User talk:Bogorm/2008

Welcome!

Hello, Bogorm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Price of oil

Bogorm, you really need to discuss your changes on the talk page. You are making some fundamental editing errors which would need to be cleaned up sooner or later, and the fact that you keep reverting to your version is getting disruptive. Also, please try to find sources other than Presstv.ir, as they have a conflict of interest in this subject and thus may not be the most trustworthy of sources. If other sources are saying the same thing it is much more persuasive to the readers of this article. NJGW (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in American stance towards the PressTV and I urge you not to remove the source. If your obstinacy towards removing "numerous" and "augmented" is inexorable, I should "die Flinte ins Korn werfen", as the Germans say, and laissez-faire... . But I assure you I am habitually not so amenable as in this matter. Besides, it's the above mentioned POV towards PressTV that I find disruptive. But methinks Wikipedia is more than copying from sources and if the Iranian which wrote the artcle, preferred to express himself about augmenting in Simple English, that does not interdict us from rendering his words in a more elaborate manner, does it??? And this is not the Wikipedia in Simple English, is it? Ah, one more thing - as most speculators are not Iranians, methinks it's beyond the "La Manche" that most conflicts of interest are engendered... Bogorm (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you at any time used any other user name

Your style of editing is not that of someone who has just started editing Wikipedia. Have you at any time used any other user name? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I have not. But I acquired experience while editing in the Bulgarian Wikipedia and Bogorm is since approximately one month the global name for all other language-editions of Wikipedia, where I am active, it is not only the bg Wikipedia. Bogorm (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision (Balkans warring). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why am I referred to it? Have I edited any article on the English Wikipedia related to Macedonia? Because in the immediate past I am not able to recollect such edit of mine... Bogorm (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it refers to Balkans article in general see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Area of conflict. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

As you are new to the English Wikipeida and are actively repeatedly editing Radovan Karadzic related pages you also need to read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule so that you are familiar with its restrictions and do not breach them. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you mean Arrest of Radovan Karadžić‎, that is why I engaged in the discussion page in an effort to find a suitable place for Delić' statement. And my last edit by which I tagged unsourced material is not to be considered reversion, is it? Thanks for the link anyway. Bogorm (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you permit me the reverently posed question: Is such an user to be considered novice? Bogorm (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Цхинвал(и)

Привет! По правилам английской википедии статьи о городах и других географических объектах называеются тем именем, которое более распространено в английском языке. Название Tskhinvali употребляется намного чаще чем Tskhinval в сми, научных статьях и книгах, так что никаких шансов добиться переименования нет, мне кажется. Alæxis_¿question? 19:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Жаль! А в испанском языке оно наверное в такой же степени распространенно, но у них правила по-видимому в большей степени соответствует официальным (вот как следует называть статьи, причем еще с ноября 2007!)... Хотя Бенгалуру еще сохраняет старую форму даже и там к сожалению. Успеха Вам в ваших вкладах в исп. Вике. Bogorm (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Пасибо )) Alæxis_¿question? 11:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

nato propaganda

hi, nato is too powerful a propaganda machine for me to tackle..they keep reverting to biased pov version..help sought to revert as i have already intervened twice(third time will violate 3rr).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityvalyu (talk • contribs) 10:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am too desolated by the scale of the POV intrusion. I shall do what I can. Bogorm (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

hi, as i have already intervened twice(third time will violate 3rr), i dont understand how wiki expects users to eat a nato masala of lies and selectively distorted facts..like the great story of un unauthorised "coalition of willing" for invading sovereign nation of iraq to "find weapons of mass destruction(i mean saddam and oil i guess;) ) "..really funny morals!! .. though i neither belong to nato nation nor russia, i prefer neutrality..so,please do try what you can.thanks Cityvalyu (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"a few"

Actually, three states supporting Russia is almost exactly what "a few" would make people think of, so it's not the least bit misleading. "Several" would suggest more than just three. We can certainly change the wording if & when more states support Russia. kwami (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

National varieties of English

In a recent edit to the page Template:About lists of countries and territories, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you.  :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

One question: if in one article about an international topic there are 40 references from British sources and 40 from other non-British dialects (with the word recognise/...z... in each one) does it mean that the Wikipedia article should contain 40 recognise-forms and 40 ...z...-forms? Would not that be a complete mess? As you see, I have switched no article which does not concern Eurasia to the only possible Eurasian(=British) form. As you see, a similar question emerges exempli gratia here, where any non-British misspellings are rebuked by an overwhelming majority. Bogorm (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Answered by responding in that thread at Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia/Archive_1#British English. It's not the most elegant solution (it doesn't please everyone), but it is what we use throughout Wikipedia. Hope that helps :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider your stance giving preference to the wrong non-Eurasian variant of English for an article consecrated to Eurasia ineffably lamentable. Bogorm (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not my stance! It's the Manual of Style guideline wording.

