Hello Ja 62! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- LittleOldMe 15:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Hi, I hope you don't mind that I listed your article Arms shipments from Czechoslovakia to Israel 1947-1949 at Portal:Israel/New article announcements. You are welcome to join. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The part of WP:USER that the userbox violates is this section;

• Polemical statements:

- Jimbo Wales

Particularly Jimbo's statement, which states that campaigning for anything is a bad idea. Please note however, that this is just my opinion that the userbox fails this. Embargo's editing of your userpage was not vandalism as he was acting in good faith, thats why I commented on his talkpage RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for what you considered as vandalism. I was merely enforcing what I recently heard were wikipedia rules. Please be more respectable and polite when addressing me or anyone else in the future. Embargo 00:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-19_Inayat_Bunglawala Zeq 08:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia WP:FU#FUC9 is that Fair Use images can only be used in articles that discuss the subject of the image. Under the user page policy, I have removed the image of Pooh from your user page. ~ BigrTex 03:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Czech Republic, a project dedicated to building and maintaining a large and neutral database of Czech Republic-related articles on Wikipedia. To join, simply add your name here.

≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem inaccurate to you, but "Czechoslovakian" is the usual adjective in English, since the usual form in English for countries ending in "-ia" is "country name+n" (e.g. Romanian, Bolivian, Australian), although "Czechoslovak" is also used. See:

Czechoslovak

/chekkslovak/ (also Czechoslovakian)

• noun a person from the former country of Czechoslovakia, now divided between the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

• adjective relating to the former country of Czechoslovakia.

Compact Oxford English Dictionary

and

czechoslovakian

adjective

1. of or relating to Czechoslovakia or its people or their language;"The Czech border"; "Czechoslovak nationalists"; "The Czechoslovakian population" [syn: Czech]

noun

1. a native or inhabitant of the former republic of Czechoslovakia

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

dictionary.com

See also Czechoslovak military units on Eastern front. Regards, Grant | Talk 01:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Czechoslovak is more formal and therefore more correct form -e.g. official name of Czechoslovakia in English (long form) was Czechoslovak republic, mos notably it was during rule of communists - Czechoslovak socialist republic:(. I can't say that Czechoslovak is the only correct form, but it's the better one.--ja_62 10:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're saying. I felt the same way when I was in Prague and saw movie posters with "Nicole Kidmanova" on them ;-) Grant | Talk 12:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edits. A couple of questions since you seem to be well informed about the Czech brigade. 1) A few years ago, I saw an article on the internet that discussed the brigade. One issue the article brought up stated that there were some internal conflicts in the brigade that persisted into 1944 (I seem to recall it had something to with communists or some kind of conflicting political loyalties), and that these conflicts were known by the British, and led to the permanent use of the brigade in the siege role at Dunkirk rather than employing it further to the east. I can't locate this information anymore and wonder if you have ever heard about this. 2) It was recently noted by a few editors of the Military History Project that Wikipedia does not have a good article on the Czech forces in the east led by General Svoboda. Have you considered authoring such an article? I could probably put up a basic start-class article on this topic, but as you are in the Czech Republic, you likely have access to much more information than I can find. Thanks--W. B. Wilson (talk) 12:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm particularly well informed, I've just made some minor explanations. For your questions -* 1) There was some level of (communist inspired) political tension amongst the enlisted men in Czechoslovak army units in UK, but its prime was in 1940/1941, or between fall of France and German invasion of USSR. The solution was quite easy, men particularly reluctant to Czechoslovak authorities were tranferred to Pioneer Corps Labour Companies, others gradually calmed down. In 1944, ratio of Communist Party of Czechoslovakia members to brigade strength was 239 communists to circa 4.500 men in the brigade. (On the other hand - some officers of the brigade (insignificant in number as well as in political influence) regarded Czechoslovak exile government in UK as too pro-Soviet and vaguely considered to make up some committee under US patronage, to which committe loaylty of the Brigade should be switch, but this option never reached any phase of serious possibility)

I don't think that above mentioned number by itself provides any definitive data for level of communist activity in the brigade - and I may look up for some sources - but probably it's not likely to consider Communist threat as rationale for employing the Brigade as besieging troops only. Much more likely is the simple fact that in 1944 there was no prospect - or Czechoslovak ministry of defence did not see any - to raise casualty replacements for brigade in any significant numbers (in fact it took some toil to find enough men to fulfill table requirements for armoured brigade group just prior to shipping of brigade to France), therefore the brigade was considered to be able only to perform combat rôle in some low-intensity combats area, as besieging of Dunkerk was to be.

