User talk:Paavo273

National Socialist Underground (your questions and edits)

Thank you for correcting my language glitches. - To answer some of your questions: the modus operandi of the NSU was to do their murders and bank-robberies in a hit-and-run style. Usually they hired a camper van. Then they approached their targets on mountain bikes. Afterwards they weathered out the hot pursuit (encyrclement) by the police forces in that camper van. - Two kinds of weapons had been used. Mainly that silenced Ceska (which now could be traced back to a vendor in Switzerland, according to reliable reports on swiss and german public TV) and a converted italian Starting pistol (i.e. that kind of gadget used for launching in sports events; they did some kind of tinkering to upgrade it for firing live ammo). - Two more heads of the Offices for the Protection of the Constitution at state level had to resign during the main time since my last edit. - The trial against the last surviving member of the terror-trio, Beate Zschäpe, had been posponed over a scandal about the admittance of press-correspondents and is now due to start next month. I hope this might answer your questions. - My main aim here had been mainly to provide good reliable english references. - Sorry, I had some very unpleasant experiences on WP (bullying and obstructive filibustering). Therefore I'm not active anymore. (My user-name then had been User:CaffeineCyclist, besides many edits as IP 46.xxx.) - Greetings from Germany. and I hope this answers your questions. --176.6.140.52 (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Links to some Wikipedia sites

Wikipedia talk:Role of Jimmy Wales --- Wikipedia:Administrators --- Wikipedia:Ignore all rules --- Wikipedia:Competence is required --- Wikipedia:List of policies -- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Paavo273 Complaints

(copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27/Incidents) #Complaint:_Request_for_Reversal_of_Warning_issued_to_User:Paavo273_as_abuse_of_administrative_discretion_by_User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise

