User talk:Paul Pieniezny

Archive 2006 Archive 2007

---

Welcome!

Hello, Paul Pieniezny, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Ghirla | talk 17:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, --Elonka 19:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at Biruitorul's RfA

How can you not see that all mainstream Romanian editors are opposed to Bonny? Why are you comparing us to extremists? Please, do watch Biruitorul's edits in the next months: convince yourself who he is. Dc76\^talk 21:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[1] And of course, Bonny also made an appearance, but you need to check the history (which will also show the discussion title was renamed). I must say, you (=DC76) had guts not archiving this before his RfA. That would probably have made the history disappear. And before you say, Biruitorul has nothing to do with what happened there, come on, you cannot really make us believe that he and you watch each other's talk page very carefully, can you? User:Mukadderat saw it plainly. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a word for "World War II collaborator" in English

and it's quisling, which is particularly appropriate when the individuals in question are not only collaborators, but collaborationist leaders. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

• I'm the author of the article Myrzakulov equations. So I have some questions for you. Can you give me your e-mail? (Really sorry for my poor english)Ngn
• Please help me to keep and to improve my article Myrzakulov equations. Ngn 92.46.72.14 (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

English?

Thank you for fixing the capitalization of the French titles in the Dimitri Kirsanoff article. In the future, I'd appreciate it if you didn't leave snide remarks in German in the edit summary. The fact that I wrote an article about Kirsanoff does not mean I claim to be fluent in French. For your information, some of the same mistakes are present on the French Wikipedia (though that wasn't my source). If I am misinterpreting the tone of your remark, I apologize; perhaps I would have understood it better if you had used English. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You did misunderstand the tone of my remark. I was NOT implying that the author of the article was German speaking or did not speak French or English or Russian fluently. I tend to criticize people's edits, not the editors. I am just a fool who is always boasting about his linguistic abilities, and that is not a snide remark either. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for reacting so hostilely. The reason I mentioned the use of German in a negative way was simply because this is the English Wikipedia, not because of any prejudice. I have nothing against the language or the people. What I meant was "in a foreign language", but there's no such thing as foreign on the Web and I didn't want to sound like a chauvinist. I understand that your remark was not a personal attack; I suspected it was a boast of multilingualism but I didn't want to accuse you of that (as that really would have been ad hominem). As for the capitalization, my thanks was sincere. In the United States, we capitalize all the important words in a title (e.g., The Irony of Destiny), and while I knew the French (European) convention was different, I did not succeed at following it, so I'm glad you did. I was just a little put off by the linguistically exclusive comment.

As for your comments on Kirsanoff, I shall take that to the talk page. I am confused by the ambiguity of his birthplace (Riga or Derpt/Dorpat/Yuryev/Tartu). And are you sure he was Jewish? I mean, I'm glad to hear it - my great-grandparents were Lithuanian Jews (they emigrated when it was still Russia) - I'd never heard that about him. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

?

His corpse was put on the internet, do you have a source for that? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sikhs in BElgium

Hey man !

hoe gaat het?

comment cava?

ik ben ook van belgie en ik ben sikh

ik was hier geboren....

ik heb een paar dingen aangepast bij die artikel van sikhs in belgie... kijk maar eens en zeg wat ge ervan denkt.. en die nederlands journaal had ik ni al reference genomen want deze site is in het engels en de meeste zouden niks snappen wat er in die journaal staat.

dag he salut!