• 2)I don't think I have enough information on Czechoslovak units on the Eastern front present time, as well as not enough endurance to find them for the Wikipedia article. My prefered involvement in Wikipedia editing is just to make some corrections to existing articles, since I don't feel I have enough time to write articles on my own. If you write some stub article on the topic, just notice me, and I'd attempt to make some corrections, and provide details - approximately as I made today to 1st Czechoslovak Armoured Brigade - but generally, when Czechoslovak wartime army units are poorly covered by Wikipedia, I still personally prefer Czechoslovak 11th Infantry Battalion article (which deserves, as I see it far more details than today's scope is) - for which purpose I wasn't able to find enough time since end of July, 2007. --ja_62 (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. The manpower dilemma sounds as good a reason as any for the Dunkirk mission. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the error in the play referrence. You know I used to have an IQ of 6,000 but after 3 million years I sometimes even forget what I just said. You know I used to have an IQ of 6,000...Xenovatis (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. P.S.: IQ of 6,000 ? - still the same IQ as 6000 PE teachers :-)).--ja_62 (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting. You have discovered an interesting fact about a German plane bombing Paris, and I have tried to insert it into the article as best as possible; however, this article is not about the bombing of World War I and the point of the paragraph was to highlight britain's familiarity with being bombed. The only reason the bombing of Germany is mentioned is because it would not be fair to jump right into England's experience under bombs without noting that they, in fact, were involved in the practice, too...and actually before the Germans started bombing London. As for the one person being killed detail, and four wounded (five bombs!) I think these are interesting details and I was interested in providing these details in the footnote because not everyone can read french, and I think it is also necessary to note because it shows the evolution of bombing - from this to nagasaki some 30 years later. It is quite unbelievable.

Sure, I inserted facts about German raid of 30 August 1914. When you'd like to show British familiarity

with bombing, you may simple add fact about Zeppelin raids (and possibly later Gotha bombers raids too), without mentioning previous air attack on German instllations, which makes legitimate to insert information about previous German attack, with reference. For the rest of your editing - see what reference format is correct for Wikipedia, and then STOP calling my attempts to help improve the article vandalism. Thanks--ja_62 (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Paris and Trier references, leaving only what this paragraph seems to be most about: Britain's psychological state after being bombed. Still, if we are going to talk about the Zeppelins bombing Britain, it is not fair to cast the British as only victims, so I have inserted the bit about its use of aerial attacks in its colonies as well as its attacks on German infrastructure directly after the war broke out.--Npovshark (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also unfair to show British as initiators of bombing, which is the thing you are attempting to.--ja_62 (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now glad that you seemingly finally stopped your attempts to change the article in favour of your biased opinion of the cases and course of strategic bombing in WWII.--ja_62 (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia does fit into the category of a "puppet state", even though it is not lanlocked and as dependent on Russia as South Ossetia. Abkhazia has declared independence but its ability to maintain independence is solely based on Russian troops deployed on Georgian territory and Russian aid and nor is it internationally recognized by the United Nations and according to the United Nations criteria. Does this not qualify it as a "puppet state", just like South Ossetia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.107.149 (talk • contribs)

I'm not interested in the subject matter, and I've only changed article on the Puppet state to the last consensus version because of IP:81.213.200.133's apparent lack of explanation and references for his change, previous deletion, and poor spelling in edit. It would be more useful if you'd present your case on the article talk page. --ja_62 (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my recent edit to this article? Faethon Ghost (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because of defamatory content related to Woody Allen, completely inappropriate when dealing with such accusation. --ja_62 (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I did not input this section, only moved it around when somebody randomly posted it under the heading ZEBRA MISSION. I explain this in the Discussion section.

I am all for deleting this section anyway. Please do delete it if you feel so inclined, otherwise I will do so after a few more weeks of leaving it out there for public comment, to see if it is worthy of permanent inclusion.

DarthRad (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the message about edits - yeah, you are absolutely right. I should use the preview section. But the multiple revisions has more to do with the way I think and write. I think every time that I'm done revising the article, as soon as I send it off, the perfectionist in me wants to re-read it again and I find another annoying thing to make it better.