Nothing of substance here likely to lead to admin action, except perhaps a boomerang. OP warned by MBisanz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Complaint: Abuse of administrative position by Administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, a.k.a. Fut. Perf ☼ at Continuation War and its talk page & request for relief. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, a.k.a. Fut. Perf ☼ at Continuation War and its talk page 1. Complainant User:Paavo273 (C-Pvo) requests AdminFutPerf's self-described "unusual" special findings and editorial content rulings, especially of "consensus of sources"--all made under color of administrative authority[b ] constituting gross, prejudicial, reversible error--be rolled back; that AdminFutPerf’s subsequent dictating the terms of discussion [c ] in Talk:Continuation War in violation of Wikipedia dispute resolution policy be noted as a violation or stricken; that ordinary WP dispute resolution process be allowed to run its course; and, finally, that AdminFutPerf be blocked from further rulings on Finno-Soviet and Baltic issues, as AdminFutPerf has shown clear bias in favor of the Sovietist perspective, (Why is there a WP article for Russophobia but not Finnophobia?), while expressing disdain for or ignoring the conventional Western view, which is clearly represented in the Continuation War article alongside the Finnish and Sovietist perspectives. Another reasonable possibility is that AdminFutPerf merely repeated false allegations of others and did not even read the article. 2. C-Pvo respectfully requests to know: Is there a prior connection between AdminFutPerf and User:Paul Siebert and/or between AdminFutPerf and User:YMB29? 3. C-Pvo also humbly requests that AdminFutPerf’s contributions be made in plain English rather than the hyper-technical mumbo jumbo [c ] (bottom half of new diff. paragraph) which appears to establish a new, low standard for WP research and to send a message to a particular user that a Google keyword search any eight-year-old can perform is that new standard. Real research, C-Pvo humbly suggests, is based on possessing and understanding the entire scholarly source or a substantial part of it enough to have understood and analyzed the reasoned basis for what you are citing. The CW article, C-Pvo asserts, for the most part reflects serious scholarly research (as far as can be determined at present) whereas the lists of sources cited in the talk page, especially the list by YMB29 [z] like the original citation for the “Soviet victory” result [u] are only bits and pieces. 4. If the disinterested WP administrative community should find AdminFutPerf's "unusual" editorial content rulings authorized by WP administrative procedure, C-Pvo respectfully requests in the alternative, firstly, that AdminFutPerf specifically OUT these alleged supporting sources and that thence a full impartial hearing be conducted by the disinterested admin. community within the framework of the sourced CW article content that has been hashed out over time, rather than merely simplistic count-up-my-sources treatment now endorsed by AdminFutPerf. (In this case, about half the mini-cites, i.e., “Finnish surrender” are unsupportable given the undisputed facts in the article. [y] The remaining mini-cites from the Google search stating Soviet Victory refer to a contention covered in depth in the article, [x] , [w] , [e] , etcetera.) 5. C-Pvo argues (and has argued), e.g., [ee], [ff] , that the infobox is not a proper area for separate research, especially when a body of vetted, well-established sources exists in the article. Complainant would especially appreciate an administrative ruling on this particular issue. 6. Finally, C-Pvo, the complainant, alternately avers, in direct response to AdminFutPerf's "unusual" special findings and rulings, that when taken as a whole, contrary to Admin. FutPer’s snap rulings, the CW article does not depict a Soviet victory as against Finland, unless at most a very narrowly qualified one. Soviet treatment of very many other, nearby countries as discussed in subsection “Buffer Zones” [j], (even as filtered through the Soviet perspective) and Assessment [e] are especially telling of the entire lack of any unqualified Soviet victory when placed in context. (See also, especially, introduction [f] and background [g] as well as [h] and Motives… [i] ). The article does not allege unqualified Soviet victory. 7. No Consensus on what victory even meant: Many reputable sources (See also Winter War) cited in the CW article (including [e] ), state the USSR had like intentions for Finland as for the many other whole countries whose entire “absorption” or enforced communist puppet-government installation the USSR “required” as buffer zones. [j], As such, the very meaning of victory is not settled, and therefore in the humble opinion of the complainant, unqualified victory objectively cannot stand as a result. The infobox template guideline [r] specifies the result as optional and allows, “In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used.” Complainant respectfully requests admins and other discussion-participants identify any personal connection or bias regarding the subject matter. Respectfully submitted by Paavo273 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Complaint: Request for injunction, rollback and blocking from Finn-Soviet and Baltic articles of User:Paul Siebert 1. I, Complainant User:Paavo273 (Pvo) request revert/rollback for User:Paul Siebert’s edits to the Winter War article [z] and others, whereby Paul Siebert, apparently taking heart from AdminFutPerf’s self-described “unusual” ruling (alleged in separate complaint above to be gross error), has been changing other wars’ infobox results (on the basis that the rules allow no other choice) with no discussion whatsoever on the relevant wars’ talk pages, e.g., see Talk:Winter War. I further request a block against Paul Siebert from editing privileges for all Finno-Soviet wars, battles, and related issues, as he has shown a clear contempt, bordering on anti-Finnishness, for the mainstream Finnish and non-Marxist Western positions. 2. Paul Siebert complained and threatened me for changing and declining to self-revert an infobox result to the Continuation War, even though my change had followed discussion among other parties at Talk:Continuation War on the exact subject. 3. It is my contention that Paul Siebert’s discussion in Talk:Continuation War and subsequent edits misrepresent the infobox result parameters; it amounts to forcing a cookie-cutter approach on the infobox that was never intended. See template [a] (“result optional”) and discussion [b] In addition, User:YMB29 cites a lack of consensus among the infobox developers [c], which if still current, makes it only a nonbinding guideline altogether. In either case the infobox parameters clearly state result as optional. 4. Despite all this, Paul Siebert, taking license, in part from AdminFutPerf’s decision (“[W]e can renew this discussion, and follow the way outlined by Fut. Perf.”) [d] (bottom of diff), which I am seeking to have set aside in a separate complaint above, still insists, "[I]f you think the infobox page is misleading, try to fix it first. Unless it has been done, let's stisk (sic) with the standards.” [e] 5. Another point of complaint: Why is Paul Siebert quoting in Talk:Continuation War a long reference [g] (bottom of diff), in any event contradicted by the article, about the Winter War? These are two discrete conflicts, whose main common thread is Finland trying to preserve its existence. (See Winter War and separately Continuation War.) 6. Paul Siebert has noted the “we” Wikipaedians guideline and admonished others to focus on content and not personalities [f] but has himself been willing to use ad hominem attacks [g]; practically in the same breath as promoting "our" Wikipedia, alleges to know as prevaricating darkness another user's heart, ("Please, do not pretend you didn't oppose to (sic) the word "victory" in the infobox before.")