User talk:Miskin/Archive 5

300

Thanks for helping to keep the film article clear of any original research. I was wondering, though, are you opposed to including experts' reviews of the film in terms of historical accuracy or lack thereof? Your talk page comments seemed to indicate that based on the film's lack of claim regarding any attempt for historical accuracy. Just wondering if you would be receptive to a review like the Apocalypto one I mentioned in response to the film's reliability. I'm not seeing that as a way to satisfy the dozens of editors who have vandalized or added their original research to this article to support their feelings for this film. I think that a neutrally written section can be created to answer the objective question, "What are the differences between the film and the actual event? Are there any similarities?" This would be done solely between the film and the event, of course -- the comic book won't get into the fray, and the article already states that it's a faithful adaptation of the comic book. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your perspective. I think it's too early to judge what reactions this film would receive, especially on an international level. I've noticed the so-called US vs. Iran factor, but it's possible that despite what I consider a silly analogy, the film may garner exactly that kind of reaction even from the most respected sources. In addition, I think we have to be wary that most people may not be aware of the "adaptation" factor, that there's more than just a "cool" style added to the Battle of Thermopylae. I think if any issues were to emerge in the future, the only reliable sources would be those that directly critique the film. It'll be interesting how to gauge the reaction of the film because very often the so-called vocal minority can sound like the majority. "THIS FILM IS RACIST" stands out more than, "I know this film isn't accurate historically, but I enjoyed it nonetheless." Things to watch out for, I suppose. We'll find out in a week. Probably should put together some standardized messages to drop off to people who aren't in line with the policies. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VI (II) - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 18:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sparta

I have a POV-pusher who tried to erode Aspasia. I have to deal first with him, but then (probably tomorrow) I'll definitely have a close look in the article.--Yannismarou 17:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Version 0.5, 0.7

Hi Miskin, thanks for getting in touch. Actually, Version 0.5 is now closed - we expect to have the CD available later this month (I have been busy recently with that, offline). However, we are starting to work on the next release, Version 0.7, and we do need reviewers (yes, sign up for the review team and make a start). I plan to get Version 0.7 moving again in the next few days. Or perhaps you are interested in helping out with the 1.0 project in general? Here are some pages that may help you:

• Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#How_you_can_help
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/FAQs
• Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/To do (the current release version is Version 0.7)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Reviewing FAQs

Let me know what you decide. We could really use some help right now! Thanks, Walkerma 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

More on Sparta

Hi, Miskin. I got over my laziness and found Anton Powell's book on Amazon, and fortunately I was able to search to the cited pages. I can't recall the last time I discovered a more fraudulent use of sources. I suggest that you look at it yourself, it will be edifying. Suffice it to say that what Powell says is that (as you and I already knew full well) Lycurgus was successful at promoting chaste pederastic relationships. In the same breath Powell mocks claims of pederastic chastity by assimilating them to communist Chinese claims of the non-existence of adultery in communist China. The article claim on Aristotle (Spartan devotion to women) IS supported by the text on that page, but in the next page Powell resolves the conflict between Plato's views and those of Xenophon and Aristotle by resorting to an analysis of details, which, in his words, reveal that "references to particular homosexual attachments of Spartans are conspicuous even by Greek standards." The editor who massaged that text in the article deserves a rebuke. What do you propose to do? Haiduc 23:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry to be so vehement, we all make mistakes. A better solution, if you agree, is to keep the citations and modify the text to agree with Powell (since his interpretation is pretty much the presently accepted one and I have no problems with it.) Haiduc 23:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Thermopylae

Hello Miskin,
Long time no talk my old friend. Sorry for a bit of a late response, but this post is to the comment you had made earlier on the Thermopylae Talk page regarding how some keep putting "Pyrrhic" back. Well ever since that one anon left, I think there is only one user recently who has been advocating that, Lankybugger. I spoke to him, and he is a far more sensible fellow than that anon "ELV". He talked to me on my talk page and we reached the consensus that it wasn't a pyrrhic victory. I had earlier made a post in the Thermopylae talk page why it couldn't be classified like that, but he initially missed it, once he went over it, he seemed to agree. So I think this problem is rectified.
On another note, have you noticed the incredible amount of vandalizing on that page as of late, I wonder if it has anything to do with the attention spurred by 300 Hmm... LOL. See ya around.--Arsenous Commodore 15:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Thermopylae

Slavery was banned in the Persian Empire, so there couldn't have been any "slaves" in Xerxes's army. --Mardavich 14:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Many conscripted soldiers don't fight wars on their own free will, that doesn't make them slaves. Nobody "owned" anyone in Xerxes's army, there were no slaves. Please remove that POV assertion, or provide a reliable source that explicitly uses the term "slave". --Mardavich 14:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

NN on ANI

Hi. A number of uninvolved editors looked at the issue, and they did not see any WP:POINT, and WP:ATT violations are not blockable offenses I think. Besides, most actions of NN was on the talk page, and not on the article page. There are lots (and LOTS) of talk pages filled with circular discussions, this is no grounds for blocking. Also, please remember, it takes more than one user to make a circular discussion, and while I did not look into your comments on Talk:Sparta in detail, on ANI it looks like you are also going head to head with NN. On this, User:Domitius behavior is even more concerning, and his stalking complaints are not helpful at all, but rather shed a bad light on him (her?). Overall, to me it looks a bit like a group of Greek editors have their view and resist other views. You are of course free to list further comments on NN's behavior on WP:ANI, but I am not sure what you want to achieve with it, and I would recommend against it. In the current discussion it seems NN's behavior is no cause for offense, except maybe for too long talk page comments (but then, a whole lot of editors would be guilty of that). Since this is more of a content dispute than an editor dispute, you may use some related approaches on WP:DISPUTE. E.g. on the superpower issue, that can easily be voted on. I hope this helps, even if i feel this won't satisfy you. Best wishes, -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW: Cool user page! -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Miskin. Woah, talking about looong messages! Anyway, Dispute resolution through discussion is a long and difficult process, and usually involves one or more editors that are difficult to deal with or to convince. From what I have seen, NN's discussion style may not be easy, but is definitely not anything out of the ordinary (and yes, i did NOT read the entire Sparta talk page). Believe me, I had worse. Much worse! (Danzig/Gdansk anyone?) That is just one thing we have to live with. Also, from his edit history, it does not look like edit warring besides a few reverts. Overall, this is definitely a dispute, but nothing out of the ordinary. It also seems, NN was reaching a consensus with some editors before he was blocked. The ANI discussion was rushed, and I am surprised that it was closed already. I would like to point out that I tried to slow down some rushing editors and proposed to wait for Yanni's response. Overall, Yanni seems to be a good admin, but this block was not supported by policy. Feel free to start a new discussion if you want. My apologies if i came across harsh. Anyway, I gotta go, best wishes and happy editing - Chris 73 | Talk 23:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: The diff you provided is a 3RR warning/notice, not an invitation to revert. -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than take up anymore time, I'm going to simply second what Chris73 said. You have done a lot of work on the Sparta article, but that doesn't necessarily give you more say in it than NN or anyone else. I'd recommend reading WP:OWN again. I also agree that Yannismarou seems like a very good contributor, but he did make a mistake with that block. AniMate 23:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if people could understand WP:ATT and WP:V. It's quite simple, the fact that one does not happen like something which is sourced does not give a right to remove it without, at the very least, citing a counter source. Why people continue to have trouble with this mystifies me.--Domitius 23:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if what I wrote offended you, and that certainly wasn't my intention. I'm not being hard on Yannismarou, in my opinion. He made a mistake, and he should have apologized for it... which he did. I'm not asking for him to be recalled, I'm not asking for an RfC to be filed for his behavior, I'm not asking for an ArbCom case to be filed. All I ever asked was for him to apologize for a bad block... which he did. I'm not exactly taking sides, and when it comes to the content dispute I honestly don't know who is right.

You've been here longer than I have, so you should know how to follow the steps of dispute resolution. You've spent so much time bickering on the page that I think it's time to try another tactic. Go to the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome for some input or file an RfC on the content issue.

NN just left a message on my talkpage saying the matter of the block is closed and he's not going to be responding to anymore posts about. Great. I hope you abide by that, and continue focusing on getting the content issue resolved. If you feel his behavior warrants a closer look, by all means ask for some outside input on that at AN/I or any venue you deem appropriate. AniMate 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Last thing. Yannismarou wasn't "blacklisted." He's not in trouble. He's not banned from the article. He abused a power he had to silence someone in a content dispute that didn't have the same power. He acknowledged the mistake. You should too. Admins are held to higher standards than the rest of us.

