User talk:Miacek

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

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

I have over 1,000 pages on my watchlist. I don't have enough time to address all the problems I may spot on Wikipedia. For my own reference, below I'm listing various active and constructive contributors. (Don't be offended if I forgot you! I only quickly skimmed my talk page and watchlist to refresh my memory in drafting this list.)

Template Thatcherism

FYI - I've just opened a sock puppet case on Harperson123. Pretty sure the Doctor returned. Again. Ravensfire (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iran-Iraq War

Hi. Sorry, I had to revert your last edit in the Iran-Iraq war article because the sources, that were provided by other users (not me), contradict your claim that Ronald Reagan should be removed from the list of commanders on the Iraqi side. As the commander-in-chief of a nation, which was directly involved in the war, Ronald Reagan apparently qualifies to be in the list. Secondly, if you take a closer look at the article discussion page, you will see that America's direct role in the war has already been discussed between multiple users. Please don't remove sourced materials, without reaching a consensus. Best regards.84.23.140.26 (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean providing weapons for a party = 'directly involved in the war' = belligerent, then obviously one should in addition to Kuwait, the US, and the USSR add (at least) France, Brazil, Egypt, Denmark as Iraq's cobelligerent and and Israel as Iran's cobelligerent. I'm not opposed to briefly mentioning in the infobox the Western military and tactical support for Iraq, but qualifying them as belligerents is your own OR and POV. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 16:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you are not paying attention to what I am telling you. The sources that were provided and discussed by other parties contradict your edit. The source explicitly says "direct military involvement". We are not talking about arms sale here (indirect involvement). What we are talking about is directly taking part in the war. There is no source which says France, Brazil, Egypt, ..... were directly involved in the war. As a result, none of them are mentioned in the belligerents list. I suggest that you stop removing sourced materials and take your claim to the discussion page. If you are going to continue with your disruptive edits, I will have to notify the users who were initially involved in the discussions.84.23.140.26 (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I will notify the sysop that originally blocked you for disruptive editing. I skimmed through the talk pages and there was indeed talk about US involved against the Iraqis as well as against the Iranians. To quote a colleague: Thirdly, the allegation that the US Navy entered the war fighting along side Saddam's army, is purely ridiculous. In fact in 1987 the USS Stark was attacked by an Iraqi Jet and 37 sailors were killed. Fourth, no Iranian pilots were ever abducted or trapped by the CIA (what possible need woud the US have for Iranian pilots?). Nor did pilots from the air forces of those countries you mention conduct missions from Iraq, certainly not from Saudi Arabia, that would have been an act of war by Saudi Arabia against Iran.As for your source about "direct military involvement" (of the US? of the USSR?), you should provide a bit more of the details at the talk page there first. Now, please leave my talk page and start discussing where you should have done so, i.e. the article talk. Apart from you and User:Xashaiar there's been no-one who would add that POV into the infobox.

Should I contact an admin? 84.23.140.26 (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contact whom ever you please. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 16:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is unacceptable. You have not engaged in talks before and you choose to remove the commander-in-chief of the United States from the list, even though the United States and the two sources which contradict your edit are left untouched. How come you don't remove all the references too in the entire list? Sorry to say, but if you are going to continue disrupting the page and do not revert yourself, I will contact an admin because what you are doing is unacceptable. 84.23.140.26 (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I am doing is totally acceptable. The sources were there before you and me and might be good enough to support the argument that the US and a few other states were more supportive of Iraq (whereas the US navy had military collisions with both Iraqis and Iranians, both equally posing a threat to Kuwait tanker that the US were there to protect. I have explained my line of thought at talk + pointed out that it's mainly just you and a sole registered user who have been adding this stuff since September last year. None of you have enaged in dispute resolution process, so I don't think you contacting any admin would lead to sanctions against me. But as said, do as you please, but first of all: leave my talk page!--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 17:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Greekboy12345er6Regarding Greekboy12345er6 (talk · contribs) 's IP edits, I agree that they are highly problematic. The majority are simply personal observation assumptions without references, but the fact that he also adds some pure hoax material (the notion of the existence of a "Democratic Socialist International") should be ground to enforce blocks of his ip more strictly. I have noted that he never has responded to any questions at all, in spite of repeated attempts by many editors. --Soman (talk) 20:25, 26 JuneYes, I've reported him [1]. This is obviously a reincarnation of 87... range aka User:Askebh. His changes seem rather random, sometimes obvious hoax. In short: sock puppet, characteristical obstinacy (never responds, also his poor English). Longer blocks should be justified, as his intention isn't even even POV pushing but just disruption. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 20:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]You are now a Rollbacker!I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Mifter (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hope to welcome you back to editing soonHi Miacek, as you know I am under a topic ban from interacting with EEML members, but I am saying be damned with that with you. I left some comments in relation to your appeal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Statement_by_other_editors diff. I sincerely hope we can welcome you back to editing and that we can collaborate in the future on articles of mutual interest. I believe we could do good things if we were to collaborate together. I did have one question that I asked there that I would hope you could answer, in the interest of being upfront about our intentions and editing on WP. Anyway, when the topic ban is lifted on you, which I hope is soon, please do contact me and we can collaborate on something I am sure. As usual, you can always email me if you would like to discuss anything with me in private; perhaps between the two of us, we could come up with some ideas on how to encourage bygones being bygones and all that. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 01:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hope so; I've answered you via e-mail.Miacek 10:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]