[h], never mind that "limited victory" is all this other user has ever argued for,[1], [2], [3], etcetera, in fact long before Paul Siebert entered the discussion.; and has shown a general unwillingness to see another side. Such rigid inflexibility and hyper-adherence to perceived WP procedures, assuming good faith by Paul Siebert, appear to evince an overt hostility to those who would disagree with him, and possible personal issues with Finnishness as a whole. Paul Siebert appears to not be satisfied that the Sovietist side is well represented in the article. 6. Finally, while it’s not important that English WP users' English be perfect or even good, it should be coherent. The English of Paul Siebert is normally excellent, but I would propose a change to the following (I thought at first he was talking about a political party) [h], perhaps something like, "Anticipating possible accusations of bias (He anticipated aptly), I would inform pro-Finnish users that I intend (or am intending) to fix such errors in other articles too." Respectfully submitted by Paavo273 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Complaint: Request for Reversal of Warning issued to User:Paavo273 as abuse of administrative discretion by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise User:Paavo273 * User:Future Perfect at Sunrise I respectfully request that the warning issued to me for “disrupting” by AdminFutPerf be rescinded. I contend that AdminFutPerf's and User:Paul Siebert's actions described in this and my other complaints demonstrate either Finnophobia or naked promotion by illicit means of their own political bias. I humbly allege that acting either coincidentally [aa ] or in concert users AdminFutPerf and Paul Siebert (See separate complaints) have themselves disrupted the talk page and short-circuited the established WP:dispute resolution process. I incorporate by reference my two above complaints, one against AdminFutPerf and the other against Paul Siebert, as grounds to rescind the warning. Additionally, I humbly contend that the warning issued by AdminFutPerf, later declared to be based on “walls of text,” “extraneous material,” and “filibustering” is false and a bald attempt to silence views opposed to his own. At this hyperlink is my longest copy: [bb ] and there were a couple other shorter ones also exactly on point, where YMB29 was complaining to his mediator in a related case about the Continuation War talk page and another where YMB29 and another user were arguing about the same exact infobox result. (Now that I know how to use hyperlinks, I realize it would be simpler and shorter to provide one of those for each of the diffs on the other pages, but there was absolutely no mass copying or filibuster, an outrageous and as to my alleged malicious intent, also libelous accusation. The entire CW talk page immediately prior to AdminFutPerf’s cleanup, including the my alleged misdeeds can be seen if you scroll down from this diff.: [rr ], and I request impartial, disinterested administrative review. As to the defamatory claim of filibustering, a review of the relevant talk page diff [rr ], will reveal, on the contrary, that despite a fusillade of false rules violation accusations directed at me from user YMB29 and later Paul Siebert, I whenever possible assumed good faith and tried to steer the discussion back to content, just e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. On his user page AdminFutPerf boasts, “This user takes the definition of admin abuse to a new level," and he links to an “article” ( [ss] ridiculing, mocking people who disagree with his rulings. Complainant Pvo would submit that if this decision by AdminFutPerf and the subject of the other complain against him are indicative of his body of actions as a whole, there are good grounds to complain of rogue administrative abuse. If he wishes to be the next Rupert Murdoch or Katherine Graham or even a mini-Murdoch, he should start his own media empire rather than commandeering Wikipedia. I do not believe the Libertarian über-genius internet innovator from the American South state of Alabama had this in mind when he created the people’s encyclopaedia, not either a fawning Sovietized infobox version of history that contradicts article sources, nor a short-circuiting of dispute resolution processes (See my separate complaints.) I wonder how many other users have become victim to preemptive scorn and ridicule from this administrator pushing his own agenda. I have no history of administrative sanctions, and a general caution to the group against edit-warring would have in my opinion been appropriate. Your consideration is appreciated. Respectfully submitted by Paavo273 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I hope you are kidding, yes? The Banner talk 00:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Being that this user posted three consecutive threads here (which I had to divide into subsections), calling for the relief of adminship of a respected sysop and the block of another user; I don't think this report will be taken very seriously at all. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC) tl;dr much? Anyone wish to summarize? Just from what I can see (not looking at diffs), Paavo is over-exaggerating quite a bit... gwickwiretalkedits 01:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Plus, when you realize that there wasn't anything really bad done by any of the two complained about, it's only a content dispute. gwickwiretalkedits 01:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC) I stopped reading when I got to this: "C-Pvo also humbly requests that AdminFutPerf’s contributions be made in plain English rather than the hyper-technical mumbo jumbo". I would humbly request that you format your complaint in concise, plain English. It would make it much easier on the admins here, many of whom have limited time and are not fast readers. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Not just any content dispute... This has been through mediation twice, one which I presided over at MedCab, and another one at MedCom. I think it's probably in need of administrative intervention of some sort, but I'm not sure exactly what that should be as I haven't been keeping up with the latest developments. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 01:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC) I have warned him at User_talk:Paavo273#Warning. MBisanz talk 01:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC) With your background, you could at least give some credit for the hilarious nature of the format :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC) My quick skim of the above chose "As to the defamatory claim of filibustering..." as the highlight. Perhaps someone with knowledge of the dispute might like to check if any topic bans should be recommended (has it gone that far?). Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Well, if this is a regular tactic for Paavo, it is definitely disruptive per WP: WALLOFTEXT and WP: MWOT. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 02:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)My quick skim of the above gave me a headache and thoughts of storms of boomerangs. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC) This has already been rejected by Arbcom. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 02:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Warning