Finally, you are very focused on rules. Remember, ignore all rules. I'm not sure this is wise of me or not, but reading the article on Sparta and the article on Superpowers, I'm not sure Wikipedia's definition of superpower syncs up with your sources definition of superpower. That's my very uneducated opinion, as I have very little background in politics or classics. But seriously, it's high time this dispute moved off of the Sparta talk page. Get it resolved. Get other people involved and move on. AniMate 00:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Traditional account of the Battle of Thermopylae

Listen, I know it is kinda difficult to question the traditional account. When we do this it generally leads to the rejection of all types of other things we have accepted (this is why Copernicus and Galileo had such hard times). However, the fact is that we can't even begin to really accept the authenticity of ancient accounts at face value until the Peloponnesian War, and even then they are only occasionally accurate. For example in Roman history the accounts of the Second Punic War are generally thought to be relatively accurate as they take into account the logistical capabilities of the opposing sides and describes the actually difficulties that the generals had in supplying and moving their armies around. Compare this to the Cimbrian War between Rome and a coalition primarily consisting of the Cimbri and the Teutons, even though it took place more than a century after the second punic war the accounts of it are much less accurate and more shrouded in more legend than fact. This is why it appears that the battles of Arausio, Aquae Sextiae, Vercellae all appear to be larger than the battle of Cannae and the battle of Zama combined. When I first started to realize the inaccuracy of the historical accounts that I have been engroosed with for years I was devastated, but I did eventually accept them

You may wonder why smarted and more knowledgable historians then me apparently accept these accounts if I am correct. The answer is no that they are stupid, rather it is because they have to. at a basic level history is the study of written accounts. So in the absence of any reliable figures historians simply provide the only figures that they have. Do you really believe that in a battle between Aram Damascus and the Kingdom of Israel in 846 BC, the two sides could field enough soldiers so that their would be 127,000 casualties on the Aram Damascus side alone? Since the only account of that battle says that that is indeed what happened, historians will give those figures when writing about the conflict.- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk • contribs) 01:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

MedCab on Sparta?

I hate to see articles locked down as much as I hate to see two very good editors in conflict. If you're interested I'd be happy to get a case started at the Mediation Cabal, since you seem to have little faith in RfCs and I'm not sure how active the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome is. Regardless of your decision, I think this fighting isn't necessary and doesn't fit on Sparta's talk page. AniMate 03:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with your edits to my RfC, though it's better etiquette to ask first. Mostly I'm alright with it, because after looking at my original request... well let's say I should've proofed it a little better (at the least). If you feel you must continue your confrontation with NN, please do so in an appropriate venue (WP:AN/I or your talk pages). AniMate 03:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead

It's your own idea. Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg agrees with me and you can participate in a discussion in talk page.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--03:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be there when I can, just stop flooding this page with chucks of text please. Miskin 03:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

• "What do you care about this topic anyway? Does it have to do with the fact that Domitius is involved here?" [1]
• A. Garnet has never shown interest in the particular article, nor in any related article, nor has he ever proved himself knowledgeable on the topic. He appeared soon after he had a conflict with Domitius in a different article, Cypriot Civil War I think, where he received a block. And now, there you see him, pretending to be a completely neutral participant." [2]

Please don't make any more comments similar to the above ones. Remember to discuss only article content. Thank you. Khoikhoi 04:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi I said what I said in relation to the dispute at hand, there wasn't any intention of offending or belittling the other editor. Just expressing a pov. But I'll keep that in mind and avoid doing so in the future. Miskin 04:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done. Khoikhoi 04:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to Calgacus, there is no ongoing dispute and he wants you to "leave him alone". Maybe it would be best if you stop leaving him messages, unless it's really important. I think the best to do right now is for you to ignore him and him to ignore you. An apology would be nice, but it's not really necessary. I've already talked to him about making personal attacks. The last thing we want is for someone to get blocked, and I don't think he's going to insult you anymore. Khoikhoi 02:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thermopylae

I did not do most of these edits but I am willing to help and have added a few. There is a fast loading Herodotus here [3] and a fast loading loading Diodorus here [4] Ikokki 13:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User subpages

Are all these subpages really relevant to Wikipedia? You may want to consider deleting some of them. The Jade Knight 23:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

More on Sparta/Superpower

If you mean the last proposal, I support this one, too (and I am neither Turkish nor Persian nor Greek). A RfC by default involves a lot of other editors coming in and making comments. (As suggested above, read WP:OWN). On a related note, I am also not sure if the use of Superpower for the Persian Empire is proper, but i don't want to solve this problem beyond giving my 2 cents if necessary. As for 2c: "A biased editor instigates/creates a ruckus, gains sympathy, and by unorthodox, brute-force methods other non-neutral editors (group of Iranian and Turkish) become suddenly the authorities on the topic and protectors of the article.": I don't agree with this summary, looks to me like you're upset, and being upset is a bad time to edit Wikipedia in general. Overall, the whole consensus generating process is not pretty (on both sides!), but not unusual for Wikipedia. Not sure if this helps, but I wanted to respond. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

Did you get my reply to your latest e-mail? If not, perhaps you should check your spam filter. the wub "?!" 16:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

300 Edits Again

Hiya, I wanted you to know that I had to revert your recent edit to 300 (film), and wanted to explain why. To begin with, the Greek critic's name is in fact Demitris (as cited in other places) and not Demitrios. As well, the other part "According to some opinions" replaced fairly clear writing with less clear - ie, for the "some". Hope that explains things. Of course, if you disagree with my edits, I welcome you to discuss them on the article's talk page. Cheers! Arcayne 22:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of the Greek nicknaming protocol, but as he published the review under his nick, then it should be included as such, and not his formal name, which may not be his professional name. Likewise, while I think the aim was to aim for NPOV, the effort was not as successful. Perhaps you could bring up the NPOV issue in the Discussion Page, and we can address the problem together? Arcayne 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have been a dick in my earlier editing history, and all it did was make me upset...over something I do for free. Meet the definition of both stupid and pointless. LOL. So, while i occasionally have to get oven mitts to get a handle on my temper, I am trying hard to be a better editor and Wikipedian. Thanks for the compliment. :) Enjoy your wikibreak. Arcayne 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am noticing that you are making some edits that might be seen as POV again. I realize its probably hard to remove your editing self from your heritage - I would, too. However, you need to address the fact that the Iranian outcry and Persian depictions cannot overpower the article. If you have vhanges to make, and by thinking about them consider that they might be a problem for the other editors, you could save yourself a lot of time and frustration by discussing those edits with your peers in the Discussion Page. If you look over the other discussions, very little is done without some sort of concensus. I have seen some of your edits int he past, and they are usually really good (for example, most have missed the Greco-Persian thing - I did, and I took a Second in Near-East History). Work with us, and things move a lot smoother. You may not get what you want all the time, but you ge tthe chance to discuss your POV ahead of time, and not after you've been reverted here and there. Just some advice. Arcayne 02:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and perhaps you might want to take a look at historical fantasy However, if you actually think that Xerxes employed giants and mummy-faced persons in his army, or was a 10-foot-tall giant himself. then perhaps you should oppose the idea of fantastical elements in the story. Maybe you are working from a different definition of the term than I am.

As for the nationality of the scholar, I fail to see how it comes into play here. If he was Irish or Pakistani or Japanese, would his words have any less weight? Arcayne 05:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You introduced a number of very interesting points, and I am hoping that I can address each of them to your satisfaction, Miskin. If you will recall, I have been fairly intolerant of the POV-pushing and politicization of this article, and I consider myself rather vigilant in smiting it wherever and whenever I see it. While idisagree with the Daryaee statements, I think he is addressing them from a point of view of his occupational specialty, and not of his ethnic background. I think that if you disagree with his statements, it is not OR to use the source material of Herodotus to dispute them. As the Daryaee statements are verified and RS, they are open to dispute as to their authenticity. That Herodotus was himself quite biased on the part of the Spartans is clear (being part of the Classics doesn't remove ancient authors from charges of bias, and Simonides, Aecshylus and Herodotus were all terribly biased).

As Daryaee is addressing history, it is clearly in our best interest to refute it historically, To address the matter by inserting their ethnic origin inferring their partisanship is the very picture of POV, to my reckoning. The mentioning of Greek ethncicity is to state that the reviewer was reviewing for a Greek newspaper. I don't really think it belongs (as the sentence can be re-worked to simply denote that they were writing for a Greek newspaper). That said, a representative for the Iranian government needs to be mentioned as such, as the source of the noteworthiness is the fac that a member of a government is commenting.

As for the arguments of historical fantasy, I truly understand your points there, and must confess that I was a little surprised at your suggestion that the application of the historical fantasy descriptor was in fact POV-pushing. The comparison between Alexander and 300 is not a valid one, personally. In the former movie, they dealt with all mamer of opponents, but I don't think that 12-foot-tall giants were amongst them. Neither were there any horror-faced Immortals (and I refer to the face under the masks). Xerxes is portrayed as a literal giant of a man (the tallest man on record was only 8'11, and that is withmodern nutrition). As far as I know, neither Rodrigo Santoro nor the actor portraying the misshapen warrior were nearly that tall.

