User talk:RxS/Archive03

• Archive 1 (March 5 to Nov 21):

For your help with April 21, 2005 Stubsensor cleanup project you are hereby given the Stubsensor award.

Welcome, please leave me a message!

WP:GRFA dispute

I've set the ball rolling for a WP:RFC survey to start, discussion is on the GRFA talk page. Please comment. Borisblue 04:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Greetings, vandal-fighter! I must say that I come bearing ill news, unfortunatly. I am an goodf (at least I think) historian, and am currently re-writing the articles of Doclea, Zeta (state), Rascia, Travunia, Zachlumia and Pagania. User:Emir_Arven is changing those articles. That would vandalism if he didn't actually think that way. For instance, he is deleting and changing (to a strange way) the beautiful lyrics of the poet Petar Petrović Njegoš (see?). I am afraid that my slow connection and little free time will not leave me enough time to revert all the incorrect date, unfortunatly. HolyRomanEmperor 19:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I have seen your message in my talk, after HolyRomanEmperor said that I delete or vandalize articles which is just another lie. For instance I have never visited Rascia, Travunia, Zahumlje and Pagania articles. As you can see above, he said: "User:Emir_Arven is changing those articles." Plz just see the history of these articles. Serb nationalists, write articles according to their mithology, not according to facts. They are trying to change history of Bosniaks, Albanians, Croats and Montenegrins. When I try to improve the article, they just reverte it or say as above person do about my "contribution". I expect from you to be more neutral. --Emir Arven 10:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I aplogize, for I was not presice. You only vandalised Petar Petrović Njegoš and Zeta (state) articles. The greatest proof is the word "ko", existing only in Serbian and Montenegrin languages that you changed to "tko" existing only in Bosnian and Croatian languages. Even if the word was used in the Serbian and Montenegrin, it is still vandalising of the beautiful words written by an exellent poet. This is obscure anti-Serbian and anti-Montenegrin. User:Emir_Arven, additionally, didn't explain his edits in the talk page, which can clearly be stated as vandalism. HolyRomanEmperor 10:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Petar Petrović Njegoš said that his mother tongue was Serbian (the Montenegrin language didn't exist until only several years ago) One of his greatest works was Mirror Serbian, and the basic school textbook was The Serb elementary reading book. It should be pointed out, that all rulers from the Montenegrin Petrović dinasty were Serbs, and the matter if all, some or none of Montenegrins has nothing to do with that fact HolyRomanEmperor 11:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

One most important thing. Njegoš was a vladika (a bishop in English) not just Orthodox Christian, but of the Serbian Orthodox Church. In 1836, Njegoš printed The ABC of Serbian and in 1838, The Serbian Grammar being the first to politically formalise the Serbian language in the southern territories. HolyRomanEmperor 11:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Njegoš also published the first passports, school certificates and other documents which regarded as the nationality Serbian, rather then Montegrin. And the people of the then-Montenegro identified themselves as Montenegrins and Hillsmen which seperated further onto Serb tribes, which User:Emir_Arven changes to Montenegrin clans HolyRomanEmperor 11:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I am leaving it to you to revert the incorrect edits of this potentially-a-vandal user (since you are an admistrator, and like I said, I am a historian and a writer, not a experienced wikipedian, no matter how much I wanted to be) HolyRomanEmperor 11:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologize, administrator for using your talk page to discuss this subject, but as you can see at User_talk:Emir_Arven, User:Emir_Arven has been deleting (and archiving) all of my posts, which I can interpret only that he either refuses to personally justify his edits to me as a result of bizarre and/or obscure nationalist tendencies or simply cannot prove or give arguements for his edits. Once again, you have my most sincere apologies. HolyRomanEmperor 11:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Emir_Arven continues to edit Oj, Svijetla majska zoro; the national anthem of Montenegro. He deleted the original lyrics just because they implied of Montenegrins' close relations with the Serbs. He deletes the links to Serbian sites and the fact that the anthem's writer was a Nazi collaborator (de facto President of the italian-controlled puppet state of Montenegro during World War II). He also added the Controversy part, explaining that the anthem was abused by Serbian nationalists. He was blocked for 24 hours, but now continues to change those pages. What can be done? HolyRomanEmperor 11:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you lock the article of the Montenegrin national anthem, after my last edit? HolyRomanEmperor 13:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, you keep spreading incorrect info. Pathetic. As I can see you are blocked for 24 hours. I was blocked because I didnt understand 3RR, when I was trying to protect compromise that Millos and me accomplished (Mesa Selimovic), but other Serb nationalists tried to destroy it. I didnt delete the sentence Serb historians say about Nazi collaborator, Sekula Drljevic. --Emir Arven 18:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Pardon, Administrator, but I must make a correction: User:Emir_Arven has acused me of lying to you about the fact that he deleted about Sekula Drljević. Please look at this history part: [1] As you can see, that user lied. You may think twice before believing his statements that I was a lier. Additionally, he was blocked after being warned twice about the 3RR, and I after I atempted to revert his (unexplainable) edits. HolyRomanEmperor 15:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That is not correct. I just reverted the previous article that you and Nikola destroyed (this was my comment: 11:37, 27 November 2005 Emir Arven (why did u delete the whole section *controversy?* (i think u should not insult different authors, that is very rude)). When you started to make some effort, I left the sentence. As I said befor, you are really pathetic. --Emir Arven 16:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Another two cents ...

