User talk:Wanderer602/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Initial content

Welcome!

Hello, Wanderer602, 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --PeaceNT (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Leningrad siege

Hello! Sorry for my add in the article a moment ago. The maps at Commons had me bewildered, and some of them aren't very clear on the subject of when the shoreline of Ladoga was reached.--Paracel63 (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and no problems. Maps of WWII operations are indeed sometimes confusing - its not uncommon to see even major cities or locations displaced. However it is usually noted that had Germans reached shored of Lake Ladoga on September 8th however there are some which place the final encirclement as being completed a week or so later. Germans initially held only a minor strip of the coast of Lake Ladoga (namely Shlisselburg) so in that respect the map which is seen in the commons is not that far off. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Continuation War (and the noticeboard)

Please! --Whiskey (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes? - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's move discussion from noticeboard to talk-page. Thanks!

Well, you didn't get my intention properly. I wanted you to think two possible ways how Finnish documents doesn't provide correct image, if we take their writers did wrote the truth as they saw it. (BTW, I already have two in my mind, I'll provide them to the discussion after you and YMB have provided yours.) --Whiskey (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

3-RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Continuation War. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.--Germash19 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Had you actually read what i wrote there you would have noticed that it wasn't just a revert. Also please provide a single quote from the Jokipii's book (translated) that actually explains how the taking back the land was a goal in WWII instead of only in Continuation War. FYI WWII for Finland included one little thing also known as the 'Winter War'. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Article about Continuation War, not about Winter war.--Germash19 (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Article is indeed, however the statement you altered referred to World War II as a whole (from Finnish POV it consisted of all three: Winter War, Continuation War, and Lapland War). Finnish goal for WWII as a whole could not have been 'retaking lost lands' since no lands had been lost prior to the World War II. Retaking the land was important goal for the Continuation War however. And Soviet actions during and after the Winter War were an importnat reason as to why Continuation War happened as it did. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Only part of historians consider Winter war as part WWII. There is article Military history of Finland during World War II--Germash19 (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Western (and Finnish) historians include it to the WWII - as does World War II wikipage, it is generally the misconception that GPW is synonymous with WWII that confuses the people in this regard. Joint German and Soviet invasion of Poland is generally considered as the starting point of WWII and Winter War happened after that as second Soviet aggression of WWII. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Continuation War is one of the Eastern European articles subject to DIGWUREN sanctions

Hello Wanderer602. You and User:Germash19 are getting into some trouble on that article, and I notice you were both blocked recently for 24 hours. Admins are unlikely to permit a two-person dispute to continue raging for several weeks on that article. Since you evidently have some knowledge about this war and you are able to write Wikipedia prose, I urge you to be patient and work through the talk age. For instance, to settle the question whether any statistics from the Leningrad siege belong in this article. One way to do this is to open a WP:Request for comment. I am also leaving you the formal notice of discretionary sanctions for articles in eastern Europe.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

— Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No problems about that one. I repeatedly suggested User:Germash19 to argue his case in the talk page - as have several other editors who reverted his repeated edits - however so far he has ignored the requests. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 Hours for Disruptive Editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Bottom line: I don't care who's right and who's wrong in this dispute. I protected Battle of Tali-Ihantala so as to avoid blocking either of you and to encourage collaborative discussion. Since you are more interested in reverting User:YMB29 as opposed to discussing, as shown by your revert immediately after protection expired, you are, unfortunately, blocked to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it is then illegal in wikipedia to revert edits which are done against wikipedia rules. Or at least by your judgment that is so. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk about double standards. Without any discussion the changes were once again reverted. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I explained my changes. Others actually agree with me about simplifying the intro and separating the two views.[1][2] -YMB29 (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

All true except what you did was not 'simplifying' the intro, you removed reliably sourced statement of the result from the intro and replaced it with one that you are comfortable with. That is POV pushing, nothing else. Furthermore you made the changes before even attempting to find an agreement in the talk page. First diff only agreed that intro should be simplified, not with your interpretation of simplifying it. Also the second diff only agrees with that Baryshnikov is a biased poor quality source, nothing else. In other words you are once again representing their statements as something else than what they really were. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't read carefully; that is your problem: if you insist in mixing (a) Soviet/nationalist Russian versions versus (b) Finnish versus (c) outside Western scholarship in a sea of endless mishmosh of "he said, she said, they said", it might be better to present those separately.

So you want the intro flooded with everything that is mentioned in other sections, as well as with run on sentences? The concept of a Finnish victory is debatable, but you try to represent it as a fact. What is wrong with a neutral formulation in the intro? Well of course you don't want this article to be neutral... -YMB29 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, please the whole posts instead of just single lines from it - same issue you had with Lunde - that statement is preceded with both of the following. In effect all it is stating is that introducing as biased information as Baryshnikov is counterproductive to the article.

A biased source denouncing Western scholarship as parroting the Finnish account of the war (e.g., Baryshnikov)

With regard to Baryshnikov, any time a "scholar" denounces scholarship as opposed to examining it, that is a red flag (no pun intended). You would also do better to rely on scholars of the Soviet/nationalist Russian (and as you present it at least, anti-Finnish and anti-Western) viewpoint who are not associated with political extremists.

Its far better than your source manipulation you just did in the intro - for example Lunde explicitly states that Tali-Ihantala was Finnish defensive victory. Just because you do not like what it states it not a reason to manipulate what the source states. Finnish victory is the generally accepted outcome - only Soviet apologists state otherwise. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well this site is not a place for Finnish apologists to censor articles according to the Finnish version of history... If you state that it was a Finnish victory, you must let the opposite view be included.

I don't care what that user or you think of Baryshnikov. You not liking what he writes is your problem; your accusations are baseless... The point is that the user agreed to have the views separately, so don't try to go around this fact. -YMB29 (talk) 05:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You are entitled to have your opinions. But so far your changes have involved source manipulation and in some cases even clear lies (stating in summary that a some phrase was 'Finnish' while none of the sources or references were in any way related to Finnish sources). Also you just violated 3RR rule - or rather the rule in the way you depicted it - but i'm not petty enough to report it - instead i hope we can use the talk page to reach agreement. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So after all the things you do, you are not petty just because you did not make a 3RR report... I violated 3RR?? Well that tells me that you don't know what the rule means...

I don't know what you are talking about. So far all the lying and manipulating is coming from you. -YMB29 (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As stated you broke it in the very same manner as in the case you reported from me earlier so clearly that was - by your interpretation of the rule - a violation of 3RR rule. And what would be my 'lies and manipulations'?

I've unblocked Wanderer602. Someone please file a report at the dispute resolution noticeboard. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I can file that, but I have a feeling that as soon as he will find out that he is unblocked, he will make another full revert... -YMB29 (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I filed the report.[3] -YMB29 (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)