These alterations do not represent a simple, point of view alteration to the events; they represent an intention to add fantasical elements into a historical narrative. That it is accomplished by Dilios is immaterial. There were no such elements utilized in Alexander. The usage of fantasy elements in a historical narrative fits the criteria of historical fantasy. It is arrived at from a point of reason, and not partisan sentiment. Frnakly, I am a little surprised at the accusation being leveled at myself. Arcayne 15:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Daryaee Statements

I remember you mentioning that the Daryaee statements were contradictory to Herodotus' account. Could you tell me how they do so? I want to get your viewpoint on this. Arcayne 03:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Thermopylae

Can you please explain reason for Greek name reversion? Dr.K. 21:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to explain. Separate article on Thermopylae, should have known. Dr.K. 22:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Nobody was trying to delete the info Miskin, I only said that the current title was a fork. I put in my nom "Merge (if possible) any relevant content to Cyprus dispute" - Surely you must see that the expression "Turkish settlement" is not used in the English language? Merge the content - this issue is already talked about in the Cyprus dispute, right? I have the feeling that it is only because it was a Turkish editor who proposed the AfD that some of the delete votes are coming: that is really not cool. Can you seriously tell me that the expression "Tr settlement" (not settlers) is used in the English language? I really had thought that this was a non-issue.. And the idea of seeing the two AfDs in someway related is not correct either. Why do I have the feeling that there is an assumption of bad faith and distrust? It is about having the most efficient encyclopedia as possible.. cheers Baristarim 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VII (III) - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 15:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fiction / history contretemps

Hi, Miskin, actually when you attempted to respond to my proposed solution at 300 you ended up responding to Arcayne's ("fictional retelling"). My proposal is this:

300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, a work of historical fiction about the Battle of Thermopylae.

I've reposted it again at the bottom of the "fictional account" page.

I don't think there's any getting around the fact that the Miller work is a novel, which draws heavily on the historical sources, but also introduces a number of elements in the interest of entertainment. As you've been the most vociferous opponent to any use of the word "fiction," I wonder if you'ld mind weighing in on this one. Thanks, --Javits2000 15:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You said: "And no Arcayne, I had sincerely never thought of those priests and mummy-faced attackers as anything but deformed individuals."

Dude, I am never coming to your house! lol :D Arcayne 10:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We've now gathered six options from the past week's discussion. Would you mind having a look and weighing in as to which would be acceptable, and which you'ld prefer? Thanks, --Javits2000 12:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Miskin, thanks for weighing in ; i've read it and briefly responded (although you might think I'ld have better things to be occupying myself with on Maundy Thursday...) In any case, I understand your concerns, but two quick points; Islam, I think, has nothing to do with it, rather Iranian nationalism, which has always been more powerful than religion. And I really do not believe there's any danger of implying that Thermopylae never occurred in any of the present proposals. The best parallel I can think of is Joseph and His Brothers, which is based on Genesis, but is 1500 pages long. Likewise, Herodotus's account of Thermopylae takes all of 5 minutes to read (maybe 30 if I'm slogging through the Greek); whereas the film is two hours long. What fills in the space in between, is what I'ld call "historical fiction". Best, --Javits2000 00:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you've got me on Gladiator! Although my immediate reaction is to say that that's just wrong. Still, I can see why the versions w/o any description of genre would be considered more neutral; and for that matter, I also have a general problem with the logic of Wikipedia, according to which passionate response on "controversial" topics is somehow converted into a truth claim (or a "legitimate POV," or what you like). For the moment let's wait and see how this shakes out. The thing with passionate responses is that they tend to lose their fire after a week or so. --Javits2000 00:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I was bout to ask you to clarify which of the choices you were going with, but then I read the back and forth between you and Javits (damn - had not thought of using 'utility' in that context - nifty). I do see your point, as well. If you have a different crafting, what would you say? 02:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

300 Talk

Hey, buddy. I appreciate you coming to my defense and all, but it isn't just them that need to address civility. I know what you are talking about in the Discussion, and I feel your pain - truly I do - but telling Mardavich et. al. off on anywhere bu their talk page is just going to land you in hot water. I would like to to suggest that - your point having been made, you withdraw those posts that directly address Mardavich. They will still be inthe edit history, but you can remove a post that Mardavich's pride will require him to respond to it, further disrupting the page. By removing them, and maybe apologizing for making it personal in the Edit Summary, you will deflate any argument he or any of his friends will make. I want you to to stick around, and not get blocked. That requires you to play a smarter game than them. I hope you take my advice in the context in which they are meant. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, I replied to your latest edit here but have since removed my comment. As I said in the edit summary, there's been much worse said already, and it's both fruitless and absurd of me to attempt to play mommy and treat everyone manners at this stage in the game. I just wanted to let you know in case you were curious why I removed it. Though (not-so-secretly) I agree with you, I'm still a tree hugger at heart. Peace. María (habla conmigo) 18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I partake in editing film articles on Wikipedia to both learn about the films and share that knowledge with other audiences. Getting into these bureaucratic discussions doesn't really cut it for me, and to be honest, your protest just made me groan and decide to wash my hands clean of the deal. I don't put much faith in the terminology of controversial subjects on Wikipedia, so I never really considered the wording in the lead for 300 a big deal. Say what you want, but I'd rather treat editing as a learning process rather than a quarrelsome process. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not quite indifferent. I thought that the creative licensing should've been noted, so I'm in disagreement with the neutral approach that you were suggesting. But I really don't want to fight tooth and nail for that kind of result; it's not worth it to me, for reasons I've already explained. The article itself seems to cover the appropriate points made by various sides in regard to the film, so to quarrel over the lead... isn't fun. I added my $0.02 where I could, but you'll have to excuse me for not desiring to get entangled in a heated debate to make that kind of point. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

AN/I Incident

You have been reported for your remarks on 300 by Agha Nader. I wasn't sure if anyone had let you know. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on talk page

Hello, I actually did contact the wub for mediation in this matter some time ago, to see if there could be some basis for reconciliation. It's simple: I don't trust you, and you don't trust me. I would like to get this all over with. Following that, the wub has tried to contact you, but he did not get an answer. He commented on this, I believe, here, on your talk page. Iblardi 19:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's getting rather late here and I have to sleep, but before I go, I want to make a proposal: what if we ask user:the wub again to mediate? I don't want to be in a fight all the time and would like to be able to cooperate and/or interact with other editors, including you, in a normal way. We don't have to be friends, but at least we can try to communicate normally, without a constant sense of mistrust. What do you say? Iblardi 20:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

300 Edits

Please, don't go the race route. I am aware of your concerns about POV editing, but this Iranian stuff has got to take a back seat to the article. There is pointing out POV articles, and then there is suspecting someone simply bc they are Iranian, which is very, very uncool. I know entirely neutral editors who will ban at the drop of a hat over these sorts of situations.
The very last thing we need is a race debate in the article. If that happens, an RfC will occur,and likely ArbCom will step in. No one will happy with those results, as I have seen from prior decisions coming down from them. I know you are concerned about the POV editing; so am I. However, we need to address this matter objectively. Please, do not respond to Agha's ill-thought comment. Let it go, I have sent a message to Agha asking him to let it go and not repeat that sort of nonsense. Let's just concentrate on making sure the job gets done in the article. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, this matter was already taken to An/I before?

Actually, I added the above comment because I know how you can get riled up by people like Agha and the others. I think that you should submit an RfC based upon what you feel constitutes pro-nationalist editing. Agha's comments were very much out of order, but I am guessing you would be inclined to respond to said comments, and they are not on point where the article is concerned. They don't belong there. I did not mean to come down unduly hard on you, Miskin. You should either address Agha's remarks on his page, or address them through a higher source, like the aforementioned RfC.. It simply shouldn't be a topic for discussion in the article's talk page. I hope you understand what I am talking about, but if you have concerns, you can certainly ask me. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And your restraint is appreciated. You should also note that the diff you cited was Asiavashj responding to someone being rude to him. Aside from advocationg that petition, he has really demonstrated quite a bit of restraint and politeness before now. You might have just pushed his buttons. I can do that, too, often wthout meaning to do so.

Anyway, thanks for making an effort to let it go and not rise to the bait. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel you need to got he RfC route, I do think that you have a valid case at this point. Itmight resolve a large number of issues all at once. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Thermopylae

It sure looked like an edit war. Do all editors agree that the issues have been ironed out, or just you two? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

300

And where exactly does Herodotus - or indeed anybody else - show Sparta, of all places, fighting for democracy? The minor divergences from history we need not list. Your list of topoi is summed up by "based on Thermopylae", which IIRC all proposed texts include? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil comment

Please do not post uncivil comments as you did here. I am sorry if you didn't understand what I was saying, but that doesn't mean you need to be uncivil. Thanks, --Rayis 15:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Constantine

Constantine was half-Serbian from his mother's side, and I don't believe that it is irrelevant what one's mother is. I am not making cultural claims, but I believe that if he was half-Serbian, he deserves that his name be written in Greek and Serbian. I don't see how it hurts the article to such a great extent that you have to remove it. --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The objective view in this case involves not assuming that cultural claims are in any way implied. Generally speaking, there is a relevant reason to include both languages, seeing as how you yourself admited to considering him half-Serbian. POV in this case is removing the translation which is reflecting his half-ethnicity and claiming that it has culturally-oriented motives, which it doesn't. Taking this into account, I am returning the translation. --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against it. Glad we could reach an agreement :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Seriously

Hi Miskin. Historical fantasy is actually not too bad of a description. How about a compromise? Something in-between options 1 and 7? Please give me a proposed wording that takes into consideration both 1 and 7. Cheers. --Mardavich 09:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support such a solution. NikoSilver 09:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I attempoted this, and Mardavich shot it down less than an hour after I put it up. Of course, more than a few people - Mardavich included - have been trying to slip in #7. Did voting end and no one say so? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Thermopylae