DarthRad (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than edit-war with you on this point, I thought I would post this on your page. I have proposed "in northwestern Germany" because I think it is important to note that Britain did not do much of anything to stop Germany on the eastern front. As the article stands, this point has not been adequately clarified. Isn't it kind of late in Czech? Best regards.--Runner631 (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I don't understand your objection at all. It simply makes the sentence easier to follow; just like in the previous sentence, where we wrote in Poland even though it is clear that the Germans were fighting in Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runner631 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a difference between bombing Kriegsmarine ships in northwestern Germany and bombing them in the ports in the Baltic Sea, except the fact that it was much more difficult for RAF to bomb German warships in the Baltic. Not to mention the fact that even bombing of Kriegsmarine ships in the Baltic would made little against German offensive in the East. May be the location of bombed German ports and warships should be mentioned in the article, but I don't see it as important.--ja_62 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.: The very translation I used first.:-)--ja_62 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why should be noted that 'the Royal Air Force bombed German warships and port installations in Germany.' - when in September 1939, German Navy had port installations only in Germany proper. May be the formulation 'in Northwestern Germany' - but it still seems a bit superfluous to me. --ja_62 (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sailors works well, but as I mentioned in the edit summary, I can't figure out what their role within the Kriegsmarine was, whether they actually were sailors. It said in the German text that a vessel was damaged, and I guess one could put two and two together and say that the 8 dead were on the ship...but it doesn't say exactly. And I also find it perplexing that the text did not use "seeman" if that is, indeed, what the were. So I am inclined to believe they could have been port defense crew just the same. So I went with men, finally. Interestingly, afterwards, I compared the German use of Marinesoldaten in German Wikipedia article about the German navy to the usage in the English Wikipedia article about the German navy, and they appear to have simply used "men" where "Marinesoldaten" appears. Looks like I made the right decision.--Runner631 (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seemann is not the same as Seaman - the word refers to sailor in general, i.e. the term includes merchant mariners. Term Marinesoldaten perhaps more clearer designates them as members of the Navy. Anyway - I think that Kriegsmarine men is translation adequate enough.--ja_62 (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest then "in northwestern (lowercase) Germany". Because first of all, I think it is interesting that this is the furthest extent of the British assault, that it had little tactical effect vis-a-vis the invasion of Poland. If ships were sitting at bay on the northwestern side of Germany, it was pretty unlikely that the Germans were going to use them in the operations around Danzig Bay, for troop mobility or whatnot. This certainly gives credit to the theory that Poland was betrayed, whereas without making it clear that the British barely left the English Channel, it looks like the British actually made a reasonable effort to inhibit the German effort. Secondly, I think it is clearer; if I write a sentence like "Mexican hats and umbrellas, it is not 100% clear that I mean Mexican hats and Mexican umbrellas, even though it is true that I probably mean this. I think it is better to be clear and precise. Thirdly, it simply sounds better to include the location; as evidence of this, look at the three parts in the lede where, although the German military was only attacking one people and the German air force was only bombing one country, it is mentioned three times that Poland was the location where this took place. I think this is because there are so many words floating around which suggest different locations - France, United Kingdom, Poland, Germany - that it just sounds better when the reader is reintroduced to the site which is being talked about directly. Dobrou noc!--Runner631 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ad 1)I don't think that attacks on German warships in northwestern German ports has anything common with supposed 'Western betrayal' of Poland - at the beginning of war the RAF was hardly able to locate and hit German warships in the Baltic Sea region. (Not to mention the fact that the English Channel is quite far away from German Bight.)

ad 3) While Germany was in war against Poland, United Kingdom and France, it makes sense to mention which towns Luftwaffe was bombing, while in the sentence 'RAF bombed German warships and port installations' there's no risk of any ambiguity in my opinion.--ja_62 (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1)Well, the British were under obligation to defend Poland's territorial integritity. Because of the way the paragraph is structured, with the attack on Poland being mentioned (followed by a mention of the British attacks on Germany) it sounds like the British actually attacked the German forces, albeit navy forces, which were attacking Poland. They did not. It is important to make this distinction.

2)But actually, the first two sentences I was refering to do not mention the United Kingdom or France: "in 1939, Germany invaded Poland and the Luftwaffe (German air force) began providing tactical support to the German Army. It also began eliminating strategic objectives and bombing cities in Poland." At that point, it is only Germany and Poland as subjects. Yet I think you would agree that it sounds better to mention where the attacks were. It helps complete the visualization. If you do not like "in northwestern Germany", do you have a different phrase to use? It should be said where these attacks took place..--Runner631 (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) I don't believe that current formulation of intro gives this impression. Anyway, this is dealt with in 'The Western Front, 1939 to June 1940' section in detail.

