User talk:Igny

Notice

I see that you're on Wiki break so I hope it's ok to still post to your talk page. Anyway, you're being discussed here [1] and, oh yeah, you're now banned from Mass killings under Communist regimes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not care about that article that much, although I do find that original sanction too harsh, and if needed I would simply ignore it. Joklolk must be laughing his ass off. (Igny (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC))

Occupation article title

Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Igny and "Occupation of the Baltic states".
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I am awaiting for further comments from others. (Igny (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Igny, I seriously suggest you to forget for a while about renaming. There are more important problems with this nest of the articles, and we simply waste our time in the dispute that will lead to an impasse.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You've been reported for edit warring

Hello Igny. Please se WP:AN3#User:Igny reported by User:Tentontunic (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's try something completely different

Taking a peek at your userboxes, do you know the proof for 1 = 2? I remember it was based on .9999 (repeating) = 1 but I've been unable to reconstruct it (after having not thought about it for many years...). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

$1-.99999=2-1.9999=2-2\cdot .999...=2(1-.999...)$, hence 1=2

More generally, for arbitrary a and b denote $c=a+b$ then

$c(a-b)=(a+b)(a-b)$

$ca-cb=a^{2}-ab+ba-b^{2}$

$ca-a^{2}-ba=cb-b^{2}-ab$

$a(c-a-b)=b(c-b-a)$

Hence a=b. (Igny (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC))

It just struck me that there are editors who would accuse both of us of attempting to do the same regarding historical cause and effect. :-) Cпасибо! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You have broken it [2] Self revert now. Tentontunic (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

See here [3] Tentontunic (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Template:Z10 Kuru (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Igny (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I made only 3 reverts that count per 3RR policy. I believe reverting myself does not count as a revert for 3RR . I also think that reverting IPSOCKs should not count either, but I would leave it to the admin's discretion Igny (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:3RR is not a license to make three reverts. I'm not feeling good about unblocking on a technicality, when you are a person with four edit-warring blocks and your unblock request seems to indicate that you think edit-warring should sometimes be acceptable. Edit-warring is always disruptive, even if you are right, which is why it's always a bad idea.FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Is this a joke? The first reversion is restoring the tag you've been edit warring over again. I presume you're trying to be cute about the undo not counting since it is a reversion of a reversion of your own actions. You are welcome to file a SPI when your block expires; I'm a little curious about that part as well. Kuru (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Igny (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

FisherQueen, you said that WP:3RR is not a license to make three reverts. However if you discount a revert of an IPSOCKs of Digwuren [4] and [5] (for the list of confirmed socks of Digwuren see here), then that would be just 2 reverts. Sure, Kuru, I would definitely file an SPI request. Igny (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It was unambiguous edit warring. I did check another editor involved in the edit war and blocked the master account for a month. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I don't think those have anything to do with Digwuren, though they may be someone else's socks. Also that link does not show "confirmed socks of Digwuren" just a list of IP addresses. They're not even "alleged socks of Digwuren" - at least I don't see such an allegation actually made anywhere. What makes you think this?Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I just searched for [6], and that talk page came up. Yes, that might not be Digwuren. (Igny (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC))

If you keep making unsubstantiated allegations against editors, it will catch up with you eventually and then we won't be able to have our debates. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"Whitewashing"

Please do not make uncivil charges of "whitewashing" again as you did:

• here (edit summary) and
• repeating here here (article talk) after I asked you (prior posting on talk) to stop.

PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what is uncivil here. The edit made by Igny says:

"In November 2010, Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis, the Latvian Foreign Affairs Minister, became embroiled in a scandal with Aivars Slucis, a nationalist Latvian American after Email from more than a year prior was released by journalist Lato Lapsa on his web site, www.pietiek.com ("Enough!"). Lapsa brought attention to the part of their correspondence where Kristovskis "agrees with his assessment and vision" in reply to Slucis advocating denial of treatment or medicine to Russians in favor to Latvians in case of a shortage of medicines."

The source it cites says:

"The latter, in one of his e-mails to the Foreign Minister, said that he would not be able to treat Russians in the same way as Latvians and that in case of a shortage of medicines, he would deny Russians their right to them. In a return letter to Aivar Slutsis Kristovskis writes that he approves “both his assessment and vision of the situation”. In another message the American doctor speaks about Latvia’s national policy on the whole and voices his concern over the loyalty of some Latvian politicians towards Russians as “white and Christians”."