You have made a disruptive edit at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Complaint:_Request_for_Reversal_of_Warning_issued_to_User:Paavo273_as_abuse_of_administrative_discretion_by_User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise. If you do not reduce your request from 1,996 words to no more than 200 words, I will block you until such time as you agree to reduce your edits to a non-disruptive length. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Dan Reiter, How Wars End, page 138, full paragraph 1

“As forecast by the [war information] theory, the fear of rising costs of fighting pushed Stalin to accept a limited war outcome with Finland, rather than pursue absolute victory. It is possible that the successful D-Day landings of June 1944 encouraged Stalin to settle with Finland quickly so as to permit a rapid march on Berlin. Further, part of the limited war arrangement was the commitment by Finland to use its own military forces to expel the hundreds of thousands of German troops stationed in Finnish territory. This the Finns did, at the expense of some 1,000 Finnish dead and 3,000 wounded, thereby further freeing up Soviet resources for the drive to Berlin, as well as eliminating any possibility of renewed Finnish-German cooperation. Moscow also saw that imposing foreign-imposed regime change on Finland might be prohibitively costly, because the Finnish Communists were small in number and weak by 1944.” Paavo273 (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hello, Paavo273. If you use your sandbox you don't have to fill your talk page with tests and bits and pieces of text you want to save for later use. And you can create more than one sandbox page by numbering them (sandbox2, sandbox3 and so on). Just a friendly tip. Thomas.W (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Longer version--Request to Appeal Special Finding of Admin.Fut.Perf rel Infobox Result Consensus for Continuation War

Statement by Paavo273 I request appeal to reverse the content blocking actions of Administrator Fut.Perf. ☼ at Continuation War (also see Talk:Continuation War) and undo the warning to User talk:Paavo273 by Fut.Perf. ☼.

Admin. Fut.Perf. made at least three special findings of fact contravening established WP resolution procedures, namely

* There was a consensus about the infobox result.

* Result was "Soviet victory."

* Assigned special weight to sources that he says establish Soviet victory without citing any of the sources, only "based on literature cited so far."

This administrative determination of editorial content, without due process, I believe violates allowed WP administrative function. However, *IF* the committee determines that this is allowable action by an administrator, I ask for a hearing *on the merits*. I don't believe Fut.Pef. has thoroughly (and thus fairly) evaluated the material, nor correctly summarized what has taken place on the talk page, and I am prepared to concisely outline these to committee. I request appeal only within the narrow content-decision of Fut.Perf. I also humbly submit that user comments from users (regardless of the educational level) who only assert their position without providing meaningful grounds for it are not proper basis for deciding content disputes, even as evaluated by Admin. FutPef. I don't believe FutPerf’s warning accurately or fairly depicts or reflects the nature of my contributions to the talk page which a fair reading *would* reveal. Finally the article is rich in content and is a good article. Examination of the sources in the article rather than relying on unsupported assertions of certain editors would lead to a different result from the one Admin Fut.Perf. has unilaterally taken. This is a much more subtle (but not terribly complicated) issue than the words, "Soviet victory". The well-written article itself provides a lot of insight, and I would appreciate the opportunity to illustrate that. Paavo273 (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This is an instance of the lone administrator not only supervening the editorial process and effectively preventing future resolution of underlying content issues on a level playing field, toward NPOV. Appellant contends administrator has misused administrative powers in an editorial role. I'd be grateful for an opportunity to be heard before the committee. (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

More grounds for my Appeal Request--additional admin. takeover of editorial discussion at CW:Talk --ongoing misuse of administrative process

To just repeat words "Soviet victory" ad infinitim doesn't prove it. Discussion should be about analyzing sources. Reason this is so important is you have an article with sources that has been hashed out that is now being contradicted by the Sovietist-placed infobox result. The contentiousness revolves around what Soviet victory *meant* and whether the USSR ever intended to take over Finland. That is a significant part of what all the acrimony is about and why it is so important. I'm not sure if Admin. Fut.Perf. was aware of that when he made his special ruling on content (which he continues to actively promote in CW:Talk today) that basically assumes the Sovietist view, not only *of* victory, but by deduction--what victory meant. It's much more subtle and significant than two words.

