Nutza Dischkrian:Russavia

Aus Wikipedia
Zur Navigation springen Zur Suche springen

Welcome to my talk page[Weakln]

Please leave any messages for me here, or feel free to email me. Russavia (dischkrian) 19:00, 19. Jul. 2012 (CEST)


Grüeß di, Russavia!

Waisst was, i hälff dyr gern; dyrzue wär s aber zeerst aynmaal nootwendig, däß i mit meiner Bairischn Buechspraach wider werchen därff!

Hello, Russavia!

I waould be utterly fond of helping you, but for this the ban on the Bavarian Book Language would have to be lifted first. Help me where you can!

--Hellsepp (dischkrian) 12:37, 21. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

Hello Hellsepp, thank you for your message, it's appreciated. Unfortunately I do not speak Bavarian, let alone Standard German, so I am not familiar with "Bavarian Book Language", but it looks to me like it is a proposal for a construct of Bavarian language/dialect? I am not in the place to be able to help with having that "ban" lifted because I am not knowledgeable on that subject. :( Russavia (dischkrian) 01:38, 22. Jul. 2012 (CEST)
Sepp, schreib s halt auf deinn Benutzerseittn und i kan s aft in a dyrlaaubte Umschrift drunter schreibn. -- 18:30, 22. Jul. 2012 (CEST)


I've read the article you want translated, but it has a lot of Internet-specific terms which I'm not very familiar with. However, if you want a good translation, there is a user who has just recently made several Bavarian articles on Internet-specific topics including various social networking websites, so he'd probably be interested in that sort of thing. If you look in the list of new articles, you can easily find him. --Ad Libertatem (dischkrian) 14:42, 12. Aug. 2012 (CEST)

By the way, if he isn't interested for some reason or doesn't have time to do it, feel free to contact me again. Then I could try to translate what I can anyway, even if I don't know certain terms. --Ad Libertatem (dischkrian) 20:38, 12. Aug. 2012 (CEST)
Thank you mate, that's great to hear. This is the beauty of WP really. :) I'll get in touch in a few days if that's ok if I still haven't hear from our "internet" editor :) Russavia (dischkrian) 22:03, 12. Aug. 2012 (CEST)

Explain your block[Weakln]

Holder, you have made a huge error here, and I do not plan on wasting too much of my time on you, Bua333, and the other editor.

But your block comments were:

(nutzt Wikipedia für Werbung und verbreitet nationalistische Äußerungen, siehe Diskussionen, Checkuser und Sperren auf der englischen Wikipedia) <- uses WP for advertisment and spreads nationalistic stuff, see discussion, checkuser and blocks on enwp

(Why have you revdeled those for by the way?!?!??!)

So there's the block reason; it is now up to the 3 of you to explain with nothing but fact why an indef block (in fact ANY block) was warranted inline with each of those block reasons which you have now conveniently hidden from public view. Also, you can explain ALL of the personal attacks on myself; and there's been plenty as I can tell.

Additionally, you mentioned something off our projects that you read, and also made that a reason for your block too. Can you explain why you have used libellous trolling off project as a reason to block on project. I warn you, link to that link, and there will be trouble.

I hope you realise that you are going to end up with some serious egg on your face; and I will not be requesting an unblock, that will come by way of you doing so yourself across all 3 projects, or this will go to Meta.

Now I will await an explanation to the most disgraceful way you and others have acted. Russavia (dischkrian) 20:18, 14. Mai 2013 (CEST)