2) In my opinion ' In 1939, Germany invaded Poland and the Luftwaffe (German air force) began providing tactical support to the German Army. It also began eliminating strategic objectives and bombing cities in Poland. ' provides some basic information (i.e. Luftwaffe was also bombing Polish cities besides performing tactical support missions in the same theatre of war), while repeating that German ports bombed by the RAF were in Germany is needless from informational point of view.

3) Consider raising this issue on relevant discussion page. I will neither oppose nor support the formulation specifying 'northwestern Germany'. --ja_62 (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I posted a reply on the Talk:ČZ 52 page. Thanks for your impute and knowledge of the Czechoslovakian language and military history. I hope we can work together to create a page we both can be proud of. --Duchamps_comb MFA 04:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you around, and you look like a user who could benefit from the rollback feature, so I've enabled it for you. Let me know if you don't want it. Thanks for your hard work. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I hope I'd prove to be worthy of it. --ja_62 ^(t|c) 14:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was the one who altered the Disneyfication page. I've put my explanation in the discussion page of the article, and would appreciate you taking a look at it, as I'm not that savvy with Wikipedia's procedures. I very much appreciate you remarking that I'd made the edit in good faith, that's certainly what I was trying to do =). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.188.139 (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was the one who altered the Saul Alinsky page. To many in the United States, Alinsky was a radical and communist; it is an undeniable fact that people held that opinion. They based their opinion on the same quote I quoted from his writings. Not sure why people believe that to be 'vandalism'. Seems to be revisionist to me. Nonrevisionis (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proper way here on Wikipedia is to reference such claims. Your edit lacked any reference and seemed to be based only upon misquotation of a primary source. You also failed to mention who held this opinion on Alinsky, and whether this opinion on Alinsky was a notable one at all. What is necessary here, is a reliable secondary source clarifying these issues and supporting the claim that some people considered him being marxist and/or communist.

Ad vandalism - there were several edits following the same pattern when adding Alinsky's communism/marxism claims based solely on misquotation of a primary source - it's not entirely unnatural that some lost their temper and would call spade a spade.--ja_62 ^(t|c) 22:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did put something on the talk page about locking it till Friday. Because until then it will be filled with spoilers and Wikipedia does not support spoilers. So why do you guys let it happen so much. DO YOUR JOBS instead of us normal users doing it for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.176.14 (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I haven't noticed as I was just patrolling recent changes, and there was nothing in the edit summary mentioned, so I thought you are just removing text. As for the page protection request - try here. --ja_62 ^(t|c) 01:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, Chief! --Morenooso (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for reverting that vandalism to my talk page. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morenooso has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for cleaning up that vandalism to my page! Rmosler | ● 08:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen your dedication to keeping Wikipedia free of vandalism. If you like, you can put this on your user page. It's a personal project of mine. Deagle_AP (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. --ja_62 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jashan (Band) was blanked by its author after being tagged for speedy deletion. You then reverted the blanking. While it is normally considered unacceptable for the author of a page to remove a speedy deletion tag from it, an exception is made in the case of completely blanking a page to which nobody else has made any significant contribution. This is taken as indicating that the author wants the page deleted, and it can then be tagged for speedy deletion with {{db-blanked}}. Very often new users who don't know how Wikipedia works see an article they have created tagged for deletion, accept that the article should be deleted, and remove the content, thinking that is deleting it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notification - I haven't noticed what the situation with the article was, and have simply reverted a blanked page.--ja_62 12:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I wasn't going to say anything of the sort if you hadn't self-reverted (because it might have sounded as a threat— which is not what would have been intended); but: Man, it takes a seriously beefy pair to revert a standing arbitrator doing a BLP enforcement edit!  :-)