Hey Miskin. I agree that we should revert to this edit, since it was the last edit we agreed on. The only thing left to do is find out Ikkoki's opinion on it before we can come to an agreement. Jagged 85 01:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Contribution of Thespian Monument lost

Hello, it seems that when you restored a previous version, on 26 April 2007, my contributions about the monument of Thespians and some about the monument of Leonidas, they were completely lost. I had made them on 11 April 2007. Can you restore it or should I add it again? Fkerasar 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I just want to know, from a technical point of view, if I have to do something about it or it can be restored. Fkerasar 15:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Recently in 300 talk

I'm not sure if you responded to myself, Arcayne, or someone else. If it was me, I just cited with at I thought was a grammatical error and proposed a fix. I don't mean to argue with any of the discussion about using the word fiction, just trying to make sure everything is phrased correctly. Hewinsj 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool, and thanks for the quick response. Hewinsj 16:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

300 (film)

Hello. You have reverted multiple times at 300 (film) in the last 24 hours. Please refrain from engaging in edit warring and instead pursue dispute resolution for your disagreements. Excessive reverts are less likely to cause a resolution, since it will make collaboration less likely. Repeat offenders may be blocked from editing if the problem continues. Thanks! Note that this message applies to everyone at 300 (film), and all three users with multiple reverts at the article in the last 24 hours received it. Dmcdevit·t 00:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you made two reverts recently. And also that the article has been protected twice recently due to edit warring, and is in the middle of a perpetual edit war. Two sterile, identical reverts is too much; you're not a new user. I'm not asking you to forgo NPOV, or saying that others' edits are more NPOV than yours, I'm saying that the proper way to resolve the dispute is through WP:DR, not edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 00:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. No excuse. Alientraveller 07:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Roman-Persian Wars

Don't accuse me of "wikistalking" again like you did here, you know perfectly well that Roman-Persian Wars is within my area of interest, and I first edited that article three days ago after I added the article to WikiProject Iran. So please be polite and don't make baseless accusations. --Mardavich 01:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I had that article on my watchlist since April 25th, I didn't even realize that was you until now, I only look at the diff and the edit, I don't usually look at the editors' names. Anyways, "Greco-Roman world" is not a common terminology but that's fine, can you just change "various Persian Empires" to "various dynasties of the Persian Empire"? --Mardavich 01:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Err, 'Greco-Roman' is a widely used term when discussing Roman or Greek transitional period history, Just a heads-up from someone with an actual history degree. (and yes, Miskin's page is on my watchlist). Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VIII (IV) - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 19:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

What steps are you taking, Miskin? As I mentionmed before, I am in favor of mediation. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine-Sassanid Wars

I've done all the editing I can think of. Its all yours.Tourskin 02:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the Romans were still Roman when the Sassanids came. So we must place the wars from 243-343 in either Persian -Roman wars or Byzantines Sassanid wars. Either way, its not historically accurate. Perhaps a "Roman-Sassanid war?" As for the sources, yeh sorry I left that out.

I don't know if you have this book but Battle isn't too bad. Too be honest, I can't really think of other sources. Tourskin 02:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay....pheww....well actually it took only a few minutes but I removed the Anastasian war from Roman-Persian and got rid of everything un-Roman from the article that even a Patriotic Roman should be proud of. But I still haven't sourced it yet, I'll see if I can get to doing it Later. I was hoping that you might do it. Thanks for your Thanks!Tourskin 17:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Last Stand

Out dated source DO NOT have precedence over modern statistics which MOST scholars agree upon.Azerbaijani 16:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Re

Do not use my talk page to make attacks, and accusations. You can't unilaterally split an article and declare consensus. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, you need to learn to be polite and work with other editors. Thanks you. --Mardavich 20:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Keeping the record. [5]? Miskin 20:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Record of your violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA? Instead of throwing around labels and accusations, try to reach a compromise with the other editors. "My way or no way" is not the right attitude to create a collaborative encyclopedia. --Mardavich 20:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's rather the WP:ATT way or the highway. If you read it you'll find out that articles are not built on editor consensus that you keep vainly invoking, especially when partisan alliances are involved. I just know you too well by now to let pages such WP:AGF affect my judgement. I still find it ironic that after all the revets you have made against me (yes, I do keep count) you dare to accuse me for not AGF. The numbers will speak for themselves when the time comes. In the meantime, I'm only filling you in on the fact that many people are on to you already. You should be thanking me rather than accusing me for delivering personal attacks (which has no basis). Miskin 21:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, offline publication, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Carom 23:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Thermopylae

Hello again. Having now realized that you now only want modern western sources for particularly Greco-Persian Wars makes me happy. Naturally, I would agree, afterall this isn't the Greek or Persian Wiki, this is the English e. So I have a few suggestions, I understand that you put "Estimates vary" for the warbox, but I guess I have this feeling that a reliable figure in there would be best - don't you? I mean can't we just put a ca. 200,000 for Persian strength. This figure is by far the biggest consensus figure. And at least we will have a number in the warbox, after all that's what its for. Furthermore, what is this 20,000 Persian casualties for "modern estimates", I have never seen any modern source advocating this, in fact none of the footnotes do. This is simply Herodotus' estimate, correct? None of the footnote sources also indicate or anywhere in the article content that a mdern western source accepts and argues that 20,000 figure. Shall we remove it as a modern consensus figure and just leave under casualties: 20,000 (Herodotus)? What you think? Oh yes and the Plataea article needs help too, because the consensus for that battle is below 100,000. Including Hellas.Net (which seems to be operated by a Dutch, don't be fooled by the name). Check it out. If your interested leave me a note in my talk.--Arsenous Commodore 00:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Miskin, I recognize that you may have been just overheated in a spur of the moment kind of thing. Thanks for the reply. It's just the last paragraph of the Talk Page in the Persian Gates article under sub category of POV Check, you said after my history brief had no basis, that I was "POV-pushing" and that I "was wasting time." But like I said earlier, think nothing of it. Lets just foget it and call the whole thing an odd misinterpretation.
Back to the issue of Thermopylae, I recognize that modern estimate may have just meant that modern scholars accept Herodotus' figure, however from all the footnote searching and content searching in the article, I did not find mention of any modern western scholar whom accepted the figure of 20,000. Would you agree that the number should be removed as a modern estimate, until a clear mention of a name, book title, ISBN, link etc. is made showing such. Or perhaps I have missed it in the article and you can direct it to me. But I am quite confident it's not there. TTYL. By the way, I have found sources for the battle of Plataea, so once your finished and feel you have time, please give me a note if your interested, I could use your expertise in citing on Wiki. Thanks, bye.--Arsenous Commodore 17:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the Persian Gate

Hey mate,

Just a message of support/advice. I understand that dealing with Dharmender6767 and assorted other ultra-Nationalist is extremely frustrating. The best thing we can do is keep our cool and not sink down to their level. Given we've now got a bunch of other good faith editors involved in the dispute things should work out smoothly. So yeah, take a deep breath and hang in there. --RaiderAspect 04:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Miskin, I just wrote a complete overhaul of this page--do me a favor and check it out? I'm curious to know if you think it's closer to being a neutral article. (The language on there was deplorable.) Spectheintro 16:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

Thank you for your kind words! Another user recently stepped in as well and has helped clean it up considerably--the article's shaping up to be well-sourced and fairly neutral. I think in a month or two we may be able to remove the dispute tags altogether. Spectheintro 16:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your extensive contributions to the Last stand article, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this Tireless Contributor Barnstar in appreciation of all your hard work. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Image:Quetal.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Quetal.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Iamunknown 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Never mind that. Another editor provided the information. I simply had no idea what the digital image was of. --Iamunknown 19:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:For1.jpg