Hi! Thanks for your note; I understand. Given the turmoil over the ArbComm and proposed process (which does appear to counter general user input), I also think a dual approach – largely as Jimbo has proposed, but flipped on its head – is the correct way to go. A migration of power from users to upper echelons will only serve to alienate Wikipedians more, and debates in any format can be just as divisive if they aren't moderated properly. As well, if anything, the fact that certain discussions have run amock (and not ours!) points to a dual lack of user restraint and leadership in administering them ... both of which can be rectified through diligence. Ditto for those who persevere; to use an aphorism: if a person of authority cannot take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen. Perhaps, in addition to administrators and mediators, moderators should be in place to guide discussions appropriately without resorting to dispute resolution or descending into online chaos?

I hope Jimbo, in his wisdom, sees all of this. Given all of this, I'm curious what user reaction may be next year at this very same time. Thoughts? Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 07:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for using your page to adress User:Emir_Arven, administrator, but he does not cooperate in his own page (as you can see at User_talk:Emir_Arven): How can you call my edits "destroying"? You have just written a part of the article that is POV, put absolutely no source to it and appearently written it based on your research which is totally against wikipedia's No Original Research policy (explain it to him if he doesn't understand, administrator) HolyRomanEmperor 19:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to bother you again, administrator; but User:Emir_Arven is restless. He reverted my edits on History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (without adding further to my explainations on the talk page) just mentioning mysteriously yes in the edit summary. I only interpret that he was trying to lure me to break the 3RR rule (which I cunningly evaded) He also has a tendency to use the "filthy" words like can be seen in here: [2] There he said: Jebes zemlju koja Bosne nema litterrally (I apologize for this inconvenience) meaning: F**k the land which hasn't got Bosnia in the Bosnian language, additionally having a nationalist secret line, against the non-Bosnian countries. HolyRomanEmperor 21:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You are really, really pathetic and again lying behind my back. You are trying to deny Bosniaks, as Serb war criminals did during the genocide that they commited in Srebrenica. I ask admin to stop this vandal to destroy articles related to Bosnia and Bosniaks (including a constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina). He is spreading incorrect information, lying (as I showed you earlier). Muslims nowdays dont exist in the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, because they returned their historical name:Bosniaks, but you keep spreading incorrect nationalistic information, showing that you are the kind of nationalist that supports policy that Radovan Karadžić and other war criminals conducted.--Emir Arven 23:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

RxStraneLove, I just want to show you that HolyRomanEmperor is trying to brake 3RR asking other user (User_talk:Obradovic_Goran) to help him in his nationalistic behaviour. Really, really pathetic. Just read: Pih, I need to ask you for another favour: History of Bosnia; vandal User:Emir_Arven has (unexplainingly) deleted my edits. Please revert the vandal's change to my last ([4]) I cannot, it would be 3RR violation. The vandal just said "yes" and deleted important info. HolyRomanEmperor 17:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC) --Emir Arven 23:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

History of Republika Srpska

Oops, didn't realise I reverted it three times. To be fair, one guy is telling me exodus can only refer to the Jewish exodus from Egypt, and the other is telling me an exodus is synonymous with ethnic cleansing. Does get annoying, Doesn't matter anyway, I prefer the current wording. :) --estavisti 07:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Emir_Arven was appearently appearently trying to lure me to break the 3RR rule. As you can see, I have explained everything on Talk:History_of_Bosnia. As you can see; no one added any other post whatsoever to my explaination, and the user kept reverting my changes (which can thereby be considered as vandalism) HolyRomanEmperor 12:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish futher to state, administrator, that I want to discuss the matter with that User, but he has impolitely refused (as commented already when I talked about him ignoring or deleting my posts on his talk page) I am open and good-hearted; but if someone does not want to discuss, why is he changing the articles to his bidding (unless being a vandal?)? HolyRomanEmperor 12:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I ant to know one more thing, administrator: Is there a wiki-place where I can vote and/or express general opinions about wikipedia (francly, they're bad, but I want to state so = no one interested in the acurracy of articles; no one watching the articles; 25% of wiki being POV, etc.)? HolyRomanEmperor 12:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Block me

If your an admin, try to block me. That would be hilarious.--Greenfan200 21:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I saw you just reverted vandalism on George W. Bush, and wondered what you thought about the proposals to curb what's going on there. If you have time, check out Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, and weigh in (there's a bit of a large discussion page, so be prepared.) Hope to see you there. -Mysekurity ^{(have you seen this?)} 01:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Awolf002 RfA

Thank you very much for your support for my RfA. I will do everything I can to justify your trust in me. Awolf002 03:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked

Yes, that was quite a strange account. I personally don't believe that the user is editing with a bot. I think the issue here was that a lot of good faith was lost after the discovery of two intensifying articles written by the user, interspread by a number of welcoming messages. After the block, the user immediately created this account and continued the same activity without explanation. The user edits from an AOL IP, so the blocks have resulted in quite a bit of disruption for those users. In retrospect, I suppose the decision to block was based on a judgement call, so if you wish to unblock, please feel free to do so. You might want to run it by Jtkiefer first though; I personally don't mind either way. --HappyCamper 04:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Help on Bulgarians page

User:VMORO is not allowing me to add the most recent estimaes for Bulgaria's ethnic Bulgarian population (see the pages history) because he claims I self calculated the numbers even though I have sources. He also includes Bulgarian Ministry statistics which are much more unverifiable than the ones I put. This edit war has been going on a long time (akin to the one in Romanians), I'm wondering if you can help me. Antidote 23:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

greenfan

if im blocked i would like to see the "humph, humph" in emotion when you think im gone.

Hail Anonymous6, Greenfan200

Ramdisk

Hello, that guy has been changing the Ramdisk page again with his utterly horrible english!

deeceevoice arbitration

As a party to her RfC, you might be interested to know a request for arbitration has been filed towards deeceevoice Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deeceevoice.

-Justforasecond 18:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)