That being said, I was neither subtle nor delicate in going through the article with a chainsaw; if you see a more felicitous way of reorganizing things without reintroducing the undue emphasis over the arsonist thingy, feel free to edit further. — Coren ^(talk) 17:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been noticing all of your reverts, mainly because you keep beating me to them. :) Keep up the good work. We need more people like you, and less people who vandalize. :) Hi878 (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit [[1]], please check the content and the references. There is nothing fringe or OR about the material in question. Why do you think there is? Smatprt (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly pushing your personal opinions on the subject through giving undue weight to a single theory without any clarification of the statements given, thus performing OR in an indirect manner. The possible connection between Burghley and Polonius is explained in current text of the paragraph quite exhaustingly. --ja_62 17:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source discussion concerns the possible connections to the entire Burghley family, not just Lord Cecil. This is all mainstream scholarship that has gone on for the last 150 years, so to delete the rest of the family parallels seems oddly selective. I do not understand how you can describe the material in question as "irrelevant". Also - what precisely do you mean "without any clarification of the statements given"? What kind of clarification would you see as needed?Smatprt (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been just removing details quite unnecessary in section Sources. IMO, quite strange when only parallels to real-life persons (nothing about well documented parallels between Polonius and Pantalone - IMO much more logical to draw parallels between art characters and other art characters, not between characters and real life persons, which is always a lot of guess work, based upon preferences of respective authors, and almost irrelevant to the literary functions of the texts - an outdated 19th century-like approach to literature IMO), by some peculiar intention of yours just supporting the Oxfordian theory. BTW In my opinion you are oddly selective when representing parallels to Burghleys only - without a single source referencing how relevant are considered opinions you presented by some other authors, not only by the sources given. --ja_62 13:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to M1 Garand: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. ialsoagree (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but I generally prefer to use warning templates only after second vandalism by the same user, or in case of really serious single attack - i.e. whole page blanking, racist remarks etc. - to be sure that the damage was not entirely unintetional. --ja_62 10:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue to revert the Ontario Coalition Against Peverty page unless you are able to find reliable 3rd party sources for the info. We cannot let self published, unverified information exist indefinately on wikipedia. The info has been on the page for many months with a few requests for 3rd party sources and in the absence of those sources the info must go. I did trry to find some but it appears that the data only exists on the organizations own website which does not meet wiki standards. 209.121.225.251 (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not reverting it - I've just reverted one completely unexplained content removal. --ja_62 06:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before you undo some change, make sure who is its author. It is indecent behaviour to name somebody, who has nothing to do with the "undo" you have made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimmerian praetor (talk • contribs) 07:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which I did not for certain. See this - I rollbacked an unconstructive edit by an anonymous editor to the last previous version, that's all. Thank you. --ja_62 07:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad, I misread it. My apologies. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. --ja_62 12:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia guidelines, "Material that fails verification may be tagged with [not in citation given] or removed. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately and not tagged or moved to the talk page." I have removed the "Biography" "Career" and "links" of this page. Mr. Hessler or the fans who created this page had plenty of time and fair warning to add sources and citations to the material, but they did not, so we must follow Wikipedia rules and immediately remove the self-serving information that previously constituted a majority of this entry. As the statement below says, this was not Mr. Hessler's personal homepage and should not appear as such. External links to Hessler's speeches and book reviews were especially self-serving and do not belong on Wikipedia. None of the biographical information was sourced and appeared to be written by Hessler himself. Saying his books are "well known" in the very first paragraph of the entry without any citation to this claim was also a bit self-aggrandizing. I would have just moved this data to the talk page to be edited later, however Wikipedia rules state "not...moved to the talk page" so I did not. if someone has a problem with this, then redo the page according to Wiki standards and not just because you are a fan of Hessler's books.

I see from above comments, Ja 62, you have a tendency to arbitrarily revert edits. Like the man said, please do not continue to revert (the Peter Hessler) page unless you are able to find reliable 3rd party sources for the info. We cannot let self published, unverified information exist indefinately on wikipedia. The info has been on the page for many months with a few requests for 3rd party sources and in the absence of those sources the info must go. I did try to find some but it appears that the data only exists on the organizations own website which does not meet wiki standards.

User:Hopechina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopechina (talk • contribs) 12:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look here and my answer there. Claiming BLP issues as justification for non-contentious material is hardly justifiable, in my opinion.

I tagged some claims which I identified as possible needing reference (when people who on talkpage were going to great lenghts in describing how is the article badly written, but failed to mention WHAT is badly written in the article), and you can perhaps add some more ({{Peacock}} - try this for portions you claim are self-serving) - but plese do not blank the page again under pretension of enforcing BLP policy.

The info was not specific, and it was hidden on a talk page, with no in-article templates applied, which is hardly fair under any standards.