Sunnybondsinghjalwehra (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Two things which remain unclear

Hi, Paul. I've responded to your questions at Talk:St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery#Two things which remain unclear.. Sorry for the delay, I just noticed that there's a new section.. —dima/talk/ 03:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

It is the systematic bias we are facing in wikipedia. The section Promotion of terrorist organizations by Communist states - in espionage enemy countries are obviously targeted and if KGB is blamed for supporting any organization can be considered terrorist, the same is applied to CIA. Not only this, problem exists in the article Terrorism in Russia also. The concept of Red terror has been included in the article as terrorism in modern sense. See the section Internal Soviet terror in the article. "The Soviet collectivization of agriculture was accomplished by terror against those peasants that resisted". This is not related to modern concept of terrorism and clear case of SYNTH. In the article Terrorism in Russia, Soviet government is equated with Chechen terrorists. The main problem Biophys is a blatant POV pusher. Third nomination of the article Communist terrorism is not possible immediately, wait two to three months, then another nomination will be needed. But one thing I will request you now to please join the article Terrorism in Russia. It is extremely POV article. I tried to fix some problems, but it is quite tough to do it alone with Biophys. The entire section Russian terrorism in 19th century and Soviet Union should be removed as revolution is not falls under the criteria of terrorism. By that sense, any independence movement and revolution use violence and will be fall under terrorism, American Revolution also. Some people use the term "terrorism" in this context do not imply it was terrorism. There are questions of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with everything above. Thanks for the note on my page Paul. I wish I had seen the AfD but I don't think it would have made any difference. That article is a disaster. A bunch of unrelated topics strung together to make a point; it is the very definition of WP:SYN. I think it's become pretty clear in the intervening time since the user in question filed an abusive, disingenuous, and bullying -- and ultimately completely unsuccessful -- RfA against me that it was his behavior and not mine that was the problem. I have stayed away from disputes with that user at the recommendation of the arbitration committee, but I do think that if there are others who feel his actions have continued to be unwarranted that a conduct RfC may be in order. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to initiate such action, of course. But as I see it, there are three issues at stake here -- (1) a misunderstanding of (or simply a refusal to take seriously) Wikipedia policy concerning original research, and (2) a faulty assumption that "Communism" or "Communist" has a single objective and agreed upon meaning in all the various contexts in which it is used. As Otolemur points out above, the word is being used in a variety of contexts that are equated willy-nilly by writers who refuse to use language and concepts precisely. It may be POV-pushing, or it may be simply a lack of understanding of the issues. (The same is true of the word "terrorism" in the one article, of course). (3) Again, we can just call this POV-pushing, but there seems to be a specifically polarizing understanding of anything to do with Communism or the former Soviet Union that treats anything negative that can be said about them (no matter how poorly sourced or just plain batty) as a higher truth that would only be opposed by some kind of Red sympathizer. I thought the Red Scare was over but it's alive and well here. Ridiculous conspiracy theories about former Soviets hiding Saddam's nukes, or about Soviet spies planting nukes in the Shenandoah Valley, or about Chinese intelligence agents dressing up as Mexicans so they can take over Texas are treated on some of these pages as eminently credible, not because they have any actual evidence to back them up, but simply because they make "communists" look bad. I don't know what can be done about any of this, but a lot of it does seem to be prohibited specifically by Wikipedia rules on original research. csloat (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I now know why the first people who contested the WP:OWN on that page, ran away. I agree with a lot of things you both say, of course, sometimes on other grounds. If Biophys believes communism is a monolythic entity, and you should not make any distinction between Maoists, Trotskists and organisations which combine nationalism and communism (interestingly, the Natioanl Bolshevik party of the RF actually has an electoral pact with Biophys's hero, Kasparov) then we should try to take him at his word: organisations which call or called themselves Marxist, Naxalite, populist should not be in the article. And since the word "communist" was only used before 1917 by the French anarchists and followers of Jules Guesde (who actually condemned terrorism like Lenin), it follows that everything before 1917 must be deleted. Well, he or we could try to include the Bonnot Gang, of course, though that may be ahistorical as well, since between 1902 and 1917 the term "communist" was no longer used in France.

The bias in the article against non-communists should also be addressed. I mean, this thing has a link to something called "List of communist and socialist terrorist organisations" . Yes, socialist terrorism, when socialism is one the the three main political currents in most of Europe. Surprise, surprise, the link is dead.