I've blocked you because of your massive wiki spamming of "polandball". My comment "nationalistische Äußerungen" refers to "The topic is an Internet meme concerning nationalist stereotypes about Poland". I can understand if you think that my comment is a personal attack, that's why I have hidden that comment.
But perhaps you can explain us the discussions, arbitrations, checkusers and expecially the block log of your account on English Wikipedia.
Kind regards. --Holder (dischkrian) 20:42, 14. Mai 2013 (CEST)
Not a good enough explanation, sorry. You are the one who used those reasons for blocking; it is up to YOU to explain them one by one. Not for me to do so. Try again. Russavia (dischkrian) 20:45, 14. Mai 2013 (CEST)
The checkuser reason will be especially funny. Well all of your reasons will be funny. But the checkuser reason will especially show how ridiculous you have acted. Russavia (dischkrian) 20:47, 14. Mai 2013 (CEST)
And one last thing. Can you please point to your local project blocking policy? Russavia (dischkrian) 21:00, 14. Mai 2013 (CEST)
Once again: you have been blocked due to your massive wiki spamming of polandball. I apologize for that block comment. It was really not well thought out, that's why I've hidden it. However, the reasons for the block (spamming of polandball) remain in force. --Holder (dischkrian) 21:06, 14. Mai 2013 (CEST)
Is that your last answer? Also, please explain why you referred to off-project libellous outing by permabanned trolls as a reason for the block. It's all there in black and white. Russavia (dischkrian) 21:15, 14. Mai 2013 (CEST)
Your account acts here as a single purpose account to promote polandball, with no will at all to do encyclopedic work on Bavarian Wikipedia. That is reason enough to be blocked. --Joe Watzmo (dischkrian) 21:17, 14. Mai 2013 (CEST)
I didn't block you because of these "libellous trolling off project" you've mentioned. I didn't knew these things when blocking you. When Barras asked me for my reasons I had a look around and I found any number of discussions on en:wp. The stupid and disgraceful discussions outside Wikipedia were no reason for the block. --Holder (dischkrian) 21:36, 14. Mai 2013 (CEST)
Thank you Odder. See you guys at Meta. Russavia (dischkrian) 22:03, 14. Mai 2013 (CEST)
Thank you guys. See you there. --Joe Watzmo (dischkrian) 22:19, 14. Mai 2013 (CEST)

Good faith discussion[Weakln]

Holder, did you bother to read en:User:Russavia/Appeal? What does it tell you? Russavia (dischkrian) 19:00, 15. Mai 2013 (CEST)

Yes, now I've read your appeal (I didn' knew it before you mentioned it on meta). So, if I read your appeal and have a look at your global contributions I get the impression that you are creating English versions of the article on global Wikipedias since it has been deleted on English Wikipedia. Could it be that you just want to have this article being created in many languages to get your article restored on English Wikipedia? --Holder (dischkrian) 19:24, 15. Mai 2013 (CEST)
If you want to have a pleasant discussion here Holder, you will need to start assuming good faith. This will begin by way of you striking the "spamming" comment, and refactoring it. Also, I will ask you to keep your fellow editors here away from this discussion entirely. Is that ok? Russavia (dischkrian) 19:39, 15. Mai 2013 (CEST)
Yes, that's ok. --Holder (dischkrian) 19:46, 15. Mai 2013 (CEST)
Wikipediocracy, interesting, no? LOL Russavia (dischkrian) 18:02, 27. Mai 2013 (CEST)
I am pissing myself laughing at the article Holder, because how this community acts to it, will determine whether I waste my time discussing anything in the future. Which I am still open too. Russavia (dischkrian) 18:08, 27. Mai 2013 (CEST)
Hi Russavia.
I'm sorry but I don't understand you comment. Somebody has written an article about a weblog, which has also articles in English and Polish Wikipedia. What's the problem with that article?
You have written "how this community acts to it". How this community acts - to what? To the article Wikipediocracy?
--Holder (dischkrian) 19:24, 27. Mai 2013 (CEST)
Holder, does bar.wp have a notability guideline? I can't see any interwiki links to it, but if you can direct me to it, if there is one, I can show you how it simply doesn't meet any notion of notability. But in short, the nominator at en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy (2nd nomination) has hit the nail on the head; for a subject to be notable, it needs multiple, independent sources to have written in-depth on the subject. All that exists is trivial mentions of the subject, and then a whole heap of other "references" which add nothing to the notability of the subject; such as an external link to posing as a reference. Take a look at the nominator's reasoning at en.wp and it holds strong and true. Also, the pl.wp article is up for deletion too at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2013:05:27:Wikipediocracy. You may wish to follow that discussion as well.
Other than that, do you have email enabled? If so, would it be ok to discuss a few things with you directly on email. Russavia (dischkrian) 20:05, 27. Mai 2013 (CEST)
Russavia, why do you want to discuss the notability of this article. I'm not interested in this article nor in any discussion on it. And I don't want to discuss problems with you by mail. If there's anything notable to discuss, for instance on your block, let's discuss it here on this page. --Holder (dischkrian) 20:58, 27. Mai 2013 (CEST)