, this is not what I meant. My expression rather meant "come on, you can't seriously believe that". No insult was intended. If you believe there was, you'd better see a psychiatrist (I am just joking). How can this deserve a block while "No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant…" be considered just a "snippy remark"? Hasteur's comment on ANI: "until such time that they can understand the difference between a snippy remark and a full on personal attack". Well, I guess Lute88 and I do not have the same sense of humour. Let's hope we can do serious things without taking ourselves too seriously. I am feeling confused now, I think I'll go see my shrink. Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you're not confused; you're not that dumb. Stop playing. It's a personal attack. It's possible that your sense of humor doesn't come across well; if that is the case, play it safe. Lute does not have a sense of humor, unfortunately; your sense of humor comes with a feeling of superiority. Either way, I am merely making a suggestion. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies:You are are right, I recognise I should perhaps not have written that. But you have to take the context into consideration. Lute88 and My very best wishes would not discuss with me and kept suggesting that my wish to remove the reference to Putin's birthday stemmed from my pro-Russian POV. I was reverted almost instantly when I first removed it. So I wanted to elicit a reaction. What I really fail to understand is why this is much worse than Lute88's slur, which some describe as "a snippy remark". Can you explain this to me? I am very sincere here, it's beyond me. Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Lute's comment is blockable too, and I think they know it. As far as I'm concerned they're on a tight leash. Best, Drmies (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies:Thank you for reassuring me, reading the ANI I was starting to get the impression that he was all but commended for his, let's say, less than collegial comment. Againstdisinformation (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. No, they need to be on their best behavior. I don't like anyone but me yelling abuse at others. Now stop pinging me, I got real important business to do; I'm only employed by the Kremlin part-time. Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:I just saw that in the article [Russian military intervention in Ukraine] you removed the section 'Other' as [WP:UNDUE] and I congratulate you for it. Not daring to take such a drastic action, I added American business magnate before Soros (I took this description from his own article). I was immediately reverted by Toddy1 for POV. After a discussing the matter with me, she finally suggested "Hungarian-born billionaire" (see my talk page). I made the edit and was reverted without explanation by Lute88 (who has decided that I am pro-Russian and reverts any edit I make). I reinstated the edit and you reverted it as "pointy". Now I see that, thankfully, you removed the whole section This is what has happened with me from the start. My edits have earned me the reputation of having a pro-Russian slant, for which I think I am going to be indefinitely blocked (a relief). However, strangely enough, I have always been vindicated in the end (Gaddafi, Ahmadinejad, Tymoshenko, soros, Politkovskaya, etc...). The funniest thing in all this is that I started editing WP on the spur of the moment, after reading by accident the article [RT], which I found too biased. Prior to that, I didn't even have much interest in the subject. I f I am blocked, I'll miss my discussions with you but "c'est la vie". Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the use of a select few in articles dealing with current affairs, full stop (see WP:RECENTISM). Much of the time my preference is overruled, therefore I follow consensus. It doesn't mean I have to like it because that's not how Wikipedia works. You can't pick a choose which consensus to adhere to when consensus is clear. To my mind, the section was spurious when it was introduced. Nevertheless, eventually the dubious does get exposed for being just that. Edit warring over it just left it looking as bad as the idea of introducing it really was. As I've said before, this is a long term project and not everything needs to be addressed with disgruntled resentment immediately. We report what RS tell us: and there is no such animal as 'the truth'. Everyone thinks they know what the truth is, but our perception of truth is coloured (and I'm not being New Age about it; just pragmatic/empirical). That's a personal perspective, but it certainly keeps me on the straight and narrow when it comes to remaining neutral. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

{{rto|Iryna Harpy} I agree, truth is elusive. Even the meaning of the word is not clear. The most we can say about truth is "I know it when I see it", to paraphrase Justice Stewart. I don't think that there is such a thing as neutrality either. At best, there is an unstable equilibrium between different points of view which requires energy to be maintained. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic ban from Anna Politkovskaya for three months (ending 00:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)).

You have been sanctioned for continuing to engage in disruptive editing example, including incivility and personal attacks [7] [8] [9] and disruption to make a point [10] after two blocks. I'd also caution you that similar edits on other pages are likely to result in a long or indefinite block.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)