Apart from the many cynical lies (have a look at the Nepal entry: it says communist terrorism started there in 1994 when the communist party lost the election, when in fact they won that election and their leader took over as Prime Minister, the trouble really started in 1996 after political machinations of the Congress party nullified that election victory) the main problem is of ourse the structural WP:COATRACK, the combination of both terrorist insurgency and state terrorism. That is the major problem. I would be in favour of doing away with the state terrorism part as it obviously not sourced, only passingly mentioned in books.

--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I do not entirely dismiss your opinion. However, if we want to separate the "communist terrorist insurgency" and "communist state terrorism" issues, we will end up with two articles: Communist terrorism ("communist terrorist insurgency") and Political repressions by Communist states ("communist state terrorism").Biophys (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul you can see the problem in the response to your comment above, where a user suggests (apparently in all seriousness) remedying the WP:OR and WP:COATRACK problem by proliferating articles that create such problems rather than eliminating them. csloat (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, in his own eyes he is doing away with the coatrack, because he splits up the article between communist insurgency, which would be sourced and the communist state terrrorism which is not. But that does not solve most of the problems. There would still be a content coatrack (as opposed to a structural coatrack, which in my view should always be sufficient reason to delete, which unfortunately was not the decision now) in both articles, and the second article (communist state terrorism) is obviously OR and a POV fork from state terrorism. Apart from the fact that the coatrack content (stalinist, marxist-leninist, maoist, trotskist and other versions of communism all lumped together) would be far more important in the second one than in the first.

Another point: I noticed how fast people were on the draw when I deleted the Kurdistan Workers Party from the article - I think this article and the prospective two are POV magnets. WP:BEANS means I will not say which dictators still governing today were at one time considered Marxists (and yes, I mean when they were already in power), but there are quite a few of them (and two major ones at that). So, that would create havoc in the second article too. Basically, I think the first article quoted by Biophys has a reason to be, but it should be cleared from POV and COATRACK concerns by clearly stating that not "all communisms are equal" (inside joke) and that for some of these groups who may have claimed to be or were claimed communist and terrorist it is a matter of opinion whether they are communist or ever were and that even the terrorsit charge is not always proven (well, it is a major editing point at Wikipedia that you should be careful when using the word "terrorist" but in this article this rule does not seem to have been adhered to very carefully). The German RAF is a good example: OK, obviously a terror gang, but what about the communism? A writer famously called them children of Hitler (not of Stalin or Lenin) and both the main surviving leader and the main non-terrorist advocate are now active in extreme-right parties. The (first) article will also have to be watched attentively, because the mistakes in the present article indicate that some users are trying to push their own viewpoints on territorial conflicts. The second artticle would indeed be an attempt to proliferate OR and Novel Synthesis and is a POV fork.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

Paul, you are missing the point. Yes, one could argue that German RAF did not really follow "communist ideology" (although we could argue forever what is the communist ideology). However, as long as certain group was directed and funded by a communist state (like the Soviet Union), it belongs to "communist terrorism" category in my opinion. As about "Communist repressions" article, it could be sourced to many hundreds of sources.Biophys (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you should add the United States as a proliferator of Islamic terrorism, since it funded Afghani Islamists fighting the Soviet Union. Oh, you meant the other way around.... ok, so the Islamists should be listed under "Capitalist terrorism"? 129.215.37.190 (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox Easter

Mykola Pymonenko, "Easter morning prayer in Little Russia", 1891, Oil on canvas, 133x193 cm, Rybinsk Museum-Preserve of History, Architecture and Art, Rybinsk, Russia.