In connection to that, I would like to know what concretely is uncivil in the Igny's edit. I admit I can miss something, because this topic is not a subject of my keen interest, however, the edit seems to transmit the source adequately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I clarified per the releasing journalist being quoted exactly what it was that Kristovskis agreed with. Kristovskis agreed with Slūcis' comments on citizenship review and rescinding, per my edit which Igny changed with a charge of whitewashing. Kristovskis did not agree on withholding medical treatment for ethnic Russians. My change was not "whitewashing," it was insuring that WP is not open to being liable for reproducing materials as fact which are not. Accusing me of whitewashing and repeating the charge ("pretending" I'm not whitewashing) after being asked to desist is more than uncivil. Is there a particular reason you are inserting yourself in a dispute between myself and Igny? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I point your attention at the fact that it is not clear from the source the article cites that Kristovskis agreed with Slūcis' comments only on citizenship review and repatriation, not on withholding medical treatment for ethnic Russians. By contrast, the source says that (i) Slūcis "said that he would not be able to treat Russians in the same way as Latvians and that in case of a shortage of medicines"; (ii) "In a return letter to Aivar Slutsis Kristovskis writes that he approves “both his assessment and vision of the situation”."; (iii) "In another message the American doctor speaks about Latvia’s national policy on the whole and voices his concern over the loyalty of some Latvian politicians towards Russians as “white and Christians”." In other words, from this source is clear that Kristovskis specifically agreed with Slūcis' comments on withholding medical treatment for ethnic Russians, and not on citizenship review and repatriation. I admit that this source, as well as similar contemporary Russian sources, can be wrong, however, that is the problem with this source, not with Igny's edit. If you will be able to prove that the source was wrong, then your edits were not whitewashing, but just an attempt to fix inaccuracy. However, if you fail to demonstrate that, your edits is whitewashing, independently of your actual intents (which may be quite noble).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained that I corrected inaccuracy, the "KasJauns" link includes Lapsa specifically indicating what Kristovskis agreed with. It was not withholding medical treatment for Russians.

The Russian press report cited prior does not indicate specifically what Kristovskis agreed with, implying it was pretty much everything Slūcis wrote (and then adding more of Slucis' commentary for good effect). The problem is both in the source and Igny's charges of whitewashing and that I know quite well that I'm whitewashing and pretending I'm not.

Really, what is the purpose for your escalating this? There's nothing further for me to "demonstrate" that I need to state to prevent you from piling on the "Vecrumba whitewashes Latvian Russophobia" bandwagon—or do I misunderstand "if you fail to demonstrate that, your edits [sic.] is whitewashing"? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Question to Paul Siebert: you said you're not interested in this topic area. So why exactly did you arrive here? Nanobear (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Re N and V why.I did not ask Paul to participate in this discussion here. I am not particularly interested in this debate with Vecrumba over his removal of a sourced information in that article to begin with. However I can see perfectly well why Paul became interested in this discussion considering Vecrumba's history of unfounded accusation of his opponents in lack of civility while at the same time defending other editor's apparent rude behavior. I think Paul just investigated whether this particular accusation by Vecrumba's has any basis. Obviously it does not. (Igny (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC))

@Igny, just checking regarding "lacking basis". Do you mean

1. accusing an editor of "whitewashing" multiple times (including "pretending" not to be whitewashing) does not constitute grossly uncivil behavior;
2. you stand by your accusation of whitewashing that I am misrepresenting, not correcting, content to avoid BLP issues yet accurately reflect what the releasing source states was specifically in the correspondence (which is still unflattering);
3. or both.

I just want to know where we stand. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Vecrumba, Interestingly enough, you do not question why I am accusing you of the double standards with regard to your judging civility of others. (Igny (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

@ Peters. Again, if under "the Russian press report" you mean the source I quoted, this source specifically indicates that Kristovskis agreed with withholding of medical treatment. I admit that this source can be wrong, however, you haven't proved that so far. Unless it has been demonstrated, I see no problems with Igny edits.

@ Igny. I am not sure if "whitewashing" is totally appropriate term here. Please, focus on what concretely is wrong with Peters' edits. As a rule, people start to focus on the opponent's behaviour when their own arguments are exhausted.

@ Nanobear. I arrived here to leave some comments. If you found my answer too general, feel free to ask more concrete question.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, per the citation:

Lapsa arī vērsa uzmanību, ka ārlietu ministrs Kristovskis "piekrīt vērtējumam un redzējumam", kad Slucis ierosina "iesaldēt un pārskatīt visas pēc 1991.gada izsniegtās pilsonības ar domu lielāko daļu no tām atņemt".

Lapsa also directed (specific) attention (to the fact) that foreign minister Kristovskis "agrees with [his] assessment and vision" when Slūcis advocates "to freeze and to review all citizenships granted after 1991 with the thought to revoke the larger part of them."

There is no agreeing with withholding medical care for Russians. The Russian news story makes Kristovskis out to as agreeing with everything Slūcis advocates and with something in particular that Kristovskis did not agree with. Igny's source constitutes a BLP violation. If you want to write content that the Russian press has made the unsubstantiated allegation that Kristovskis agreed with denying medical care to Russians, that is all that is factual regarding Igny's source. I didn't think we were in the business of creating content with allegations against living individuals which cannot be substantiated. You find where Lapsa, the releasing journalist, states Kristovskis also agreed with denying medical care to Russians, please feel free to add that source at that time. WP is not a venue for republishing every Russian newspaper headline that screams invectives at Latvians.

@Igny, unless you respond directly to my inquiry I can only draw the conclusion that you believe accusations of whitewashing and then "pretending" not to on top of it are perfectly acceptable. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

In the paragraph you added and translated above I marked the key word

Lapsa also directed (specific) attention to the fact...