And - no I haven't a tendency for arbitrarily revert edits, only recently went into some misunderstandings with people who fail to fill in edit summary; when patrolling recent changes.--ja_62 12:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ja 62,
Our new editor reverted you again at Karel Čapek, [2]. I have reverted them again. I think thay are well over wp:3RR. I thought talking to them may help, but we have both tried haven't we? Do we up the warning or try talking again?
Whoops! They reverted me again! DIFF. That's about 4RR! Comments? I'm trying not to wp:BITE the newbie!
I've given tham a { {subst:uw-3rr} } warning. Too bad we tried! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the revert count, please.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting obvious vandalism is not counted into 3RRs. Thank for your notice.--ja_62 18:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek, as a former admin, knows what he's talking about. The edits you reverted violated WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, but that does not make them "obvious vandalism." You should not use rollback on such edits either; use twinkle or huggle so you can leave an edit summary explaining your reversion. There are enough people watching these pages so you have no need to risk 3rr here. For further info, please read WP:NOTVAND to learn what is and is not vandalism. Cheers, Auntie E. (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was removing referenced text and inserting something akin to a duplicate of the paragraph on He Zheng's maps, which he or she described in edit summary as "removing inaccurate mistakes" - I just couldn't imagine more obvious case of vandalism. As I only stumbled upon this when I was patrolling recent changes, I was not inclined to meditate upon niceties of meaning of IP's edits in deep - if similar situation would happen in future, I'd certainly follow your and Sarek's advices and give rationale for my reverts in ES. --ja_62 12:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are not going to revert our edits because WE hate the evil book soooooo much. Our vindictiveness will not end here. We will continue to fight against the conspiracy agains the monarchy.

Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king. (1 Peter 2:17) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.63.228 (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order for us to honour our king, let us destroy the page! --125.24.63.228 (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being a coward and use ready made messages. Write in your own words! --125.24.63.228 (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to continue with vandalising the page, you will be blocked. That's an established Wikipedia policy, not my fancy. And please stop using my talk page for your rantings. Thank you.--ja_62 13:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again I repeat: Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king. (1 Peter 2:17)

"But as for you, be strong and do not give up, for your work will be rewarded." (2 Chronicles 15:7)

"Cast your burden upon the lord, and He will sustain you; He will never allow the righteous to be shaken." (Psalm 55:22)

"The lord is my light and my salvation; Whom shall I fear? The lord is the defense of my life; Whom shall I dread? When evildoers came upon me to devour my flesh, My adversaries and my enemies, they stumbled and fell. Though a host encamp against me, My heart will not fear; Though war arise against me, In spite of this I shall be confident." (Psalm 27:1-3)

So I do not fear blockages. I do the right thing, protecting my just monarchy. The information is distorting. You will never make me feel scared. I am doing the right thing. You are obstructing me to. End of story. The war continues. --125.24.63.228 (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are trying to protect your 'just monarchy' that way, then you will probably be blocked, and the page semi-protected against other IP addresses attempting to distort Wikipedia content with vandal edits, Your Majesty. --ja_62 13:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what: I don't care. We are NOT distorting it. The BOOK is. The book is biased. The information presented is thus BIASED as well. Wikipedia has its neutral policy. Now I'm doing what's right and I'm doing what's wrong. To get it into your brain, Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king. (1 Peter 2:17). Please note I'm not part of the monarchy and all Thai people love their monarch. This special bond is found nowhere else in the world - it's unique. If you don't believe then try search. I am following the Bible, HONORING THE KING. End of story, forever. --125.24.63.228 (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any issues with this book, do deal with them on the respective talk page, but do NOT vandalise the page without discussion. Your edits are distorting, you were blanking the page, redirecting it to other page (or was that a different IP address?), you were engaged in stupid personnal attacks - i.e. completely unconstructive behaviour which does not lend credibility to your 'explanations'. If you are going to continue in unconstructive editing, you will be reported to admins. --ja_62 14:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected The King Never Smiles after extensive vandalism. The IPs look like they're dynamic and all from Bangkok, so it may be the same person or a local group. Two accounts and several IPs have been blocked. Any further trouble from new accounts or IPs on your pages should be dealt with a direct block, in my opinion. I'm logging off soon, so I can't be sure I'll be able to do it...however, consider reporting any to WP:AIV with a link to this section where an admin has suggested a course of action. Alternatively, you could have your talk page semi'd for a short while, too. Thanks for the vandal fighting. — Scientizzle 15:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, on Battle of Britain you 've now reverted my edits (which I have explained many times now) more than 3 times. That means you've breaced the 3-revert rule. Don't worry, I have no intention of reporting you. I merely ask you to begin a separate section on the articles talk page on why you think the German translation of the battle (which can already be found in the language-section) should be included in the article's lead. Please stop reverting (especially without a summary) and discuss on talk. Thank you. Westbrabander (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RRS do not include reverting obvious vandalism, which your removals of consensus content under various false pretensens constitute, as you were informed on your talk page. Try go to the talk page and give your rationale first if you want to remove name of the battle in German. Names of the battles in languages of major participants is otherwise standard on Wikipedia. Thank you. --ja_62 14:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s:a)That's no translation, that's name of the battle in German - cf. Battle of Borodino - would you erase the name of the battle in French?