Hi Pasha. Thanks for your greeting. In return please accept this small present. Here is the great piece of one of my favorite Ukrainian painters depicting this event in my homeland as he saw it a little over 100 years ago. Enjoy! --Irpen 08:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(sings with loud voice) Khristos voskrese iz mertvich, smertiu smert poprav, i soushchim vo grobyech zhivot darovav! Christus verrezen uit de doden, door Zijn dood overwon Hij de dood, en schenkt terug het leven aan hen in het graf!--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa Piotrus

Thanks for informing me about Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2. BTW: Am I now English Wikipedia's official German nationalist? Very flattering. :-/  Matthead  Discuß   20:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• [2] What do you mean "has since returned" regarding Digwuren? He appears to still be banned? Avruch ^T 21:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Odizhev

I've moved it back again. Patronymics are only used in titles when there is an ambiguity (clearly none here), and the "Odishev" spelling corresponds neither to what default WP:RUS would produce nor to the spelling used in Guatanamo records. Choosing Odijev vs. Odizhev is, however, discussable and is up to whatever consensus is reached on the talk page (providing someone bothers to commence a discussion there), but considering the obscurity of this person the default romanization is probably preferrable. Oh, and I had a good laugh at "Prolandnom"—it took me a minute to figure out just what the hell it was supposed to mean. Looks like Guatanamo staff could use somewhat better interpreters, but that would probably improve their overall competence level to unacceptable heights :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Richard Wurmbrand in Namibia

Thanks for your comments on Richard Wurmbrand in connection with the biography of Colin Winter SteveH (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki tutoring

Thank you for your tutoring on wiki writing :) Brillen Otarie (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Recentism? See Philip Markoff. But that is a few months old so it qualifies??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amthernandez (talk • contribs) 05:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran political crisis#SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name again, even as we were discussing the name change

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran political crisis#SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name again, even as we were discussing the name change. Thank you. Rico 17:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Misunderstanding?

Thank you for removing the weird defamatory accusation later, but what kind of silliness is "Sander Säde (who wants to lure me into issuing a legal threat against a Russian editor who wrote something foolish)" [3]? How exactly have I "wanted to lure" you into anything, especially into something as stupid as issuing a legal threat? I've re-read my comments and cannot find anything that would be understandable as such even with gross bad-faith misinterpretation.

Also, "foolish" would be quite mild way to describe his actions. I don't think I've seen anything as evil even from anon IP vandals - and that is saying quite a bit. And not that it matters, but PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist claims to be an American, not Russian.

--Sander Säde 09:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, just in case this is not part of another email list drive (we will just have to wait till the ratunfaithful one sends the next instalment) and for the benefit of neutral parties lurking in: the way the Russavia block was applied now means that just saying something like (admins take note that this is formulated on a Carnap model meta logical level, no hair on my head would ever dream of actually writing something even remotely similar to that on Wikipedia) "If this happened on a server in X and the writer A was present in country X, he would have been summoned by the police to give evidence at the nearest station." is a legal threat if the writer of that (remember admins: purely meta logical) sentence lived in X. Just add some baiting so that the admin dealing with it would misunderstand (driving the writer to later say that "of course, having to give evidence at a police station in X, does not mean they suspect you of any crime, but in Great Britain however ..." or "of course you know that one backup server of Wikipedia is located in a country which borders on X") and the job is done.

You will probably say something about assuming good faith. Sorry, I have some problems there. One: I cannot believe that with what happened at my last encounter with the "Estonian" editors, you did not know I was Belgian or lived in Belgium. And if you did not remember anymore, you should have checked. Second: you are mentioning law a lot in your comments on that page, and most of those comments could only be satisfactorily answered by getting close to the meta logical sentence I wrote above. "And once again, what on-wiki action occurred, or just thought crime again? We are not in Soviet Union anymore, Toto. Do realize already that even private discussions involving murder of Jimbo Wales and replacing him with a sockpuppet on a stick is not actionable unless something actually happened on-wiki." Of course, the Wikipedia article that could be linked expressly says "of the US constitution" . And that is all I could comment on that one for now. Just think how nice it would be if I could assume that it is only you I am answering.

As for the guy really being American, that makes no difference to me. Yes, I should probably use quotation marks more often, but as I wrote elsewhere, you can call me a Muscovite without any problem.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As I don't remember your last "encounter with the "Estonian" editors" (I don't understand the scare quotes there), I have hard time understanding your references. And I don't routinely check everyone I come across in Wikipedia... that would be rather paranoid. Like I said before, I really don't care from where anyone comes from - I do believe only racists do.