Hello, Miskin. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:For1.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Miskin/Forbidden. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for extensive disruptiveness, culminating in a 3RR violation that earned your SEVENTH block. Your disruptive editing will no longer be tolerated: the next block will be permanent.. Please stop. You're 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. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Re. to the discussion on WP:ANI, I have modified this block to extend it to 1 week, less 24 hours for the existing block time. One month is too long. However, you have repeatedly violated the 3RR rule and, given the amount of time you have been here and your previous 3RR history, you should really be familiar with the rules at this point. - Alison ☺ 18:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, if you feel that you have been blocked unjustly, I suggest you should apply to ArbCom once your block is over. It is within their purview to review the cases of POV-motivated editing, if it disrupts a significant segment of Wikipedia for a considerable period of time. I have reviewed some of your recent edits and find them unnecessarily abrasive. Multiple reverts are never a solution to the problem, especially now when your enemies seem to be active behind the scenes. You may take your time and visit the IRC channel to see what's going on there. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

seeing the repeated well-meaning but uninformed references to your 2005 "Macedonian" blocks by admins arguing you are a trouble-maker (you were a trouble maker then, remember? :) it would seem justified for you to begin editing under a new account (using only one at a time of course). I don't necessarily share your position at Battle of the Persian Gate, but blovkinh you for a week (not to mention a month!) over a 3RRvio against a "contributor" like Dharmender6767 (talk · contribs) is patent bad judgement. dab (𒁳) 19:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, a 1-week block is more than justified given the circumstances. Secondly, I have no opinion whatsoever on who's right or wrong here and who's editing what. That's far from being the point. The point relates to repeated 3RR violations and nothing else. Frankly, I'm disappointed at you labelling my decision here as a "patent bad judgement" - Alison ☺ 19:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

good, it's a straightforward 3rr block then, is it? not for generic "disruption", not for "incivility". The "circumstances" are then the "repeated" offence of 3rr after what, 16 months, on a completely unrelated dispute? Which "more than justifies" a seven-fold penalty? Can you cite any kind of precedent for this? When Miskin did indeed repeatedly violate the 3rr in the Macedonian dispute, the block period was not increased between 4 July and 25 August. In my best understanding, escalating block periods are intended for editors who jump back to the fray the moment their block expires, not as some sort of vicious karma that comes back to bite you after a year of faultless editing. dab (𒁳) 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite what's been said, In my opinion has not been a 3RR violation, and I haven't violated 3RR since my newbie days in 2005. If I'm wrong and this is globally judged as a fourth revert then I'm willing to take responsibility for it (on the grounds of a simple 3RR violation). What has been considered a "partial revert" is in fact a straight forward edit:
3rd revert:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Persian_Gate&diff=130094200&oldid=130091657

4th edit (alleged revert):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Persian_Gate&diff=130148510&oldid=130147827

There is no "partial revert" relation between the two, and there was no fourth revert from my part, I consciously made an _edit_ on the existing version which only affected two tags in the infobox. Also, my second and third reverts aimed at restoring a version which was "at the time" an editor consensus between me, Aldux and other users - that is before the opposing party showed up. I made those reverts in order to avoid having the article getting locked to the non-consensus version (trolled by a user who was about to be blocked anyway). Emphasis needs to be put on the fact that those two reverts were _not_ part of an edit war, I tried to point this out in my edit summary [6]. The real, undisputed revert which was part of an ongoing edit-war was only the first one (which aimed at demostrating group preference). If you're not convinced then please go through my contribution list and find the last time I made over two reverts in the same article within 24 hours. You won't be able to. My last 3RR block was in 2005 and this was due to my poor understanding of "simple vandalism", i.e. where 3RR does not apply. Yet many of my newbie violations were borderline, and thus different admins had varying opinions (hence the unblocks). Regardless, all of this happened a long, long time ago. My last block in September should definitely not count, there was unarguably no policy breach and it was removed. I tried emailing the editor who blocked me this morning but he ignored me. Miskin 20:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'd like to have my 3RR violation reviewed, and whether or not there was a fourth revert involved. In addition I'd like to have my one-week block reviewed (formerly one-month).

Decline reason:

I think it's fair to say, with the Arbcom case, that it's not necessary to have an unblock template up here: lots of admins are aware of the situation and are reviewing. I think you will probably not be unblocked, but the Arbcom case looks like it will be accepted, so ultimately things will get sorted out. Mangojuice^talk 21:11, 14 May 2007 (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.

I have brought your request for an unblock review to the attention of the ANI thread. My own position is to reverse the block or at least reduce it back to 24 hours. However, you should be aware that concerns have been raised about your editing style and try to bear them in mind in the future, irrespective of what happens to this block. Newyorkbrad 21:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's already been posted there and it was suggested that I need to "have my sorry ass dragged to ArbCom" because of the blocks I received in 2005. Well I guess the moral is that editors are suggested to change identities in order to hide their newbie past and reassure that it won't hunt them down when serious incidents occur 17 months later. Miskin 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already seen that comment and have protested against that phrasing, which I found extremely unfortunate. Newyorkbrad 22:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't expect much from the AnI, nobody cares to examine the actual incidents before responding. For example, none of those people who are judging me have even noticed that the alleged 3RR violation was already turned down [7]. Yet it appears that I'm being punished for my errors in 2005, this is largely irrelevant to the 3RR violation in question and the malicious events that led me here [8]. Miskin 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of us do care. I know it's frustrating but try not to alienate those who do. -- Selket ^Talk 05:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

About 3RR

First of all, partial reverts count towards the 3RR. Secondly, the intent of the 3RR is to prevent edit warring, which you were clearly doing, and have clearly done in the past. As such, it states on the 3RR page, that you are not entitled to 4 reverts per day. You may be blocked for less than 4 reverts: in some cases even as little as 1 revert. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're saying that you blocked me for 3 reverts. Fair enough, assuming that you do have the right to block someone who is edit-warring, then why make the exception on User:Mardavich, the person who has been trying to get me out of the picture? Mardavich does nothing _but_ edit-warring and yet he has convinced you that I'm a disruptive editor. Also, if you are giving me a one-month block for pure edit-warring, then can you please ellaborate on this accusation as I've asked you in my email? Why don't you take a few minutes to go through my contributions in order to point me to the last time I was edit-warring? I haven't done more than two reverts in the same article within 24 for like a year. I know this because two reverts is always my limit. 90% of my contributions are in Talk pages, how can you accuse me for edit-warring? Can you please back up your claims with proof? How about some diffs on recent edit-warring? Thank you. Miskin 22:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Didn't you ever ask yourself why Mardavich is so keen on getting me blocked? [9] Didn't all those claims about my "admin friends" appear to you suspicious? Don't you think that Mardavich may want me out of the picture for a specific reason? My "friends" apparently refers to all people who have opposed Mardavich and his NPOV violations in several articles, this of course includes editors and admins alike. Please consider the above points before getting back to my 2005 criminal record and my partial reverts. Miskin 22:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked you for 4 reverts. I'm saying I could have blocked you for 3 anyway. Or two or 1. As for Mardavich, if you have a problem, submit a 3RR report like he did. I don't know anything about him, and until now didn't know anything about you. Given your out-of-process unblocking, his claims about "admin friends" actually seem rather reasonable. But irregardless, file a 3RR report on Mardavich if you have a problem. Or go ask another admin to do something about it. As I'm too involved at this point, it would be a conflict of interest for me to take any action on Mardavich. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to witness such bitterness within the wikipedia community. I know your motives are pure Swatjester, but you've been tricked into instigating hostilities between users who actually care about wikipedia. You have been applying the wrong utilities on the factors that are potentially harmful to the community you're trying to protect. This will become evident in ArbCom where I'm going to present concrete proof on what I've been dealing with all this time. For the time being I need to concentrate on my defence of this successful entrapment. Oh and for the record, did you ever wonder why Mardavich did not name explicitely who "my friends" were? He left "my friends" to be an unassigned variable so that anyone who'd come to my defence could automatically be fitting the description. It seems it has worked perfectly. If Alison had come to my defence she would have been one of "my friends" as well. Judging by the number of different editors and admins who have supported me in various disputes against Mardavich, I'd have to say that I'm the either the most friendly person in wikipedia, or that Mardavich is being manipulative. Miskin 23:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• It should be noted however, that my blocking of this account was a good-faith effort to resolve the situation for all parties involved and given the evidence. I'm not your "friend", nor am I your "enemy". - Alison ☺ 23:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, my block was not the result of a 3RR report. When the incident in question was listed under 3RR it was regarded "not a violation" [10]. You chose to review this and give me one month block on the basis of my distant past behaviour. In a way, this punishment is apparently independent to the last 3RR pseudo-violation. Also it should be noted that you have failed to provide proof about my alleged edit-warring habits. Miskin 23:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I gave you a block based on the 3RR violation. I extended the length of it from 24 hours to 1 month, because of the egregiousness of your prior behavior. I'm well within my rights to do that: it's written right at the top of the 3RR policy page. Given your prior history of blocks for 3RR vios, this is clearly a preventative block. As for your edit-warring habits: they are contained in your block log, in the 3RR report, in your user talk page history: there is no need for me to rehash them. A little research will bring it up just fine. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not "well withing your rights to do that". No discretion is unfetted, and escalating a block, from the last one of less than 48 hours hours to one month in one go, with over a year of no 3RR vios seems like a blatant unreasonable abuse to me. Of course that's just my opinion; real competency to decide this is vested in the Arbitration Committee who shall also decide whether you are sound enough to retain your position as administrator. Have a nice day.--Ploutarchos 23:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, so it all comes down to the fact that I have received 3RR blocks in 2005 and I was stupid enough to stay on the same username. That's all I needed to know. Obviously I'll take a fellow's advice and "drag my sorry ass" to ArbCom, where the incident will hopefully be examined in a serious manner (unlike AnI where people answer for fun). If people there agree with your views and endorse my block then I will stop editing wikipedia permanently. So a block will not even be necessary. Miskin 23:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Question for Miskin

Miskin, if this block is reduced to the time you have already been blocked, will you undertake in your continued editing to make an effort to avoid edits that could reasonably be considered as incivil or as constituting edit-warring? Newyorkbrad 23:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm willing to do what you desribed above for the simple reason that this is what I've been doing for at least a year now. I cannot lie to myself and admit to you that I've been edit-warring. I haven't. Check my edit-history as much as you want, you won't find more than two reverts in 24 hours for a very long period of time. In my opinion I didn't violate 3RR in Battle of the Persian Gate. My alleged fourth "partial revert" was an edit, and the 2nd and 3rd reverts aimed at keeping the consensus version up in case of article protection. I never thought that defending an article against a clear troll/sockpuppet (with three reverts) could ever be considered as rv-warring, let alone a violation of 3RR and punishable with a one-month block. So what do you expect me to say? I'm being accused for errors that I committed 17 months ago. Have I regretted it? Yes. Have I changed? Yes. Can I pretend that this is connected to the recent alleged 3RR event? No.