b)There's no language section in the article, as you were already been told. Regards. --ja_62 14:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse me of being a vandal as that is something I am obviously not. Please try to be civil, I appreciate that you've now started a talk page discussion on the matter, as I requested you to do, instead of reverting without a summary Thank you. Westbrabander (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would you name someone whou would remove content while referring to a non-existent section of the article, after he had been told that no such section does exist? Thank you. --ja_62 14:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with someone it is not a matter of telling that person to stop. You discuss differences, or at least provide summaries in when you revert. Please refrain from basing accusations of vandalism on your own interpretation of someones edits. Westbrabander (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did, I gave rationale for revert two times, and rollbacked only after you again did refer to an obviously non-existent section of the article in your rationale. On the other hand, you gave only one near-valid rationale for your blanking, ridiculouly suggesting that name of the battle in language of the second major combatant is someway too much. I don't have to assume good faith when you are obviously misusing procedures. And yes, when someone is removing content without valid explanation, user warning templates are the best way to deal with this. Regards --ja_62 15:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you consider to be valid doesn't have to make it so. You do not own Wikipedia. If you find conflicting opinions discuss them on talk; do not blindly revert as you have done. Because you continued to revert without a summary and seeing out the discussion on talk, I 've reported you for breaking the 3-revert rule. Westbrabander (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I surely know that I don't own Wikipedia. I just keep reverting vandalisms in it. And if someone is removing content under false pretenses - then... And perhaps I should mention again, that I have found NO conflicting opinions - I found someone who was removing content from page I'm watching under false pretenses, referring to non-existent sections of the article. And it's perfect O.K. to revert edit which's summary is obviously conflicting with the reality in such way. Please stop with your rants here. Thanks --ja_62 15:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Battle of Britain. 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|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. EyeSerene^talk 18:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, I have removed your rollback privilege. Neither the rollback feature nor any of the various tools like Twinkle are to be used in a content dispute. After some reasonable period of time of demonstrated good behavior free of edit wars (like a month), you may ask that I or any other admin restore the privilege. --B (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Ja 62 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not breach 3 reverts rule as I was partly engaged in content dispute (in those edits), but later I was reverting edits which I took for an obvious vandalism by user:Westbrabander, when he was removing page contents without giving a valid rationale for doing so. For short: I came upon a problem with his edits when I was patrolling recent changes, and I was attempting to resolve the problem peacefully, as I was aware that there could be problem with current wording of the article. Instead he started reverting into his version again, and then I lost good faith in his edits, as they were described in edit summaries in a very strange manner - i.e. 'here' - the German name of the battle certainly was not in toolbox or here - it was obviously not in the article at all, and these 'sections' he refered to were not present in the article Battle of Britain. I've tried to point to this fact on his talk page, which he ignored, and kept on reverting. And I was certainly not abusing rollback feature in a content dispute, as I resorted to its use only after second time Westbrabander's edits came with these strangely worded edit summaries - here and here - i.e. only after the problem lost nature of a content dispute and I was bona fide reverting his following unconstructive edits without a valid rationale. He also didn't make an attempt to explain me what he did meant with his edits, but came with thinly veiled threats, though not describing rationale for his edits, instead continuing with his false claims that the German name of the battle is preserved in 'language section' (which section does not exist) of the Battle of Britain article. I feel that I was completely innocent as far as the edit warring or wp:3RR is concerned, though I was perhaps bit hot-headed and not enough patient with his editing and edit summaries. Thank you for your understanding. --ja_62 20:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.:And I am certainly not going to ask anyone for restoríng rollback privilege for it actually puts me into a disadvantaged position vis à vis editors like Westbrabander is, when I am attempting to preserve undistorted versions of articles.--ja_62 20:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, this was a clear violation of WP:EW, and the use of rollback in a content dispute merely makes it somewhat worse. Requesting page protection is the way to go - this is not a case of clear vandalism by any stretch, it's a content dispute. Unfortunately this means the block is valid as it stands - and thankfully it's been applied to both, and will be short. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