Also, you really seem to be off completely about your assumptions on the mailing list. I hope you are not buying the silly "campaign to harass Russavia" meme he tries to push so desperately, especially now when it is obvious that arbitrators are not fooled by rhetorics? I cannot speak what happened in the mailing list before I joined, but during the three months I was a member of the mailing list, no one cared enough about Russavia to "harass" him. Majority of the mailing list was discussions about politics, news articles and such - do go read what Coren posted to the evidence. There was never any "'nnn' article is edited by 'zzz', let's go and edit war!" posts. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your prejudices, really.

I miss the point of the first section in your reply completely. Do you honestly believe in "email list drive"??! And comparison to "rat", how lovely. Nice to see good ol' insults are still appreciated. I think I'd like to at least consider myself above such level and won't respond to your obvious provocation in kind.

--Sander Säde 10:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And now you throw AGF overboard on the quotation marks issue. I have just told you, yes I should have written "Russian" with quotation marks in the case of that American and now you tell me I should not have used quotation marks at "Estonian", because that is scare quote. Or perhaps I got it wrong, you actually are telling me now that Martintg is an Estonian? Now that would be news.

So, using SS gothics in quoting his screen name (not that you did that, or even approved of it) was not really harassment, it was a joke. But putting that "Paid KGB trolls" picture on my user page to express the LOL I had had when Petri was accused (up to that time I had actually had more conflicts with him than agreements) could never be interpreted as a joke, of course. I have been told that more than 400 mails are about Russavia and more than 50 concern Petri. I would not like to be talked about so much for sure. Not that I ever expect to be, of course.

As for "rat", you really need to read my sentence again. I did not compare you to a rat - again you may not realize that someone who reads your sentences even with 100% AGF may now be thinking that you are telling me in a supa sikrit way that you are the one who outed the emails, something which I somehow doubt. Not taking the animal kind of rat into consideration, there are bad rats and good rats, and it all depends which side you are on. This one was a good rat, as far as I am concerned. To the person I was calling "rat", in case (s)he is lurking in: "Sorry if you object to being called a rat. I am very sorry I called you a rat. I will never call you a rat anymore. If you ever come to Belgium, please let's meet and I'll buy you any beer you want." For your sake (I am sure the person involved does not really mind now) I will strikeout rat and replace it with "unfaithful one". I was actually more inclined to write "unfaithful member", but even that could be misinterpreted as an insult. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The "SS" in Russavia's name was not even used by list member - it was by Colchicum - and considering that Colchicum is a user I very deeply respect for his ability to keep cool and always remain on a neutral viewpoint - he must have been truly upset to do something stupid like that. I can understand him, though - my only block is for losing self-control after months of bad-faith allegations of being Nazi etc - and doing a somewhat inappropriate comment on my own talk page, after which I was briefly blocked under rather dubious circumstances.

I am sorry if I misunderstood your quotes and references. I was (and am) rather annoyed at your comment - I don't "bait" and provoke even my content opponents; getting accused of it by someone I don't even know felt... anything but good. I don't know anything about Martintg's ethnic origin - he has mentioned he is from Australia, but considering the number of Estonian expatriates in Australia (escapees from 1940..45), I always thought he was an Estonian or partially Estonian. But, once again, as I am not interested in such matters, I really didn't ask.

And I might take you up on an offer of beer some day - I have not been in Belgium, but I have heard a lot about the amazing beers there. Even my (female) ex-coworker, who despised beer, became a beer-drinker after Java conference in Belgium. And of course, do give me a call if you happen to visit Estonia, my GMail is easy to get from my name. Although I must admit that I find Estonian beers have become somewhat boring, after all the breweries were forced to adopt EU rules... they all taste okay, but none of them isn't outstanding anymore. Or perhaps my taste has changed.