I'm a Brit living in Canada, subjected to pervasive American media - hence I find nationalistic spelling arguments more than a little amusing. For example, the word color is the original Latin spelling, and the French changed it to "-our", but try explaining that to a nationalistic Brit!

Ineffable. Marvelous word. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of the Lingua latina - that is why "-our" is indispensable, because otherwise one would not be able to distinguish the spiritual common (non-medical) "rigour" from rigor (medicine). The non-Commonwealth speakers of English seemingly do not distinguish them. Furthermore, the French was the official spoken language of Britain from 10th to 14th century and there is no use in skirmishing from which language all this words came. (Latin was then as well as now, except the church and science, a written, id est, an uncommon language) Bogorm (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Commenting editors' sexual orientation (committed by this user and moved from his talk page after him erasing a warning)

The next time you indulge in suppositions concerning others' sexual orientation this would be considered a relapse into today's impudent affront and reported where necessary. As for now, I content myself with the following warning:Bogorm (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
( ... warning template ) Bogorm (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning and its justification

It is just a phrase in English, not one about sexual orientation. Please don't template my page with meaningless crap. Narson (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? For your unsound claim please consider the explanation of the word here and here . Your statement is a severe, impudent and insulting affront! Bogorm (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(From the user's talk page, on which his only response was deleting it)

(Concerning the comment in this edit) I do not contest you being a native speaker but that is not going to deprive the infamous insulting word of its clear-cut meaning here(one guilty of crime against nature - claiming this is a severe defamation, as I have never committed peccatum contra naturam!). Therefore claiming it is "meaningless" is completely inane. Bogorm (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I can speak English, it is my native language. To play silly buggers is to act the fool, or are you seriously suggesting that phrases such as 'The dogs bollocks' are literally referring to the testes of a canine? Seriously, you are welcome to bring an admin in. Narson (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

On the next reckless use of this insult defaming my sexuality and constituting an inherent, caustic and brusque hint to my nationality (etymology) or of semantically similar ones you can certes reckon on that. Bogorm (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are on about. I have also not mentioned your nationality. Narson (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See the definition and etymology in Webster's dictionary (quoted above) - the explicit insult is the use of the word, the inherent caustic hint is its etymology. Bogorm (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the phrase "playing silly buggers", it has nothing to do with sex. See [1] [2]. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Здрасти

Здравеи,аз чух че ти имаш малък проблем с user:Narson. Той не е искал да те обиди,каза ми го на IRC. Моля те,успокой се. --Fireaxe888 (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Добре, след твоите уверения смекчих някои изрази. Ще забравя този въпрос засега. Bogorm (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism mentions in edit summaries

Thanks for using edit summaries, but please be careful with what you call vandalism. Your undo here may not have been vandalism, and calling it that likely will escalate tensions. For future reference, please have a look at Wikipedia:VAND#What_is_not_vandalism. Thanks for understanding!

P.S. I'm still evaluating whether or not we need a protection or not. —— nixeagle 12:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I shall abstain from using the word promisuously in the future, but as President Daniel Ortega stated: "the Government of Nicaragua recognises"(sourced citation from the article) and the summary of the edit I reverted was : "Nicaragua did not recognise..." - this is if not vandalism, fallacious inanity, is not it? Source manipulation was not among Wikipedia:VAND#What_is_not_vandalism, therefore I would request a more detailed exposition. (may not have been != has not been) Bogorm (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Again please be careful about calling another editor's edits vandalism as you did in this Talk:International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia#Nicaragua section. They are not being malicious, nor do they intend harm to the encyclopedia. You both just have two different points of view. There seems to be two points of view on that topic, those that say that the president is the only person that "matters" for recognizing an independent state, and those that say that parliament must approve it. Instead of insulting others, consider making a new section explaining what you think, and inviting opinion and compromise. Its much better if you guys can find a way to agree then to fall down to insulting each other's edits. —— nixeagle 19:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of trying to convince them, I simply showed them this map (right), where the Presidential forms are clear-cut: Nicaragua is in the same colour as USA, ergo, Presidential form of government. Succinct and incontestable. I did not mean to insult anyone, but was instead indignant about questioning the authority of the greatest news agencies : Reuters and RIA Novosti. Bogorm (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, while what I said is still true, I apologize for telling you this after you said above you would restrict your usage (of the word vandalism). The post I'm referring to above was done before my original note to you. Apologies about this. —— nixeagle 19:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I accept it and shall circumspectly use henceforth the notion. By the way, insulting remarks are to be found on User:Elysander's talk page, where two users (including me) warned him about repeated violation of WP:NPA and defamations (debunking, POV-insertors, defaming Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías as El Loco) Bogorm (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bogorm, if I see it quickly enough I will do my best to uphold the idea that you guys should work together. Unfortunately I can't read everything, my primary focus is on the main talk page, and the article itself. I will try to keep an eye on things for the future though. —— nixeagle 20:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh bah! I missed your next comment, and that is well and good. Just watch how you come across to others please. Its much better if you guys can try to agree on things then to sit and call each other vandals ;). —— nixeagle 19:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and a word of advice, try to find a source other then a wikipedia map (unless thats a public domain map somewhere). Its generally a bad idea to rely on ourselves (wikipedia) for sources on contentious topics. —— nixeagle 19:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to be confusing, I mean a public domain map taken from a reputable source. (I'll leave the debate for what reputable is to you guys). —— nixeagle 19:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting

Regarding your message at Hersfold's talk page, please note that an AFD isn't a majority vote. Pondybaba (talk · contribs) was blocked from Wikipedia for canvassing and sockpuppeting. His contribution to the AfD debate is thereby pretty much void. --Soman (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I had already fathomed that from the inferior section, yours was en effet superfluous. Bogorm (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I posted my comment 20 minuted before Hersfold. Thus, at the time of posting, it wasn't superflous. --Soman (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Striking votes

A couple reasons - firstly, I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't a sockpuppet himself. Next, his comment was almost directly copied from another !vote, and so wouldn't have counted for much in the closing anyway. Thirdly, we generally don't count the opinions of blocked users, regardless of the reason they were blocked, as we're generally looking for opinions of editors in good standing (which does not exclude IP editors, since they switch around). Finally, I've just about had it with the disruption on that AfD and related articles, and I want to make it clear it's not going to be tolerated any further. How I got dragged into this mess I'm still not sure, but I'm tired of it and want it to stop. If striking votes is a way to get that point across, they're going to get struck. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland

Hello Bogorm. Sarah777 wanted to create that article (months ago), but I resisted. Well, I won't resist anymore. As far as I'm concerned, ya'll can create as many articles as you wish, to counter articles ya'll feel are British PoV. PS- I'm getting that seperate but equal solution idea, again. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, but you are not permitting a move, the notion BI seems to have a too long tradition to be surmounted... Bogorm (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't stop the page from being moved; but I recommend against moving it. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I have bad news for you - I am ushering a move request with blue and red arrows and so forth, because one user already supported my proposal and hopefully Sarah377 will join. It is not prohibited, is it? Bogorm (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If the page gets moved, it wouldn't be bad news for me. I'm not here to surpress people (that's not my way). GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Rquesting a MOVE isn't prohibited, but moving it will be! --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Five Pillars

You can't change the WP:COMMONNAME of a term that is in use. There was a TV programme balled "British Isles" not so long ago, and poeple in Ireland do use it too, even though many don't. It is an awkward term, yes - but we cannot censor its use!!! (see WP:CENSOR). Censoring a term is against Wikipdia policy (see WP:POLICY). Do you understand the Wikipedia is not a political soapbox? This is important, becaues rules are rules. Please see WP:Pillars for the basic Wikipedia rules. We can explain the problem with the 'British Isles' term - but we cannot remove the name of the term.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Vraiment? But you wrote that cartographers are incessantly abandoning it. Furthermore, I will not be the man who would move it, since this question appertains to the Éireann people and if they (and neutrally inclined other) prevail, how could possibly a Bulgarian chap perform the move. I will only request the move and see what will turn out, ok? Bogorm (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote "There is evidence to suggest that alternative terms like "Britain and Ireland" have been increasingly used by cartographers over recent years.[r]!! Actually there is little evidence in my opinion (and it will be hard to cite) - the line was mostly a compromise by me! Map makers have been very slowly using it less and less for many years: I think it is a natural occurance that occurs over time. Remember - it's not up to Wikipedia to push the river. I mean that time deals with these matters - not Wikipedia. People and politicians can belp - but the cry for change over British Isles is mainly on WIkipedia only. Don't be confused the the loudeness of some poeple here. In Ireland and the UK you simply don't hear such protests at all. Honestly - I feel you are being mislead here. There is honestly no political move to abandon the term. It is an awkward term, yes - but we can say that! It's use in society is geographical. The republic of Ireland is more succesful than Britain right now - it is not being surpressed!--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Alea iacta est. Bogorm (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you understand that on Wikipedia people can gather togeter over a matter, which on the outside world may not even be heard of in the place the 'matter' is about! Not all revolutions are sensible, and the real 'people' have to suport them for a start! And Wikipedia isn't the place to create revolutions. Wikipdia can exaplain issues in the outside world - but it must never attempt to create them. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not created anything - the article (B. a I.) had existed before mine involvement and must have been created forsooth by a combattant for neutrality and detachment from the colonial past. I hope you do not mind that I became involved, but I will not settle for any colonial (the IP you warned had used i...st, but... well, I shall preserve mine attitude towards this for myself) terminology being represented in a neutral encyclopedia. And I am an admirer for the struggle of the Irish people to acquire their independence from the former (not so mild) ruler, since Bulgarians have been too struggling for independence from the Turkish yoke and since now Abkhazian and Ossetian people are yearning for independence, but the former ruler Georgia and its allies, one of whom an imperial power, and one a former one, are hampering that. You see, I am an admirer of Irish, Ossetian and Abkhazian people yearning for independence, it is so difficult to detach yourself from your possession and when you have done it to cease craving after its reacquisition, I think I can comprehend it too... The Turks still call Bulgaria Bulgaristan, lamentable, is not it? I pray you reverently to have understanding with me as I have with Sarah777. Bogorm (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

