User:Russavia/Top

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• User_talk:Ezhiki/2008#Hymn_of_the_RF
• User_talk:Ezhiki/2008#WP:RUSSIA_template

As per this User:Jehochman has now unblocked me and I am able to participate in the project, whilst recognising that the topic ban handed down by Sandstein remains. Thank you Jehochman. I am an editor who is capable of collaborative editing, and as evidenced by NVO's comments above, political affiliation and the like can not and should not matter here on this project, as our own opinions are not important. We are here to help build an encyclopaedia, not to engage in advocacy and the like. This is how editors such as myself and NVO are able to get along so well, even though our own personal views do not align completely. Wikipedia needn't be a battleground, and it shouldn't be that way.

I will for the time being work on other things, such as getting Druk Air (an article I completely wrote) up to WP:GA standard, and then take to WP:FA review in the near future. If the issue of my topic ban is not addressed at the current Arb, this can be addressed at a later stage sometime in the near future.

Thank you to those admins who supported my unblocking, and to those who opposed it, I am sure that my future editing will show that the perceptions of myself only being a disruptive editor are misconceived. And perhaps together we can all work together in order to get rid of the battleground on WP, or at least try our best to. --Russavia (leaving undated/unstamped so as not to have this auto archived)

On Simple Wikipedia, I have nominated your Russian ambassador articles for deletion. Your input is welcome at simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/List of Ambassadors of the Soviet Union to the Bukharan People's Soviet Republic. either way (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the discussion. Perhaps if there are any Enwiki editors who would like to transwiki under CC/GFDL that could be done also. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 14:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, that "Polkab" discussion was me saying that your article on Simple Wiki was a good one and that if I had noticed it before it got deleted there I would have been happy to copy most of it (after checking the sources and all that) here to en Wiki for you. Like I said before I do appreciate good writing.radek (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, I have blocked you for one week for inserting a link to externally held material that you were well aware had been oversighted onwiki in accordance with the Oversight policy. This continuation of the battlefield mentality on your part is unacceptable. Risker (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2009 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi Risker. In regards to the one week block which you have just placed on myself, please know that at the time of my posting the link the diff was still available on WP, it hadn't yet been oversighted, and it apparently was available for about an hour or so afterward. After I found out the diff had been oversighted, I removed the link from the talk page so that it wouldn't be available. So at the time of my posting the link, the material was still available on WP. A check of logs and oversight logs would confirm that this is true and correct. Thanks, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 18:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Frankly, I'm not buying this at all, Russavia. The fact that the page was archived offsite and that you posted the link to that site too, shows that you were clearly aware that if they weren't oversighted, that they would be within minutes. That, and the fact that you were deliberately trolling on Giano's talk page and that you are just 'stirring the pot' here shows that this block is warranted right now. And yes, I oversighted the edit - Alison ^❤ 19:10, 4 December 2009 (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.

If anyone but an WP:EEML web brigadier would like to ask me questions, I am more than happy to answer them. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 18:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little late to show you are a big brave Arb now, Risker! The time has passed.  Giano  18:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, Posting a link to ED (im assuming thats what you did) was not a smart thing in and of itself. And futhermore I'm assuming your not the one who posted the content there (ED user "Long-term abuse"), though you should understand that you are drawing suspicion to yourself. I'm assuming that is part of the reason your unblock was declined. In the future you really ought to not give the web brigadiers anything to use against you by distinguishing yourself above this battleground nonsense. Triplestop x3 04:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

• Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
• Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
• Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
• Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
• Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
• Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew ^talk at 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]