I believe this is highly prejudicial, ongoing, reversible error.

Rel warning, I am prepared to offer compelling evidence that I am not primarily the guilty party in the "disruption". If allowed I will show that I continued to assume good faith when none was shown in return and that I many times offered suggestions for finding a solution. Paavo273 (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC) (content reduced at request of Clerk Hahc21; moved to Paavo273 (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Rebuttal by P273 February 10--Response to Admin’s and others' statements

A. I have been abused by AdminFP and this process. New allegations "walls of text" (my single copying of a discussion exactly on point from another talk site to try stimulate discussion that wasn't happening at CW talk) and "blindly copied" and "filibustering" are latest in long list of various false allegations made to kill my attempt at meaningful engagement on the merits--including OR, synthesis, tag teaming, dubious source, canvassing, sock puppet (‘had to look that one up), etc.

B. I and other users trying to provide balance and proportion to the infobox result--which is all this is about--have been attacked, threatened, ridiculed, and finally squelched. Just f/ex.,

• YMB29: (to another user) "You still lack knowledge about this topic. It looks like you are only here to annoy me". -YMB29 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• Paul Siebert: "Regarding [other user's] proposal, that is nonsense. All (or almost all) wars end with armistice or peace treaties. Playing Captain Obvious with the only goal to conceal the truth (namely, that the USSR won) is hardly acceptable."
• Fut.Perf.: "Please stop the bickering. Yes, it's "our" policy – it is mine, it is yours, and it is also Paul Siebert's, because we are all Wikipedians, for better or worse, so we all have the right to call it "ours". Now please either say something constructive on the topic, or say nothing at all." Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC

I propose, esteemed learned administrators, that these and so very much else on CW talk page in the last ten days (and last seven YEARS) demonstrate nothing like good faith or an effort to resolve a disagreement; on the contrary, it is the embodiment of the spirit of totalitarianism and terror in action.

WP "Newspeak," part of AdminFP's lingo to refer to power he asserted over editorial content and eliminating whatever fledgling opposition existed to the Soviet view is apropos word choice as it is an allusion to Orwell's depiction of the quality of information exchange in the Soviet Union.

QUERY: When did the Soviet version of history become the mainstream one and the only accepted one at WP? I am NOT against inclusion of the Soviet viewpoint, and it is well-represented in the CW article, but why is that the one favored as mainstream? Why the short circuiting of discussion on the merits and now of democratic process? I don't think this is what the great one himself had in mind for his People's Encyclopaedia.

QUERY: Does anyone on this committee think it would be reasonable to request Admin.Fut.Perf point out or refer to specifically *what* sources whose strength in combination added up to "Soviet victory" consensus, i.e., can you point to some sources in the actual CW article, or is it strictly the sources that YMB29 quoted from his Google search? Or is this as has been evident to me all along, merely AdminFutPerf's courtesy rubber stamping of his brother admin. Paul Siebert's m.o.? This is further suggested to me by the tone used throughout Admin.Fut.Perf's statement by use of words such as apparent and evident, suggesting to me that AdminFutPerf. was relying on someone else's assessment or doing a very quick, superficial perusal.

I believe this is gross error and warrants your hearing. Does any administrator think I should be offered a hearing or is any at least willing to look into my application? Are any neutral administrators willing to read the article, or even just the first and last sections and entertain the thought for a few minutes of whether the copious sources cited there indicate "Soviet victory" before deciding? (Knowledge of Winter War and prior Finnish history helfpul but not essential.)