All the best, Sander

--Sander Säde 11:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nou breekt mijn klomp! (Dutch, meaning I am flabbergasted and cannot believe what I am seeing in front of my eyes). Since you write "all the best" I have to assume that you want me to continue on your page. I cannot believe that for the second time you are equating yourself with the er, unfaithful member, the one who divulged the emails. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, "All the best" meant... well, "all the best" ie. have a good time in Wikipedia, in your life and other good things. Sorry if I don't treat you like a horrible edit-warring evil list member should, but I don't think I've signed that particular promise ;). --Sander Säde 13:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry that I misunderstood you - the reason is mostly that I am having an extraordinarily busy day at work, with barely time for Wikipedia. I thought you might be a person able to put this silly partinsanship behind us - but as you explain, I misunderstood your intentions. I am always willing and happy to work with anyone, who is able to provide sources for his views and comments - and isn't clearly ethnically prejudiced (just make it clear, I don't mean that you are ethnically prejudiced, but even during this case and today we have users who are willing to insert anything to defame the object of their hatred). --Sander Säde 14:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

---

ANALYSIS: A wonderful baiting and luring exercise. Anyone who understands English well and reads this carefully, will understand how clever it is. It is obvious that Sander Säde is trying to lure me into believing he is the whistleblower. The second "confusion" is made after I warned him how his words would be interpreted. However, of course Sander is not the whistleblower and his account was not hacked into. How do we know? Because my post on his talk page ([4]) was deleted by Vecrumba with the words "Dictionary definitions of "rat" consitute harassment, if you have something constructive to say, say it at the case". So, it was all an attempt to bait me into repeating that awful word "rat" - and then claim I had called one of "them" a rat, because baiting me into a legal threat did not succeed. The problem is, I never called Sander a rat. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. You know. Unfortunately, I don't have ticket out of jail like Giano and I cannot openly say what I think of you after reading this... blurb worthy of leading creationists. I don't understand how can you take a high horse and talk about "baiting and luring". I've never tried you lure into anything, one should be rather paranoid to think something like that. I tried to be friendly, understanding and have a good faith about you... and what do I get? I am "baiting", "luring" - and getting sneaky weird accusations behind my back. Just lovely. Shows what kind of person I am dealing with. I won't say "all the best" or some other friendly phrase as goodbye, as you undoubtedly twist it into some nefarious meaning again, like you did last time. --Sander Säde 06:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And again, Sander Säde is trying to play the innocent victim. Clearly, I only interpreted "all the best" as a suggestion to continue any possible further discussion on his talk page (the friendly message that Vecrumba deleted as "harassment") How he can possibly defend that he did not try to lure me into believing that he was the whistleblower or that his account was hacked, is beyond me. After telling me that I am not allowed to use the word "rat" even in connection with the one who brought out the mailing list, Sander Säde compares me to a creationist. Matthew 7,3. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, you have compared us to birthers. So, when it comes to blame in comparing things, I would say you should be rather quiet.

And I am a victim here - a victim of your bad faith accusations. Like I said, I replied to your posts in a hurry - and you use very convoluted sentence structure which is really hard to understand. So I misunderstood and thought you were displaying good faith - and responded in kind. So sorry that only I was acting on good faith.

I am not the whistle-blower. I have not ever claimed intentionally in any way that I am. It would be silly to do so, as I joined the list in June and e-mails go back to January.

Why oh why are you continuing this lunacy? Trying to provoke me into incivility? I am not falling to your trap, so you may just as well give it up. Trying to play a victim of evil mailing list members? Anyone with three working brain cells will see through this. So what is your agenda with these bad-faith misunderstandings?