For whoever reviews this, please see Wikipedia:AN3#User:Ja_62_reported_by_User:Westbrabander_.28Result:_Both_blocked_24_hrs.29, if needed. --B (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Ja 62 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm appealing the block revision decision, as I feel that there were not enough regard given to arguments in my favour, and my good faith during the whole affair was completely disregarded by persons involved. Moreover, the decision on declining was not explained sufficiently, and my explanation for what it was not content was just passed by, without giving any reasons refuting my defense arguments.
As I explained previously (as could also be seen in respective page history) I certainly did restore Westbrabander's edit based solely upon a language-nationalist 'rationale', to a previous consensus version, which could be taken for a content dispute, perhaps, although I took it for a good faith edit for the sake of non-bitting of newcomers only, as his was a hardly valid argument for removing name of the battle in language of one of the major combatants. My reverts following on the next day were purely aimed to restoring said consensus, after Westbrabander's edits which were explained in very strange manner, i.e. pointing to the toolbox or to a non-existent section of the article in which the name of the battle in German was still purportedly to be found, or his following reverts, after he had not reacted to my notices on his talkpage. I was acting completely in faith that content removals referring to a non-existent section of the article, or to the toolbox, which is not relevant to article content at all, i.e. without a valid rationale, constitute an obvious vandalism, which added to his previous nationalism-based 'rationale' for content removal from previous day, I believed that Westbrabander was either removing content just for fun, or perhaps inventing his edit summaries and 'rationales' at random, to give some semblance of legitimacy to his nationalism-based content removal from the previous day. Had he been giving rationale with which I had not agreed yes - then my reverts would had been a part of content dispute. As he was not giving valid rationales (as he was giving obviously factually incorrect ones) for his further content removals, I assumed that he was just removing content under various ridiculous pretenses, i.e. vandalising the page. My good faith was completely disregarded up to this time, and I was proclaimed to be a part of a content dispute, which I'd like to deny completely, as based upon above given facts of the case. For the same reason I had not abused the rollback feature in content dispute, as I had used it only after I finally came to the conclusion that it had not been a content dispute. --ja_62 12:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clearly your idea of what constitutes vandalism is out of step with consensus here. Vandalism on Wikipedia is editing that is done with the clear intent to harm a Wikipedia page. This is a clear cut case of a content dispute, as is made obvious by the talk page discussion. If you continue to edit war in content disputes, expect to continue getting blocked. Next time consider page protection and/or dispute resolution as alternatives. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

In what. May I ask you for an explantion in WHAT my idea is out of step with "consensus here"? In my opinion, removing Wikipedia under (false) pretenses that the removed content is preserved elsewhere in the article (e.g. non-existent section of the article) clearly constitutes sneaky vandalism. WHAT the content dispute is based in? In WHAT relation to this is is the fact that I was willing discuss the obvious (i.e. including name of the battle in language of one of the major combattants), where the user produced yet another different set of ridiculous "explanations" for his repeated content removals, which he "explained" by pointing to non-existent sections of the article (and in the first case by claiming "necessity" of including name of the battle in other languages too, if the German one was retained - and I admit this first edit revert could had been a matter of content dispute, as he gave something which was very close to a valid rationale for content removal.) Though by now I believe that only reaction my question can produce is just another repeating that "this is a clear case of content dispute" - it's certainly more convenient than to answer the question in what the content dispute consists in. --ja_62 14:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my bluntness, but if you expect me to properly reply to this you are going to have to make a bit more sense. The only thing I can make out there is that you still do not seem to comprehend you did participate in edit warring. Disagreeing with someone's explanation for their edits does not make them a vandal. If their editing is not obviously intended to harm Wikipedia then it's not vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A page you have edited has been involved in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Mechanism. If you wish to take part please click here. Some of the editors working on it have been accused of being sock puppets including myself, information on that can be found here. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]