I would like to say additionally that AdminFP's IMO precipitant action is already bearing illegitimate fruit in what his colleague--who like himself wears two skins, administrator and editor, which each dons and sheds like a chameleon (sometimes neglecting to wear the administrator skin before lecturing or threatening other editors as if they were naughty children)--is doing to other infobox results. Enforcing this cookie-cutter approach to the infobox based on some usually not-enforced template specification is yet another thinly veiled effort to dictate a biased result with no substantive discussion. All readers and especially WP itself loses when capable researchers on this site are discouraged from participating as a result of rushed, biased, or backroom actions of people in administrative authority. Whatever the proper verbiage for CW infobox, it is a unique situation and needs special consideration. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Finland is the only country described in CW article section Analysis (sub-heading Soviet buffer zones) "touched" by USSR during World War II and post-war era not either swallowed up by USSR or directly controlled through installation of communist government. If a country is the only one, (or even one of two) out of roughly thirteen countries to not be swallowed up following action with the USSR, I submit that this needs special attention at infobox level, regardless of what some but not all Soviet sources say about the Soviets’ intentions rel Finland. I don’t believe AdminFP’s characterization of this view as Finnish nationalism even minutely represents what the article’s sources, including overall, the Soviet sources, say. (None of the several sources cited in the Analysis subsection Assessment of Soviet Designs... is Finnish. See end of article CW) Paavo273 (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC) (more reductions following clerk's instructions)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

Hi, Paavo273. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, — Hahc21^talk 05:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, Paavo273. Have a nice evening. — Hahc21^talk 05:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Your request to the Arbitration Committee

I have removed your request to the Arbitration Committee, as it was neither a request for an amendment to nor a clarification about a case. As you appear to be appealing a warning imposed under arbitration enforcement, I suggest you follow the instructions here. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Warning

You have been disrupting the talk page of Continuation War.

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thomas.W (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC) (Received at my user page; I moved it to my talk page Paavo273 (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Onnen Maa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Finnish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC) )

Tali-Ihantalaa ja muuta

Moi,

Suosittelen - koska sinua selvästi kiinnostaa Suomen suurimpien taistelujen faktuaalisuus - että pidät silmällä esim. Tali-Ihantalan taistelua koskevaa artikkelia, sekä ns. "Fourth Strategic Offensive" (Neuvostoliiton 1944 suurhyökkäystä Suomea vastaan) koskevaa artikkelia. Suomen osalta artikkelien faktuaalisuutta yritetään jatkuvasti vääristellä NL/Venäjä mieliseksi. --82.181.75.48 (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hello Paavo, I don't think we've ever interacted before, but I happened to see some of your edits and was impressed with your grammatical skill. I was wondering if you would be willing to look over an article that I've been working on and correct any obvious grammar/prose/diction issues? I've been working on Alexis Bachelot for a while and it is currently a Good Article nominee. Any help would be appreciated! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing comments

Hi Paavo273, this is just to let you know that removing others' comments, or removing comments of yours which others have replied to, is generally frowned upon in Wikipedia. I've added back the comments that you removed in this edit. If you want, I can archive them instead. Would that be acceptable to you? Also, I can see how my comment formatting could have confused you on this point. The only comments I have formatted have been those of the mediation participants, and that is a special privilege they granted me when they agreed to the ground rules of the mediation. If they hadn't agreed to those ground rules, then I wouldn't have touched their comments. If you want some more information on how to use talk apges, you can have a look at our talk page guidelines. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Quotation marks

Thanks for your excellent and precise corrections to Wikipedia articles. I have one minor correction of my own to your work. Wikipedia has its own manual of style which includes an unusual rule on the use of quotation marks. Please review MOS:LQ. Your changes to James Arthur Ray may have been inconsistent with that rule.[1] In any case, it's a small detail. Since many editors are unfamiliar with that rule it is often violated. I don't want to discourage your efforts, but I thought you might not be aware of it. Carry on.   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome! Hello, Paavo273, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Frank Reich. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Omarcheeseboro (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:Your email

Thanks for your nice email. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. My wiki email is a more or less throaway account that I don't check that often. As for how to "win" debates on wiki, the key is always to go to what the sources say. Arguing making logical inference is considered synthesis or original research so it won't get you anywhere. So the best thing to do is find sources (note the plural) that call it a "partial victory" or stalemate or whatnot. There are several souces which call it explicitly a "Soviet victory" and unless you have sources that say otherwise, that's what we have to go with. (Personally I think trying to sum a battle or war in a single description is a disservice to the reader, and it might make more sense to just have bulleted points of the most significant results). I happen to have some good offline sources at my parent's place (Tomas Ries's Cold Will and I think also a book by a brit historian whose name escapes me) and will look them up the next time I visit them. I suggest that if you want to change people's minds, you find sources to persuade them. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)