--Sander Säde 08:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there we go again. You came to my talk page, remember. You seem now to be claiming that your English is not good enough, but forget what I wrote on your talk page, where I saw you admonishing people to speak English. As for your question why, to quote Skäpperöd (talk) "I never chose to be in your battle. I never chose certain editors to be my opponents." The birfer charge is silly, it was clearly in reference to the fact that some people who had been "disrupting" the artificial consensus reached off wiki, had indeed been presented with an insinuation that they were perhaps nazi, then after they had explained themselves they were presented with an insinuation that perhaps they were communist, and after further explaining and outing themselves they were told they were Western intellectuals who had no inkling what life was under the Soviet Union and had COI (apart form COI, that was all in the text you are referring to). And yes, if Wikipedia contributors really feel that kind of line of insinuation is not silly, then well let us call them mailing list members. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) That there was an EEML "artificial consensus" apart from a consensus which would have manifested sans EEML is your personal synthesis based on an assumption of bad faith. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 14:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You should check who among the mailing list members claimed that he arranged consensus between Polish and Ukrainian members.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Had you been a member, you would immediately realize that the proper word for Piotrus' role in the midst of editors calling each other "fucks" (yes, that word, specifically) over historical accounts is "mediated" and "brokered." VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 21:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Had I been a member - but that would have meant the mailing list was useless. I never used the word "fucks" so I do not know why you use it here. In the face of a private secret mailing list, where one of the policies was to constantly deny its very existence, it is very difficult to ascertain whether any moderation allegedly urged by Piotrus (mind you: I have not read the archive) was to moderate or to ensure the secret of the mailing list was conserved. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Check user stuff and the mailing list

I'm going to respond here because the discussion's going off topic of actual Proposed Decisions and we shouldn't make work for the clerks. Anyway - when I said "nobody from the other side" I wasn't thinking of you as being on ... well, any side actually. Your appearance is fairly recent and it post dates my last suggestion for check user. By "other side" I meant those listed as parties in the case plus a few of the particularly ... vocal ... supporters of their (many of whom have a history of sock puppeting - which I suspect is why they haven't taken up the offer).

I don't actually know you, nor do I believe we've ever edited anything together so I have no reason to suspect you of anything - nor to have much of an opinion at all. From what I can tell, you had some disagreements with Piotrus way back when and so you decided to comment on the case. Ok.radek (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked some time ago if you were discussed: not to any of my recollections. I don't even recall when and what we have a disagreement "way back when" that Radek's mentions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I already know indirectly that I am not in the archive mentioned. Which is normal, since in the last ten months the closest I came to the battleground was an article on Germans in the Caucasus. And no, we never met in direct conflict. We met in indirect conflict over Ghirla, Irpen, Petri and Digwuren. I remember that on the first Ghirla case I claimed that you were dragged into the conflict. In hindsight, I was obviously wrong. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Dialog

Whether you have a simple question or an accusation to lodge, in the future, such conversations are best done directly, not through my finding complaints on an admin's page. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Matthew 7,3. Before deleting that message of mine, which was obviously a reaction to a discussion on my talk page, as "harassment", you could have come here and seen that it was Sander Säde who started the discussion.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Petri and Martintg: them Poles are not to be blamed for nothing!

Hello. Thanks for the comment. I have now idea why Martintg mentioned him as well. In any case that is not important. In general I tend to ignore provocative comments, for example such comments I leave unanswered as they perfectly illustrates battleground mentality. Cya, M.K. (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I am not sure that publishing your birth certificate is a wise move. As you may noticed cabals actively tried to identified real life identities of certain user ,that is look like, in attempt to harass them in real life. M.K. (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been deleted. My offer to the Arbcom still stands however. In the deleted discussion on the decision talk I did mention that I would divulge my home address and real e-mail address only to arbcom (for the reasons you mention, but Martintg thought that was silly "all the Belgians I have known are good people"). Funnily, you are right, the local admin could try to find out my present address at the town hall when checking my birth certificate. It does fall under privacy laws, but civil servants are known to sometimes bend the rules when someone says it is for genealogy or whatever. That means one would have to trust the admin not to do that. I will have to think about that. Thanks for warning me, actually. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Take care, M.K. (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Re