But Sarah is re-living old aggressions from history! Ireland is peaceful and prosperous, and its people are welcome and successful wherever they go in the whole world too! Northern Ireland contains a majority of British people who have a right to be there (and they have been for hundreds of years). They have created a Northern Ireland parliament (10 years now). The citizens in Northern Ireland have a right to Irish citizenship if they want, and even relinquish British citizenship, even though the UK subsidises them through taxes! The climate across the island of Ireland is for peace. So why stir up bad feeling connected to the past? Sarah is not actually oppressed in any shape or form! --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia? from Georgian hands to Russian hands. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, do not disparage the proclamation of independence, they are independent now, liberated, just as Bulgarian people in 1878: Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), when the British Empire connived to Turkish atrocities in the April Uprising and sent ships in Constantinople, how they connived to Georgian misdeeds in Tskhinvali and send the navy in Batumi (the Americans) ! Otherwise I retaliate: Kosovo - from Serbian, i. e. Slavic hands, to Albanian hands. I suggest we both cease for now, ok: WP:NOTFORUM ! Bogorm (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

But do you still resent the British for the April Uprising? If you come to Britain you will simply find people like me. I've actually not been impressed by the governments we have had for the last 30 years - but I don't blame Britain for it, even though we voted them in! And that is modern times too.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, of course, there were sympathetical Brites at the time - William Gladstone disclosed the Ottoman atrocities committed during the uprising to Europe. It was this villain who sent the ships and at the Berliner Kongress wanted to exclude Sofia from Bulgaria, but Fürst Otto von Bismarck shot him down at this(and Sofia was included). So I admire Gladstone and Bismarck and resent D. Bogorm (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's what they want, though - why not? All small countries need trading partners. Imagine if the UK turned its back on Scotland if it came independent? they shouldn't really have been Georgian, so this kind of readjustment was bound to happen in time. The split of USSR was hardly perfect.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"The split of USSR was hardly perfect" - the split was caused by Gorbachev, who came into power under obscure circumstances - consider this in the article about Grigory Romanov(I have no contributions there): In some other accounts it has also been alleged that Romanov and two of his supporters in the Politburo were out of town and not informed of the emergency meeting held to elect Chernenko's successor and that had they been present Romanov would have had enough votes to either become the new General Secretary or block Gorbachev from attaining the position. But it is late, I shall log out for today. Good night, I am rather despondent by the voting procedure for Britain and Ireland... Nonetheles... Bogorm (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Have no fear Bogorm. IP 86.xxx.xxx is too entertaining, to be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

His 'Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough' bit to me was certainly not something I'd seek admin intervention with. His comments to GoodDay were perhaps over the top, but it is GoodDay's right to be offended by them or not. As for hearing the other side, Bogorm, I just have to talk to my Irish family to hear it. I am aware of the conflict, of its history... I just don't feel the proposal is correct nor do I think pandering to a minority (And in my experience of the Irish, those who hold this view are in a minority, just a vocal one) is what we are here for. Narson (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Namaste mahashri

I noticed you title Advani and Singh as 'Shri', but not Jaitley. Are the former two more equal than the latter? --Soman (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not very knowledgeable about their biographies, but the titles are copied in accordance with the quoted documents. You should ask some Indian user, I only accidentally came across the documents in question. Bogorm (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mikheil Saakashvili

Do you think he has any qualification to be labeled as democracy activist? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. His regime is repressive and that can be corroborated with dozens of reputable sources. Is he described in any article as "democracy activist"? I would be taken aback by such a blatant POV Bogorm (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

He is included within Category:Georgian democracy activists. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That was the most inane POV, I came across her. Bogorm (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on 2008 South Ossetia war. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please consider my complaint about the IP erasing others' comments and launching menaces stated several hours ago. Bogorm (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what IP are you referring to? Tiptoety ^talk 20:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Here Bogorm (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(To user Biophys in WP:AN/3RR): Well, 1 unreliable from 1 country maybe, 2 unreliable from 2 countries hardly, but 7 unreliable from 4 different countries in two continents goes over the top, to say the least! Bogorm (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point for discussion at an article talk page but not a reason for 3RR violation.Biophys (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(TO Tiptoety): I suggest you to reconsider the blocking, since the user-proponent has not shown any evdence as to what have I reverted - here is the refutation of his calumniatory claims:

• The first edit of mine quoted is a result of [3], but is not reciprocal reversion!
• The fourth edit quoted by him is a result of [4], but is not reciprocal reversion!
• The fifth edit quoted by him is a result of [5], but not its reciprocal reversion!
• The sixth edit is the remocal of one single word and no reciprocal reversion - the word being inserted by this edit!
• The third edit is removal of unsourced defamations such as "pro-Russian politician"(unsourced), "mostly former Warsaw pact ex-communist officials(severe unsourced defamation, [6]) and pro-Russian Baltic activists" and is not to be considered reversion as per Wikipedia:Libel. (Kabanov, labelled as ex-c. official is born in 1970 and with 19 years in 1989 when the communism ended in Latvia can not have been any official - date of birth!)

If your decision is not retracted, all this evidence of misleading perpetrated by Grey Fox (half of whose allegations are mendacious as per the superior evidence) is going to be shown at WP:ANI/3RR and appeal is going to be initiated where necessary. Bogorm (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your block is set to expire in 1 1/2 hours, just sit it out. Tiptoety ^talk 19:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Magna est uis ueritatis et praeualebit. (used as dedication by him) Bogorm (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

PaK or PoK

Nice to see your message. Even I strongly believe that PoK article should exist on WP. But since the fact is that Pakistan "administer"s the area it is more nearer to the fact than word occupied. So I did give up on the discussion. But as stated by one of the participant - Indian viewpoint of PoK can be accomodated in the article. So I would be proceed to do so. Let's keep a watch on the article now as the AfD decision is unlikely to be reverted. What matter's is article and not AfD. Very few read AfDs and all read articles. So if the Indian viewpoint gets accepted on the article the fight is won :-) --gppande «talk» 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish you sincerely good luck in this, since I am/was sypathetic too. I have relinquished the English Wikipedia. Bogorm (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI report

I would advise you not to interpret calling attention to your actions a personal attack. You should actually read what it says there. You're heading for a harassment block if you continue. Toddst1 (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am complaining about harassing "disruptive edit" summaries of this administrator in his summary. If you see the above section, he states only 3RR, but in his summary claims disruptive edits with no evidence. Well, serious 3RR-violator, what about the vandal erasing indiscriminately Russian sources WP:Vandalism:

“ Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. ”

If you do not perceive "he can't be convinced of anything" as personal attack, I perceive it, it is a comment on the contributor! Bogorm (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

would you deign to expound what leads you to the thought of "serious 3RR violator", when 4 of the 8 alleged reversions are refuted as calumny? Because I restore the RIA Novosti and Russia Today sources after being incessantly and recklessly expurgated, is that serious violation or because I report persistent vandalism (see above)? Whereon exactly is the accusation "serious" founded? Bogorm (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, superciliously not deigning to respond or present any explications just because the user was blocked is probably based on the presumption "Administrators are infallable when blocking" "eight handpicked edits from one user are enough for blocking" (alas that I did not make 3 edits per day in summa, if I only knew about this primi inter pares practice...), no matter how many evidence is presented by the defendor, he is eo ipso always an irrelevant person. I relinquish this Wikipedia for good, feel free to connive in further expurgations of all-kinds of inconvenient sources, no matter how reliable or renowned they are. Bogorm (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

THIS IS MINE ULTIMATE EDIT IN THIS ENVIRONMENT. Bogorm (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

EVIDENCE FOR INJUST AND CALUMNIATORY ACCUSATIONS OF 3RR OVERLOOKED: (from WP:ANI/3RR, version of 9 Sep, 20:30)

• 1st revert: [7]

(Complete lie: the precedent edit was [8] and it is no reciprocal reversion Bogorm (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)).

• 2nd revert: [9]
• 3rd revert: [10]

( False accusation: edit is removal of unsourced defamations such as "pro-Russian politician"(unsourced), "mostly former Warsaw pact ex-communist officials(severe unsourced defamation, [11]) and pro-Russian Baltic activists" and is not to be considered reversion as per Wikipedia:Libel. (Kabanov, labelled as ex-c. official is born in 1970 and with 19 years in 1989 when the communism ended in Latvia can not have been any c. official - date of birth! Bogorm (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

• 4th revert: [12]

(Complete lie: the precedent edit was [13] and it is no reciprocal reversion Bogorm (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)).

• 5th revert: [14]

(Complete lie: the precedent edit was [15] and it is no reciprocal reversion Bogorm (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)).

• 6th revert: [16]

(Complete lie: this is removal of one single word and no reciprocal reversion - the word (together with hundreds of others) being inserted by this edit Bogorm (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

• 7th revert: [17]
• 8th revert: [18]

September 2008

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users, specifically this edit after release of block and subsequent warning about harassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bogrom, you should listen. Remember what I told you on 3RR noticebord about WP:CIV? Never ever call another user "vandal". Also, never argue with admins. This only makes things worse. Better to politely admit your fault. Remember, admins do not judge content issues; they only judge behavior and violations of WP rules. Worst of all, you apparently evaded the block. Do not do this again and wait for expiration of the block.Biophys (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Worst of all, you apparently evaded the block." What do you mean? (As far as I know, block evasion is creating of a sockpuppet and editting with it or with the own IP, right? I declare that I have not made either of this.) Bogorm (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And cease to distort my username, please, as in the previous comment! Bogorm (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 fortnight in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for block evasion, continued harassment and violations of WP:CIVIL. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Explain where did you behold evidence for this accusation? Whereon is it founded? (As far as I know, block evasion is creating of a sockpuppet and editting with it or with the own IP, right? I declare that I have not made either of this.) Bogorm (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I demand explication of this unjustified edit consisting in blaming me without providing any evidence or even naming the alleged sockpuppets. Bogorm (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you accused me of misusing 209.172.104.100 (talk · contribs), who wrote something on your talk page.

• First of all, I reside in Bulgaria, and you can make yourself familiar with the whereabouts of the 209.172.104.100 - does it sound like Eastern Europe?
• Secondly, after you blocked me in 21:00 (UTC) (00:00 EET, my time), I went abed and there is no way that I was awake in 00:20 (03:20 EET). Bogorm (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Understand that any further attempts at evading this block will result in a longer block and could even lead to indef. Tiptoety ^talk 00:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Bogorm, if that was not you, you should wait for the end of the block, and then ask for a checkuser report. If the report turns out to be negative, you should discuss this matter with blocking admininstrator, Toddst1. Biophys (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've saved you the trouble: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bogorm. Toddst1 (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you intend to persevere in accusing me of having a sockpuppet and to preserve the humiliating template on my user page? Mine IP is always static and even when I am not logged in any edit of mine during blocking is unthinkable. If the checkuser can verify that any edit of mine from these is made by one single IP (81.xx) and thereby reject the unrelated 209.xx of US origin (I reside in Bulgaria), then this would be a laudable step, if you requested it. Bogorm (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you (or the checkuser) think of the information provided in WHOIS (the last link):

“ NetRange: 209.172.64.0 - 209.172.127.255
Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE ”

Bogorm (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure. This probably means that the matter is at the discretion of WP administrators who are familiar with the case. I personally think there are two possibilities here. Either that was you acting through a proxy server, or that was your impostor who acted very quickly to get you blocked for block evasion. In the latter case, this impostor (IP address) just received a 6 month block he deserved.Biophys (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not oppose the 6 month-block. Furthermore, I am obliged to underscore that:

• I am not prone to using the abbreviated forms of "I do not" and "I have", as does the IP on his talk page.
• I am not awake at 2:00 am EET (23:00 UTC) and have not been for years.
• I find now the sockpuppet template on my user page denigrating (as well as the summary in the blocking), after the suspicion of the administrator has not been corroborated.
• I can e-mail a screenshot taken when I am not logged in and click on the "edit" button to the checkuser to verify that I am using a static IP. I am eager to provide evidence to the checkuser in order to be deprived of the current disreputation which has not been confirmed and which is imposed on my user page. Bogorm (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bogorm for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Bogorm. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Bogorm again. Toddst1 (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Misuse of Template:Sockpuppeteer. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

An article you have edited has been proposed for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Colmenares. An article you have edited has been proposed for deletion and I thought you might want to voice your opinion. Toddst1 (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Final Warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Nancy_Colmenares, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This edit where you accuse yet another person you disagree with of disruption (or other malfeasance) is the latest in a string of many uncalled-for accusations. The next time you fail to assume good faith or otherwise act with incivility you will be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:Bogorm/Inane

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:User:Bogorm/Inane|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Toddst1 (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you capable of discerning Talk space from User space? There is no guidelines interdicting my preferable language for all my contributions in the User space and it is ineffably regrettable that this has not become clear-cut for you. This last comment of you would have fitted into "Inane", had I not retired, as would fitted a proposal for examining future administrators' capability of ditinguishing the spaces in Wikipedia and the guidelines for them. Bogorm (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User:Bogorm/Inane in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your intrusion in a personal subpage of mine will be remembered, your effort at defaming and discrediting the English Wikipedia by your personal discriminatory actions and ignorance, as will be your incapability to read the two greatest languages in Europe - Latin and Russian - in five other Wikipedias there is no discrimination against English text in the not-main space. This page was not attack page and I shall demand justice for your deliberate, clear-cut directed personally against me action. In this Wikipedia there are too many ignorant editors prefering to delete whatever they see in non-English languages without trying to ask a third party.
Moreover, your incapability of quoting any Wikipedia rule restricting the allowed languages in not-main space only discloses the inane and intrusive nature of this assault. Bogorm (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If you intend to persevere in this manner and expurgate all non-English text from Wikipedia, why do not you impose your frenzied deletionism on the sources in 5 different languages in Nancy Colmenares, which I WAS CAPABLE OF READING, UNDERSTANDING, RECAPITULATING and QUOTING in the article. Because it is main space, your resentment did not express itself in reckless deletions, since I will immediately ask Norwegian, Japanese and Spanish administrators to revert it, but here just because it is in an ancient language, you indulge in deleting it uncoditionally without even asking about any racount of the content.

“ IS SALTEM ILLVD MEMINERIT, PVLCHRVM ESSE A STVLTICIA VITVPERARI ”

from this personality, whose name is known to any educated and intelligent person. Bogorm (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

According to Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Common_questions 4. All blocks can be reviewed by, and discussed with, a different administrator who is not involved, if requested.
5. Note that "indefinite" does not necessarily mean "long" or "infinite". It means "however long is needed for the user to address the issue". I request a review of my block by an uninvolved administrator as stipulated in the fourth point. Concerning the fifth point, I am ready to admit that I showed obstinacy in pushing POV to the article about the 2008 South Ossetian war and I repent of having done so. My point of view led to some caustic altercations on the talk page of the article and to mistrust. Apart from my first two edits, I started editing WP in June 2008 and until September 2008 I had not familiarised myself with various practices, which is not the case any more (since I have been active on some other WM projects). In the meantime, I have been editing various Wikimedia projects and on two of them I was trusted with admin tools: English Wiktionary and Serbo-Croatian Wiktionary [19], [20]. Therefore, by admitting my obstinacy concerning the article about the 2008 war I would like to request that I be unblocked after enduring three and a half years of block as a consequence of my relentless POV of old. I am ready to promise not to edit articles in the political area for the next 6 or 12 months, to abstain from incivility, and to observe the remaining WP rules. Bogorm (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your block was for disruptive editing and harassment, and your request here provides no assurances about the harassment issues, which are fairly serious from looking at your past editing (especially in relation to admins who were involved with responding to your conduct). If you ask to be unblocked again, please provide assurances in relation to this issue, and also identify what it is that you wish to work on. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2012 (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.

In addition, I would like to request that the template on my user page be removed for the following reasons: 1) the discussion of the alleged sockpuppetry involved no one but me, the suspecting administrator, and a user with whom I was at odds due to vehement discord on the talk page of the 2008 war's article. No third party, uninvolved, participant took part in it. 2) On the CU page the checkuser reached the conclusion inconclusive. Notwithstanding, Template:sockpuppeteer has been inserted into my user page. Bogorm (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Ok, after Nick-D asked about the reasons for what the blocking administrator describes as disruption and harrassment, I shall provide them. They are here. In nuce, after the discussion about the 2008 war got virulent and I was blocked for breaking the 3RR rule, I decided myself too to report other persons who broke that rule (in my perception). After my report had been declined, I became eager to prove my point and indulged in scathing remarks about my report's rejection which I then perceived as indignant. As I said above, I repent of those actions, including eagerness to prove my point in an obstinate and perhaps rude manner. I repent of behaving obstinately and perhaps rudely and I pledge to abide by guidelines, especially those concerning civility. I had been involved in English Wikipedia for 3 months before the block (June-August 2008) and had failed by that time to make myself familiar with certain guidelines and to abide by them. Subsequent experience in other projects has helped me redress that shortcoming. As for disruptive editing (in the article namespace), this amounts to breaking the 3RR rule and the POV in the article about the 2008 war which I regret. Therefore, in order to address those issues, I pledge not to edit political articles for the next 6 or 12 months (with regard to the article namespace) and to be civil in the interaction with other editors (with regard to other namespaces). I am not blocked indefinitely on any other WP project and have won the community's trust in two other Wikimedia projects. Thus I dare to say that I am capable of being a civil and cooperative contributor and entreat for a chance to prove it here too.
The harrassment from the block summary is also linked to some IP editing Toddst1's talk page at 1:34 a.m. EET (when I am never awake) shortly after I was blocked. Toddst1 assumed that said edit was made by me, which was not confirmed on the CU page (inconclusive). Bogorm (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I suppose the abovestated question „identify what it is that you wish to work on.“ refers to the articles I intend to create if released. My interests are Russian bard music, Japanese enka music, Siberia and some other topics. I have written various articles in other editions of wikipedia about them such as fr:Janna Bitchevskaïa or de:Akemi Misawa, sh:Хонуу and so on. My knowledge of Russian and Japanese facilitates collating and recapitulating information in those languages. Classical music is also part of my interests. Bogorm (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I am willing to believe that, after more than three and a half years, you have changed your attitude, and certainly I see nothing in your record on other Wikimedia projects to suggest that the problems that led to your block will continue. I hope and trust that you can now contribute constructively to the English Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing those assurances, and welcome back to editing here. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I copied that section to my current talk page. Might I ask you to delete my user page and User:Bogorm/SCO. I want to start afresh. Bogorm (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

According to Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Common_questions 4. All blocks can be reviewed by, and discussed with, a different administrator who is not involved, if requested.
5. Note that "indefinite" does not necessarily mean "long" or "infinite". It means "however long is needed for the user to address the issue". I request a review of my block by an uninvolved administrator as stipulated in the fourth point. Concerning the fifth point, I am ready to admit that I showed obstinacy in pushing POV to the article about the 2008 South Ossetian war and I repent of having done so. My point of view led to some caustic altercations on the talk page of the article and to mistrust. Apart from my first two edits, I started editing WP in June 2008 and until September 2008 I had not familiarised myself with various practices, which is not the case any more (since I have been active on some other WM projects). In the meantime, I have been editing various Wikimedia projects and on two of them I was trusted with admin tools: English Wiktionary and Serbo-Croatian Wiktionary [21], [22]. Therefore, by admitting my obstinacy concerning the article about the 2008 war I would like to request that I be unblocked after enduring three and a half years of block as a consequence of my relentless POV of old. I am ready to promise not to edit articles in the political area for the next 6 or 12 months, to abstain from incivility, and to observe the remaining WP rules. Bogorm (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your block was for disruptive editing and harassment, and your request here provides no assurances about the harassment issues, which are fairly serious from looking at your past editing (especially in relation to admins who were involved with responding to your conduct). If you ask to be unblocked again, please provide assurances in relation to this issue, and also identify what it is that you wish to work on. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2012 (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.

In addition, I would like to request that the template on my user page be removed for the following reasons: 1) the discussion of the alleged sockpuppetry involved no one but me, the suspecting administrator, and a user with whom I was at odds due to vehement discord on the talk page of the 2008 war's article. No third party, uninvolved, participant took part in it. 2) On the CU page the checkuser reached the conclusion inconclusive. Notwithstanding, Template:sockpuppeteer has been inserted into my user page. Bogorm (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Ok, after Nick-D asked about the reasons for what the blocking administrator describes as disruption and harrassment, I shall provide them. They are here. In nuce, after the discussion about the 2008 war got virulent and I was blocked for breaking the 3RR rule, I decided myself too to report other persons who broke that rule (in my perception). After my report had been declined, I became eager to prove my point and indulged in scathing remarks about my report's rejection which I then perceived as indignant. As I said above, I repent of those actions, including eagerness to prove my point in an obstinate and perhaps rude manner. I repent of behaving obstinately and perhaps rudely and I pledge to abide by guidelines, especially those concerning civility. I had been involved in English Wikipedia for 3 months before the block (June-August 2008) and had failed by that time to make myself familiar with certain guidelines and to abide by them. Subsequent experience in other projects has helped me redress that shortcoming. As for disruptive editing (in the article namespace), this amounts to breaking the 3RR rule and the POV in the article about the 2008 war which I regret. Therefore, in order to address those issues, I pledge not to edit political articles for the next 6 or 12 months (with regard to the article namespace) and to be civil in the interaction with other editors (with regard to other namespaces). I am not blocked indefinitely on any other WP project and have won the community's trust in two other Wikimedia projects. Thus I dare to say that I am capable of being a civil and cooperative contributor and entreat for a chance to prove it here too.
The harrassment from the block summary is also linked to some IP editing Toddst1's talk page at 1:34 a.m. EET (when I am never awake) shortly after I was blocked. Toddst1 assumed that said edit was made by me, which was not confirmed on the CU page (inconclusive). Bogorm (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I suppose the abovestated question „identify what it is that you wish to work on.“ refers to the articles I intend to create if released. My interests are Russian bard music, Japanese enka music, Siberia and some other topics. I have written various articles in other editions of wikipedia about them such as fr:Janna Bitchevskaïa or de:Akemi Misawa, sh:Хонуу and so on. My knowledge of Russian and Japanese facilitates collating and recapitulating information in those languages. Classical music is also part of my interests. Bogorm (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I am willing to believe that, after more than three and a half years, you have changed your attitude, and certainly I see nothing in your record on other Wikimedia projects to suggest that the problems that led to your block will continue. I hope and trust that you can now contribute constructively to the English Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Might I ask you to delete my user page and User:Bogorm/SCO. I want to start afresh. Bogorm (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)