User talk:Wanderer602

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

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

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

Blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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