Thank you for the feedback. It has been some years now since I have been to your part of the world, but I enjoyed my stays there very much. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom Conduct warning

You are hereby given a first and final conduct warning for this diff. As has been made abundantly clear, posts that serves no function other than to criticise or denigrate another editor are not permitted. Manning (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please name a single Polish (or not) editor who has cited me as the reason he has retired from this project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I did say "indirectly". I have explained this whole idea already. Oh, and I never said you drove them off the project, I said your approach did. As in "criticize the edits, not the editor." --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC

There is an RfC at International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup -- Rico 16:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Birthers

"the old guy at the museum was a birther". I'm completely unfamiliar with what you're referring to, Paul. Though I know what a "birther" is.Cadwallader (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• James von Brunn. I am also answering it here, because I have "compared the members of the East European mailing list to bithers". It took me quite some time to find this back:

[5]. This was done notwithstanding what the talk page said about it. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not inclined toward ideological edit wars. However, I do tend to make sure articles include minority points of view, as well as politically sensitive info that an incumbent's followers consistently try to delete. I've done this for entries on Republicans ( John L. Brownlee ) as well as Christian sect leaders ( Herbert Armstrong ). So, this is just the way I play Wikipedia. Like I said, I agree with the removal of the list of law clerks for relevancy. However, the fact that this flap about Velamoor has made the news makes me curious why you are so intent on deleting information about him? This isn't about protecting him, it's about deleting information you don't want the public to see. From your other comments you come across as politically motivated. I don't care where in the world BHO was born, because his mother was a U.S. citizen, therefore he is a naturally born U.S. Citizen.

What interests me is a federal judge hiring a law clerk from the defendant's counsel while the case is still in play, and then dismissing the case in favor of the defendant. That is highly unusual, and gives the appearance of impropriety - even if it is just coincidence. It happened, it made the news, it is noteworthy, it belongs in the article.

I finally understand your reference to James von Brunn. Your argument, if I may summarize, "Brunn was a birther. Brunn committed murder with a gun. Therefore birthers are dangerous and likely to murder. Birthers are concerned about Velamoor working for Carter. Therefore Velamoor is in danger, and his name should be deleted from this article."

One problem with your logic, is that if Velamoor is in danger, then Carter would be more so. So we should delete the entire entry on Judge Carter to protect him. Ridiculous.

The main problem with your logic is that Brunn shot up the Holocaust Museum due to his racist ideology. Brunn was also white. You are white. Therefore you may present a danger to Velamoor. Obviously, not all white people share Brunn's views, or his decision to murder. Likewise, many people question where BHO was born, but have nothing else in common with Brunn.

Here is the reason Brunn gave for what he did, "You want my weapons — this is how you'll get them. The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews. Obama does what his Jew owners tell him to do. Jews captured America's money. Jews control the mass media. The 1st Amendment is abrogated henceforth..."

He was attacking Jews. There is nothing in there about BHO's birth location.Cadwallader (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with what you said on my talk page and will make appropriate changes if they haven't already been made. The info that he was selected one year before was particularly relevant.Cadwallader (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Can provide a source for the claim that Velamoor was chosen a year in advance? I already put it in the article, on your word, but I need to cite the source. Thx.Cadwallader (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Raphaël Onana

This page will be delete and I know wikipedia is not right. Raphaël is one of the heroes of the world war II. Can you save this page ? Please.

User:Warinhari —Preceding undated comment added 12:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC).

Jänisjärvi or Yanisyarvi?

Please, look at my comment here. --WPK (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Paul Pieniezny. You have new messages at Talk:Gérard_Depardieu#He_would_need_a_Visa_to_continue_to_live_in_Belgium_next.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

+ Gelukkig nieuwjaar! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

My talk page contributions

Please, leave my contributions on the talk page (Gerard Depardieu) in peace, so everybody who likes can respond. Don't revert them, ok. Cruks (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I did notice an edit conflict. Seems I was not cautious enough, though.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Paul Pieniezny. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Paul Pieniezny. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)