But why am I suddenly being judged for uncivil behaviour? And how are those people in AnI more civil than I am? Let's have a look at the language they use:

I'd say your block was justified and that Miskin is needing his/her sorry ass dragged before ArbCom.

or

Oh please, give that old personal attacks canard a rest. Nobody here has said anything inaccurate. If someone has serious problems with their editing behavior and you call them out for it, that's not a personal attack, it's responsible community management.

or

Did I hear something quack?

How are all those people better than me? At least I apologise when I say something improper. But of course it's too easy accusing someone when he's not able to defend himself. Some people want me desperately out of the picture [11] [12], and amazingly they're doing quite well. Once unblocked I'll take this subject to the highest level of wikipedia justice, and if it comes out that wikipedia judges me guilty (for this 3RR and the violations of 2005), then I'll sincerely be happy to leave it behind. This is not a threat nor big talk, it's just the way I feel. It will simply prove to me that it isn't worth it. Miskin 00:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

About the "Did I hear something quack" comment, I was not suspecting you. However, I do apologize if my comment has been construed into something else. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This block remains open for review and I have to say that at this point absent better arguments I am inclined toward reversing it. Newyorkbrad 00:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree with that. The user refuses to admit that he has been edit warring, and demonstrates that he does not understand the concept nor execution of 3RR and other anti-editwar policies. Given that, I cannot see justification for an early unblock. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

To Swatjester

Regarding Swatjester's last comment in AnI:

Brad, I'd be inclined to support that conditionally that if he violates again, it's indefinite block time. That allows him to continue editing, and if he wishes to be constructive he has one (and only one) last chance. Without that condition, I'd have to lean against unblocking.

You have yet to explain to me in what ways I haven't been constructive in the past 12 months to say the least. All you've brought up so far was an non-existent 3RR violation and a couple of rv-problems dating from 2005. All I asked from you was to justify your claim on an alleged edit-warring behaviour from my part by providing us with some diffs, and you have failed to do so. Your exact reply: "As for your edit-warring habits: they are contained in your block log, in the 3RR report, in your user talk page history: there is no need for me to rehash them.". I'm afraid there is. Let me remind you that my 3RR report was judged as non-violation [13]. Miskin 01:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

To make it easier for you, the closest thing to edit-warring I can think of, would be a two-revert warning that I received by Dmcdevit some weeks ago [14]. I repeat, this concerns two reverts within 24 hours. For anything more than two reverts you'd have to go way way back. Miskin 01:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've explained to you multiple times over about your clearly 3RR violation. Reversions are considered edit-warring,when they are done repeatedly to undo other editors work. You are CLEARLY guilty of having done that on articles for a significant amount of time. You are NOT entitled to 3 reverts per day. You DID break the 3RR: Sam Blacketer changed his mind about the non-violation, see his talk page. You CLEARLY broke the 3RR in both letter and spirit. You obviously do not understand the concept of the 3RR. Let me be very clear and unambiguous with you right now: If you continue to edit war after your block period ends, your next block will be of considerable length, if not indefinite. It's not hingent on having exactly 4 reverts. It's determinant on YOUR disruptive behavior. When your block ends, I HIGHLY advise you to edit constructively, or you will not be editing at all. Take this next week to review WP:3RR and WP:DE policies. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling this will go to RfAr. I find it jarring to have a newbie admin (Jester was given the mop in February) throw his weight around in this way and threaten long-standing contributors with permanent blocks in such a whimsical manner. I keep hearing that Miskin "CLEARLY broke the 3RR". The only incident I have seen so far is the Battle of the Persian Gate one of 11 May, against Dharmender6767 (talk · contribs). Dharmender6767 has since been permabanned as a trolling account by Dmcdevit. Miskin's reverts against "Dharmender6767" might at most be punished with a 24h block, and arguably not at all. As an admin, I would just have semiprotected the article the moment "Dharmender6767" joined the fray. So this sorry episode boils down to Swatjester dealing out a month's block for someone rolling back a sock/throwaway-account, and refusing to drop his "bad cop" act in the light of criticism, harping on some long-forgotten unrelated dispute Miskin was involvedin back in 2005 as if that established him as an irredeemably disruptive troublemaker once and for all. dab (𒁳) 07:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'm sure the Arbcom will look SO favorably on you undoing a "newbie admin"'s block without consultation against policy. Wait, against two policies. Hmm, but obviously you are the final arbiter of who is an established admin, and who is not. Frankly, I'm tired of this. Unless something magical happens, I will likely file RFAR on this, including discussion on your out-of-process unblocking Dbachmann. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR exists in order to prevent edit-wars from happening. Two of my three reverts were not part of an edit-war but of a conscious attempt to keep the article's good, consensus version up in case of protection. During all the time user Dhramender had been edit-warring, I didn't participate by trying to revert him. I only reverted him after he had broken 3RR 5 times, received warnings, listed on the 3RR board all in one minute. For all I knew when I reverted the second and the third time, I hoped he had been blocked already, i.e. that the rv-war was over. So I made a second and a third reverts in an attempt to protect an article from a new user who had no understanding of WP:POLICY whatsoever. The alleged fourth revert was simply not a revert [15]. Your accusations about edit-warring are based on my block log which goes back to 2005. Despite all the requests that were made to you, you failed to bring forth some diffs that would prove a recent edit-warring behaviour. Miskin 09:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

A request for arbitration has been opened for a case in which you have been named as a party. See WP:RFAR to offer your statement. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to make a statement while you are blocked, you can do so here, and it will be copied to the RfAr page. (I am recused as a clerk in this case, but will make sure another clerk watchlists this page.) Newyorkbrad 09:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I will participate. Miskin 09:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Miskin

On the 3RR

As I have pointed out many times in the past, I was consciously not edit-warring during my second and third reverts and I did not make a fourth revert in that article. User:Dharmender6767, a new user with no understanding of WP:POLICY, had been edit-warring all morning on May 11 and I had chosen not to participate [16]. I made my first revert when User:AlexanderPar showed support for User:Dharmender6767 by reverting to his version (despite blatant NPOV violations and editor consensus that were involved). At that point, my conscious participation in the edit-war (regarding my first revert) aimed at showing group preference and editor consensus [17]. Note that unlike other users, User:AlexanderPar had not participated in discussion up to that point, yet he had chosen to start reverting to the version of his preference and enforce User:Dharmender6767's disruptive behaviour (which some have called trolling). On the other hand I had been discussing this matter for days and had come to an agreement with various established, non-partisan users, hence my edit-summary "back to Raider - please participate in the ongoing discussion". All of this can be verified in the article's talk page, as well as my contribution list.

By that afternoon User:Dharmender6767 had, despite multiple 3RR warnings, broken 3RR in at least two articles and found himself listed under 3RR. It had become evident to everybody that he was not to be regarded as a serious contributor. The only user who had showed support for his edits was User:AlexanderPar, who, as I've already stated, had never participated in the article's Talk page up to that point (Dharmender had). On my second revert I was under the impression that User:Dharmender had already been blocked and that the rv-war had ended. My sole aim was to prevent having the article protected to a "bad" version while clear editor consensus was in favour of a different one. This was not intended as a participation to edit-warring and I tried to make this as clear as possible in my edit summary: "I'm only reverting so that the article won't get locked to the bad version". I waited until Dharmender was definitely blocked and after exactly 20 minutes I restored the "good" version one more time. This revert was done for the exact same reason as before, i.e. to keep up the consensus version in case of a possible article protection. There was no need to have the article protected because of a sole editor's disruptive behaviour, let alone having it protected to the bad version (it would actually going to show that disruptive behaviour may have an impact in wikipedia). As my edit summary reveals I had no intention of edit-warring: "with dharmender blocked the edit-war is over, so I'm likewise restoring the good version in case a protection is put". [18] This is as far as my three reverts go. I did make three reverts, yet only one of them was part of an actual edit-war, and even that one was made within reason (the editor had not participated in our lengthy discussion). Despite all accusations from involved editors like User:AlexanderPar, I did not participate in the edit-war that they instigated. It is at the least ironic to find myself punished, judged, and humiliated in such manner. One thing that should be noted is AlexanderPar's cunning behaviour. He awaited for other users to "waste" their reversions on Darmender's trolling, giving them the false impression that he had stopped supporting him. He then suddenly reappeared and reverted to his preferred non-consensus version, knowing that no-one would be able to contest him for another 24 hours.

His strategy was successful. All of a sudden more editors (belonging to a specific culture/ethnicity) showed up in order to offer support to the version of their preference, which involved undisputed NPOV violations. As a reaction to this, I felt that the only way of protecting NPOV would be to invite more non-partisan editors. Thus I left messages to a handful of editors and admins whom I knew to be familiar/interested in the topic at hand. At that point provokative statements were made against me in the Talk page, allegedly accusing me for "inviting my friends" (something that was amazingly believed later by Swatjester). The greatest irony in this was the fact that the editors of the opposing party were all known partisans of a specific pro-X ethnicity, while the rest of the editors were of mixed/irrelevant background, albeit familiar with ancient history topics. It was as if they were trying to stop me from involving more uninvolved editors. At that point two things were obvious to me:

• The dispute's outcome was no longer decidable by a clear editor consensus
• The group of newcomers who supported Dharmender and AlexanderPar did not see NPOV as a priority (my queries in the talk page remained unanswered)

With that in mind I decided to start making fresh edits, in hopes of reaching a compromise solution between the opposing parties. I started by rewriting the fields in the infobox - which was by the way presented as an alleged fourth "partial revert". What was regarded as a fourth partial revert by Swatjester was in reality but a simple edit, largely attempting to make a compromise. I urge the arbitrators to make a comparison between the version of the undisputed three reverts [19] and the version of the alleged fourth "partial revert" [20]. This edit was of course reverted. Further proof that this edit was intended as a compromise would be next day's edit which was a copy-edit in the head, i.e. a part of the article [21]. It can be also seen that I was the first person to reassume good faith and bring this up in Talk. On the other hand AlexanderPar reached three reverts, all by conscious edit-war participation, without having offered prior input to the article's talk page.

On Swatjester's decision and AnI

On the next day I was puzzled to find myself blocked. The admin (swatjester) had not provided any concrete reasons for the block, as if it had been about something fairly obvious. I initially assumed that there had been a mistake, an IP confusion or something of the sort. I found out what actually went on when I visited swatjester's Talk page. The "group" of editors in question (whom I have confronted in several articles) had wanted me out of the picture [22][23][24] and swatjester was manipulated to be used as their proxy. After my block was put, I found myself getting judged and accused in AnI for irrelevant things, mainly in reference to my 3RR violations and disruptive behaviour that occurred in 2005, when I was admittedly an innexperienced, passionate editor with a poor understanding of WP:POLICY and its spirit. Some of those blocks were borderline cases and were removed, however that doesn't change the fact that I had consciously put myself in borderline situations. This is true for all 6 blocks I've received, _except_ the block of September 2006 which had no basis whatsoever (unilateral moves?) and was removed without prior thinking. Hence why I'm not counting it. I have repeatedly urged Swatjester to go through my contributions and find the last time I came close to edit warring, or even the last time I surpassed two reverts in 24 hours. He failed to find something. Similarly, I urge people like Guy who is accusing me below for being "a disruptive edit warrior whose behaviour continues despite numerous blocks" to do the same, i.e. find me those instances of recent disruptive editing and edit-warring. If it is so obvious as they claim, then it shouldn't be so hard to prove it with some diffs. If they also fail to do so, then I would like to ask from them to refrain from making baseless accusations. Same goes for User:Ryan Postlethwaite. I have expressed my feelings on this matter in my talkpage [25]. I find accusations about "admins in backpockets" very serious I would like to ask from the arbitrators not only to investigate those allegations (maybe by examining the content-dispute at hand), but also to hold the accusators responsible of their words. And this of course includes editors like User:Mardavich who deliberately spread those baseless rumours, as well as editors like User:Swatjester and User:Ryan Postlethwaite who have been so easily manipulated into believing it.

I must admit that in the beginning of this debate I was disappointed about two things:

• How easily nationalist coalitions can manipulate admin opinion in order to breach NPOV
• How unorganised and inefficient the AnI can be

Regardless, I initially didn't hold any grudges against Swatjester, despite the fact that he made it seem as if I had wronged him in a past life. I thought he had been manipulated by User:Mardavich and his associates (via email of course) into thinking that he was doing the right thing. I still believe that this is the case, however, after having witnessed the endorsement of "backpocket admins" allegations and other out-of-order statements [26], I just think that he's simply too dangerous to be an administrator. All that he gains in passion and good will is negatively compensated by his bad judgement and lack of common sense. On the specific matter, I also suspect that his bluntness is the result of his refusal to admit a mistake. Miskin 12:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

I am willing to unblock this account, provided that, for the duration of the block, the only edits that are made from the account are to the arbitration pages that you are involved in. Is this something that you are willing to agree to? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Miskin 22:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked your account, you are only permitted to edit the arbitration pages you are involved in. Any other edits, including to user talk pages will result in the initial 7 day block being reinstated by any administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: You are allowed to edit your own user, and user talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so convinced that this ArbCom case is about the magnitude of my punishment Ryan? Do you really think that this went to ArbCom over an arguable 3RR violation? You seem to be convinced so. You've actually started editing the workshop before the evidence page was touched. Miskin 00:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't jump to conclusions about what other editors might believe about the arbitration case or what it's outcome might be. You'll be better served, I think, if you can concentrate on presenting your own evidence, responding to others' evidence if you need to, and making workshop proposals if you wish. Newyorkbrad 00:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Miskin, I can understand your concerns, what I'm doing in the workshop page is attempting to piece together what is a very messy situation - at present, the only evidence in the workshop is towwards your 3RR violation, hence how the workshop has progressed. I am sure that there will be evidence given for items that do not directly concern you, and when that evidence comes, I will comment/propose appropriately. I promise you I am acting neutral in this and am only proceeding with the evidence that is in at present. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I just want to make sure that everyone is reading other people's views before jumping to conclusions. I'm not very familiar how the process works or how long it is going to take. Miskin 00:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a legitimate request. I've jumped straight into /Workshop myself when I wanted to help frame the debate or get issues onto the table early, but the technique is generally reserved for relatively straightforward issues. Still, they generally proceed in parallel, and most of the arbitrators don't read anything for a few days until everyone's had a chance to get their evidence in. Newyorkbrad 00:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As Brad said above, you are more than welcome to make your own proposals, and if you need any help with doing so, I am more than happy to make suggestions or help you in any way I can. The best advice I can give, is read the evidence page and see if anything has been missed and try and find diffs/evidence to show that (however, over the next few days, the evidence page is likely to evolve so you may find that your concerns are already answered). Ryan Postlethwaite 01:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got plenty of stuff to add in evidence myself, I'll finish within the next few days. Miskin 01:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want to email me to ask me anything, I'm sure you know how to do it. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to state that the workshop is going too fast for me. I'm still working on evidence which is bound to change the focus of the case. I'm planning to make my own proposals in the workshop. Miskin 17:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration policy says that the arbitrators allow at least one week for evidence to be presented before they start digging into the workshop and formulating proposals - and in practice it's usually longer than that. Newyorkbrad 17:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Kind of late, but..

By the way, whomever notified you that there's an arbitration request against you forgot to mention that initial statements should be around 500 words. Would you be willing to supply a shorter statement? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 08:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I moved my ArbCom statement here. Miskin 09:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that the case has already been accepted and is about to open, I would say the issue of statement length is kind of moot. Newyorkbrad 09:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Too late I guess. It's ok, I'm planning to reuse much of that material in the actual arbitration process. Miskin 13:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your arbitration case

Miskin, I've noticed that you've been making a lot of argumentative posts to the Workshop page. In my opinion, this is not helping you at all; it's making you look excessively combative, and exhausting others' patience. The civility parole you proposed for Swatjester looks like retaliation, rather than a well thought out proposal, and could be seen as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. My advice: stop posting to the arbitration pages. There's more than enough material there for the arbitrators to make an informed decision, and your apparent need to respond to everything on the page is not likely to make them sympathetic towards you. Just return to normal editing (your 1-week block has long since expired) and wait for the arbitrators to act.

By the way, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Proposed_decision for some insight into the arbitrators' feelings towards lengthy back-and-forth on evidence pages. They don't seem to like it very much. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got an ArbCom case because of a non-existent 3RR violation, false accusations about backpocket admins, and edit-warring in 2005. I'm tired of being passive about this, I tried to hold back but it didn't work. In all honesty I'm not concerned about sympathy, I'm only concerned about justice. I expect the arbitrators to be wise enough to see that my being defensive during arbitration has been provoked by my sentiment of justice. I'm not an editor who deserves to have an ArbCom case if any case whatsoever, I have offered more goods than bads to wikipedia - unlike most of those who have teamed up against me due to their personal reasons. I have been constantly improving and I can only offer more to the project. This is what I believe about myself and I expect from wikipedia to acknowledge it, as have the people who know me best. Those whose sole purpose as editors is to violate neutrality, can only perceive me as their enemy (and as you can see they do too). My being in that defensive situation is a mistake, and if wikipedia can't see what's good for it then I have no place there. There's many things to "remedy" in wikipedia and I'm not one of them, though my arbitration case can point to some.

Regardless, the polemics belong to the talk page and I have tried to move them there but Mardavich reverted me (yes, he made a revert in my actual ArbCom case). I have requested from the clerks to move them, most of it is typical unsupported ranting of the type "backpocket admins".

Swatjester is teaming up with Mardavich à la prisoner's dilemma, you don't have to search too far to see that this is their optimal strategy. You may perceive my proposal against Swatjester in the lines of violating WP:POINT or you just may perceive it as "I accept your terms and I'm choosing to use them against you". Swatjester has made allegations about me for being uncivil, mainly because I haven't been the pushover he had expected. I'm just letting him know that he has been far more uncivil even prior to the ArbCom case, without even being in defence of himself. In any case this is probably the least bad thing that Swatjester has caused, so you're right, the proposal is pointless. It's just a shame that he will most likely get away with this after all he has done - and I doubt that anyone else will propose against him. Miskin 20:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine-Seljuk Wars

Can you please take a look at the references I added, and tell me if thats what an article is suppose to have? Much Obliged.Tourskin 03:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Topol.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Topol.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Am I allowed to make edits? Miskin 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi there. Miskin - your 1-week block ended ages ago, even though Ryan unblocked early so you could participate in the ArbCom case. But yes, far as I'm concerned, edit away. Your 1-week block was for the (highly disputed at this stage) 3RR violation and that's well over now. - Alison ☺ 22:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alison, nice to know that. Miskin 13:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, and now that the heat is off, I think Alison was one of the parties that acted in good faith trying to solve what was apparently an already unnecessarily and disproportionately escalated incident. I say this, despite the fact that I find her one week block excessive for the alleged offense, and for a user of Miskin's [remote] past. I suppose that if we weight the good that would emerge if the dispute in ANI had ended, and the bad of a by 6 or 7 days excessive-er block for one user, the scale would definitely tilt to the left. Her last comment above, especially the part in the parentheses, proves her detachment and devotion to the values of the project. As a friend of both of yous, I just wanted to get this off my chest. NikoSilver 20:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got nothing against Alison Nikosilver. Miskin 10:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And I never thought you did either, but her statement looked unnecessarily defensive. NikoSilver 22:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue IX (V) - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 20:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Miskin. I hope this whole ArbCom thing of your's has been put to rest. I have a problem which I hope you can help me solve. I have found some good sources for some of the Greo-Persian war articles, but I don't know how to source on Wiki. Can you please teach me or direct me to a Wiki page which has such instructions. I would be very thankful. Bye.--Arsenous Commodore 16:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind old friend, I think I got the hang of it now; finally, I can reference. LOL.--Arsenous Commodore 18:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Old news

This is old but in the Battle of Manzikert, I thought that it had been agreed that the Seljuks outnumbered the Byzantines. So why is that it shows 15,000 Seljuks fighting 30,000 Byzantines?Tourskin 22:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reply is good enough, no need to be sorry I understand people can be very busy. Tourskin 00:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the link says that Alp Arslan had half the troops the Byzantines had so half of 30,000 is 15,000. However I think this source is very POV because there are countless other more reliable sources that estimate the forces involved to be otherwise. I mena for instance the book Battle ( I know I keep using it ) has got a famous publisher's name to it and suggests that the Byzantines had 50,000 and the Turks 40,000 but if half of Romanus' troops ran away than thats 25,000 vs. 40,000 which kind of explains in part the scale of the defeat. Tourskin 01:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, have one of my Byzantine Military medals I made up:

The Byzantine Emperor has awarded Miskin this medal for brave deeds in the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars.

Ephesus

Dear Miskin, About your edits in article;

• There is no a town named as Meryamana, only House of virgin Mary with a home for the people to care the House, some kiosks, cafe for visitors.
• No need to define a current place as "modern".
• It is better to have current place names after historical name.

Regards.Must.^{T C} 16:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for re-adding Meryamana, I did't do that on purpose, I don't even know what it is. I can't make edits in that page, or rather, I'm making edits but then I can't see them. As for your points #2 and #3, this is a POV that neither scholars nor wikipedians follow to the present moment. If we start using anachronistic names with no caution then nothing will ever make sense. No offence but I'm hoping to have the article listed under Wikipedia:Release_Version_Nominations, so a minimum amount of neutrality and relevancy needs to be maintained. Miskin 16:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ephesus

Your edits of 1601 (UTC) worked and are still visible in the history. Good work! --Old Moonraker 16:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I coudn't see them so I reverted myself. I'll add them back later. Miskin 16:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Immortals (Byzantine)

Hello Miskin, this is what the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (1991) has to say on the "Immortals":

"Athanatoi ("immortals"), a tagma of noble youth. Created by John I Tzimiskes in 970, they were armed and preceded the emperor on campaign. They camped, together with the hetaireia, next to the emperor's tent. The 10th-century Taktikon of Escurial first mentions the domestikos of the athanatoi. John I's athanatoi probably did not endure; they are not mentioned again until the end of the 11th century when, according to Nikephoros Bryennios, Nikephoritzes revived the corps of athanatoi and supplied them with armor, shields, helmets, and spears. Some chrysobulls of the end of the 11th century place the athanatoi together with ethnic contingents, but S. Kyriades (Makedonika 2 [1953] 722-24) strongly insists on their autochthonous origin. There is no evidence that the athanatoi survived the 12th century."

As you can see, the entry prefers athanatoi over "Immortals", and no mentioning is made of the Persian unit with the same name (Leo Diaconus, whom the ODB gives as a source (I left the references out for now as I am in a bit of a hurry) doesn't mention the Persians either. Moreover, the unit was apparently discontinued at some point and then restored by one Nikephoritzes; according to the ODB (entry "Nikephoritzes"), this is a nickname for Nikephoros, the principal minister of Michael VII, who died in 1078. Iblardi 19:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Your "Request for arbitration" case

I can understand and perhaps support what you are saying on my talk page. What you said during the RfA, well, particularly the way you were saying it, was not always civil, but I do not know how I would react if anonymous stuff is being used against me, and I am unable to defend myself correctly. "There but for the grace of God go I." Because of the silly manner these e-mails were handled, the case is probably dead in the water, as they primarily concern the admins whom you supposedly have in your pocket and not you - and I do not see how a bunch of obviously biased editors could suddenly become respected by sending e-mails off-wiki. All the best anyway.--Pan Gerwazy 08:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hellenistic stuff

Which Hellenistic articles are you specifically referring to? Jagged 85 19:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Slavic place names of Greece

Help needed in this article(Slavic toponymes in Greece)! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_toponyms_for_Greek_places http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Slavic_toponyms_for_Greek_places . Very strange article that doesn’t uses any sources. Please check the talk page,advise and help. Regards (Seleukosa 19:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

1.0 Review Team

Hi Miskin, Thanks for signing up for the review team, and for reviewing some articles Let me know what you're interested in, or if you want some guidance. If you haven't already, please take a look at the FAQ page. Hopefully we will have a bot to help us soon, and that will speed things up. Thanks, Walkerma 19:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahem...

Re. [27]: you aren't implying I am a banned user, are you? :-)

Look at the page history... --Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin

This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the above link. Miskin (talk · contribs) is cautioned to gain a consensus on article talk pages before making further edits if his first edits are reverted. Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is advised to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users, and to treat all editors violating the three-revert rule fairly. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 13:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-reviews for Version 0.7

Hi Miskin,

We've never had this issue arise before, where one reviewer has disagreed strongly enough over the inclusion of an article to request a second opinion. (There were a handful on V0.5 I didn't like, but I didn't consider them bad enough to be worth raising the issue). I notice that you haven't done much reviewing as yet, so it would be better if you could review and pass (say) 20-40 articles so you can gain the necessary expertise (I've reviewed at least 1000, I think!); there is a delicate balance between importance and quality. If the article was "passed" by someone not on the team then you can simply revert this. If the article is one that I passed, let me know now and I can give you my reasoning. If you're still unhappy then we can ask one of the experienced reviewers to give a second opinion. If it's an article from V0.5 that has gone downhill since last year, then raise that on the main V0.7 talk page. If it begins to be a regular problem we will need the equivalent of WP:FAR for release versions - this will probably happen eventually.

One major point that many reviewers are just becoming aware of is the planned size of the next release. The publisher would like at least 30,000 articles. That means basically every B-Class article on a significant topic, and some Start-Class articles on important topics and in areas where we are poor in coverage (e.g., Africa - compare Bamako, a capital city of 1.7m with Ann Arbor, Michigan, about 1/15th the population). Some Start-Class articles are just embarrassing, but some are just short but usable - we obviously want to use our judgement. Let me know, Walkerma 01:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If you see anything that looks really inappropriate, you can always leave a note. Hopefully we won't need a formal system just yet. I'm hoping that many of these high or top-importance topics will be improved; often, having a spotlight on an article can help. {My experience at WP:Chem suggests that projects will often focus on specialist topics until you point out the dire state of their Top-importance articles.) The African country articles were often quite poor when we started V0.5, but compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cameroon&oldid=51073929 this with Cameroon today. (But anyway - we couldn't really release the CD without Cameroon on it, could we!) And thanks a lot for the nominations too - that's an important part of the process too. Cheers, Walkerma 17:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hellenistic again

I was actually already thinking of replacing Hellenistic with more specific terms, like Greek or Egyptian or Alexandrian, but wasn't too sure. Thanks for the advice though. Jagged 85 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)