Thus you have so far failed to substantiate your opinion that There is no agreeing with withholding medical care for Russians.. Could you now provide your translation of the first paragraph please?

Atbildi uz minēto vēstuli PS un "Vienotības" priekšsēdētājs, pašreizējais ārlietu ministrs Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis sāka ar vārdiem: "Piekrītu tavam redzējumam un vērtējumam."

If I understood Google's translation correctly, Kristovskis started his reply to Slucis with "I agree with your vision and evaluation." which pretty much supports the news report that

In a return letter to Aivar Slutsis Kristovskis writes that he approves “both his assessment and vision of the situation”

together with its conclusions. (Igny (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

Considering that we have reliable secondary sources reporting and commenting on the damning correspondence by Kristoskis, and there is an original (primary source) posted online. I now can respond to your question above, Vecrumba. I stand by my accusation of you whitewashing the event. And I do not think you can hide behind the BLP rules here because I was very careful to be as close to the RS as possible in my edit. (Igny (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC))

Upon looking through the source Peters refers to (the Lapsa's website), I have to say that the source does not support Peters' conclusion. The first para (translated to English) says[7]:

"Kā zināms, līdzšinējo skandālu radījuši partijas vadītāja Ģirta Valda Kristovska vārdi „piekrītu tavam redzējumam un vērtējumam” atbildē Sluča vēstulei, kurā ASV ārsts izsakās, ka „kā ārsts es nevarētu ārstēt krievus vienlīdzīgi latviešiem Latvijā”." (It is known that the current scandal led to the party leader Girts Valdis Kristovskis' words "I agree with your vision and evaluation" in reply to the letter, in which U.S. doctors are speaking out that "as a doctor I would not treat the Russians equally to the Latvian Latvians).

Probably, Peters can provide some additional explanations?

In addition, this incident seems to be extensively discussed in the Russian part of the .lv domain. It is highly unlikely that both Russian news agencies and Russian speaking Latvian citizens concurrently misinterpreted this information in the same manner.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

1R

Communist terrorism is on a one revert restriction, please self revert. first revert second revert Also as was pointed out on talk he is a historian, please do not enter the wrong information into the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

See [8] Here The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR

[9] You are now on 4 reverts on the Douglas pike article, please self revert. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

could you do me a favour?

Could you do me a favour? Have a look at my last edits on the Boris Berezovsky talk page, and the Aeroflot article, and tell me what course of action I am supposed to take here? If you look at the current arbitration amendment request, it is clear to see that I am being accused of still beating my wife by numerous editors, and look at the suggestions by Volunteer Marek, Colchicum, Vecrumba and Collect (who claims he is uninvolved and neutral still).

It is obviously I am being provoked, as seen by harrassment by User:Kolokol1 and User:Off2riorob in the last couple of days which administrators attended to), and now the latest provocation, which will duly be reported to AE I am certain. Isn't it very, very funny that I am editing the article on Berezovsky, and having to deal with an admitted associate of Berezovsky who is whitewashing the article, and when I bring up the issue of embezzlement by Berezovsky, the next thing to occur is Biophys comes along and makes that provocative edit, particularly after I have been working on the article, rewriting it, creating new material, User:Russavia/Aeroflot, User:Russavia/SU fleet, it is a provocation on his behalf, and I am certain it is going to be used against me, in order to show that I am a disruptive son of a bitch who needs to be removed.

Can you please look at this, and tell me what you think my course of action should be? I am thinking of just fucking off and leaving because of this bullshit. Advice appreciated. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 05:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

@Igny. I am keeping very low profile in this area to avoid the trouble. I just made a few quick fixes in articles related to Berezovsky, after talking with Kolokol1. That was a legitimate edit, and I edited this article before. I do not mind if Russavia edits the same article; he only should not revert me like this (just as I never reverted edits by Russavia lately). Biophys (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning

You have reached 3RR at the Baltic states article with your latest replacement of the useless POV tag. I ask you to self-revert, as the rules on edit war are noted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Warning?

What exactly are you warning me about? Which revert today or yeterday or even the day before has gotten you so riled up? Do not leave random warnings on my talk page without the courtesy of explaining what it is that has offended you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

I saw that you reverted another editor's removal of a POV tag. He removed the tag on the basis that there was no current dispute on the talk page. That is a valid basis for removal of the tag. However, the simple resolution is to simply state a basis on the talk page for the tag. If there is no current dispute, the tag doesn't really belong there. Mamalujo (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Igny: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Steven Zhang, at their talk page.

AE request

The statement "I will add more comments here after the WP:EEML team rushes here for TLAM's defence and mud slinging." was uncalled for. What EEML team are you referring to? Who exactly? You should also not presume. It's probably not a good idea, in a request against a user about their battleground behavior to make battleground-y comments yourself. Volunteer Marek  01:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to take these words back. Do you want me to provide diffs on how MArtin and Vecrumba defended appalling (to say the least) behaviour by TLAM, Tentontunic and others in the past? (Igny (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC))