User talk:Борис Романов

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2011[edit]

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

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Favonian (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Favonian, earlier I believed that my actions match the rule (exemptions) «3RR exemptions» («Reverting obvious vandalism...»), because undoing of my addition by two other users (Trekphiler and Rjensen, see: Revision history of World War I) were not based on WP's rules (see my discussion with them: Addition to "Backgraund": July 29, (1914) Nicholas II sent a telegram to Wilhelm II, with the suggestion "to transmit the Austro-Serbian question to the Hague Conference") – and I have detail discussion with them there. Now I have read the rules "3RR exemptions" more closely, and now I'm not sure that I was right. More precisely, I remain confident that their (Trekphiler&Rjensen's) undoing of my edits were not based on the rules of Wikipedia, but I recognize now that my actions (4 reverting) were not based on WP's rules too. Perhaps I should refer to the "Requests to the Administrators? Please tell me this link. (I do not have much experience in the English Wikipedia, and my English is not perfect – I'm sorry)Борис Романов (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov[reply]

I would recommend that you "self-revert", i.e. undo your latest addition of the contended material. That will put you back on the right side of the 3RR limit and save you from being blocked. From then on, you should confine your activity to the article talk page. Only if consensus can be obtained there may the section be re-added. Thank you for cooperating! Favonian (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS. – We read there:"consensus seems to offer the best method to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability." No one of opponents say nothing about neutrality and verifiability - because my addition is neutral and verifiable. They critically say about my refer to (ref>Palaeologus M.G. Tsarist Russia during World War. – Moscow. Publisher "International Relations", 1991 (page 155, 156 - in Russian). 1st Edition: Paléologue M.G. La Russie des Tsars pendant la grande guerre.— Paris: Plon, 1922. (Chapter XII)</ref ) -- they say that it is not secondary RS – however, the book of M.Paleologus (the member of the French Academy) is just such SECONDARY RS (with respect to these telegrams). It was reviewed extensively in a lot of scholarships. Thus, I don't see a necessity in the consensus, because my addition is neutral and verifiable (and my sources are RS, and one of its is a secondary source). Борис Романов (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov[reply]
I see (Addition to "Backgraund": July 29, (1914) Nicholas II sent a telegram to Wilhelm II") that my opponents have reached consensus among themselves: now they write that my addition is of no interest ("insignificant, inconsequential, trivial, a non-event, etc"). Moreover, today Lothar von Richthofen deleted my addition «as a minor edit» (!)(Revision history of World War I). However:
The Hague Conventions are mentioned in the article three times. Any actions and appeals related to the Hague Convention (the Hague Conference, the Hague Tribunal) is always referred (and should be mentioned) in the Wikipedia articles. I do not understand why very important attempt of Nicholas II to prevent war with the Hague Tribunal should not be mentioned in this article. My addition has three important aspects:
1. The article WWI has not any mention about any attempt to prevent war,
2. This attempt was made by head of one of the great states,
3. This attempt was connected with the Hague Tribunal.
I think these three reasons are very significant.
What I can do? How I can protect my addition? Борис Романов (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov[reply]
In the article World War II (with label "good article"), we see five references to the League of Nations, including as appeals to the League Nation, so and (for example) the following: "Both Italy and Ethiopia were member nations, but the League did nothing when the former clearly violated the League's own". – Thus, a good article on Wikipedia mentions all cases of action and inaction of the League of Nations.
Why did the article World War I never mentions the Hague Conference (the predecessor of the League of Nations)and Hague Tribunal? (though several times referred to the Hague Convention). Why the unique known attempt (of Nicholas II) to apply to the Hague tribunal is not worthy of mention in the World War I article?Борис Романов (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov[reply]
We read in WP WEIGHT (WP: Neutral point of view) (WP: Due and undue weight):
“As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.”
“Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint”
Obviously, Russia (represented by Foreign Minister Sazonov) and France (represented by the French Ambassador to Russia Maurice Palaeologus) believed the telegram Nicholas II an important fact in the chain of events on the eve of the war, and their point of view was published in reliable source (the book Maurice Palaeologus: ref>Maurice Paléologue. An ambassador's memoirs, Volume 1 - Octagon Books, 1972</ref ). Therefore, it is significant viewpoints. Борис Романов (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov[reply]

JUNE, 21. THREE NEW RS .

1. G. Buchanan. «My Mission to Russia and other diplomatic memories», L. 1920/1923. (Chapter XV). - G. Buchanan. «My Mission to Russia and other diplomatic memories», 1923 (P.200) Quote: “To this the Emperor Nicholas replied: “Thanks for your telegram conciliatory and friendly. Whereas official message presented today by your ambassador to my minister was conveyed in a very different tone. Beg you to explain this divergency! It would be right to give over the Austro-servian problem to the Hague conference. Trust in your wisdom and friendship.””

2. The Evidence in the Case by James M. Beck, March 1, 2010 (p.81, p.106)

Quote (p.81): “...the Czar, with evident sincerity, suggested to the Kaiser that "with the aid of God it must be possible to our long tried friendship to prevent the shedding of blood," and proposed a reference of the question to the Hague.”

Quote (p.106): “THE SUPPRESSED TELEGRAM FROM THE CZAR. It is a curious and suggestive fact that the German Foreign Office in publishing the correspondence between the Kaiser and the Czar omitted one of the most important telegrams. The Russian Government on January 31, 1915, therefore, made public the following telegram which the Czar sent to the Kaiser on July 29, 1914:

"Thanks for your conciliatory and friendly telegram. Inasmuch as the official message presented to-day by your Ambassador to my Minister was conveyed in a very different tone, I beg you to explain this divergency. It would be right to give over the Austro-Servian problem to The Hague Conference. I trust in your wisdom and friendship."

The German Foreign Office has since explained that they regarded this telegram as too "_unimportant_" for publication. Comment is unnecessary. It thus appears that the Czar at the beginning of his correspondence with the Kaiser suggested that the whole dispute be submitted to The Hague Tribunal for adjustment. Servia had already made the same suggestion. As the world owes the first Hague Convention to the Czar's initiative, it can justly be said to his lasting credit that he at least was loyal to the pacific ideal of that great convention of the nations.”

THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. A Discussion of the Moral Responsibility for the War of 1914, as Disclosed by the Diplomatic Records of England, Germany, Russia, France, Austria, Italy and Belgium. BY JAMES M. BECK, LL.D. Late Assistant Attorney-General of the U. S. Author of "The War and Humanity."

3. "History of Russia. XX Century "(Volume I, 1894-1939). - M., 2010, (P.291) "History of Russia. XX Century "(Volume I, 1894-1939). - M., 2010, 1023 pages. Written by 45 historians led by Andrei Zubov, a professor at the institute that serves as university to the Russian Foreign Ministry, the weighty history — almost 1,000 pages per volume — was published this year by AST Publishers. We read on p. 291 of this book:

“During the entire period of the Balkan crisis, Russian diplomacy feverishly sought to avoid the possibility of a large European conflict. Emperor Nicholas II took an active correspondence with the Kaiser Wilhelm II, trying to convince him to make his Austrian ally, think again. “It would be right to give over the Austro-servian problem to the Hague conference. Trust in your wisdom and friendship”,- Russian Tsar wrote to Kaiser.”

Next, the authors write that the Tsar's advisors (Sazonov, Sukhomlinov and Yanushkevich) considered war inevitable, and insisted on a general mobilization; Nicolas II hesitated, and had hoped to agree with Wilhelm II - but the correspondence gave nothing, and Tsar ordered a general mobilization.

You may read also NY Times book review: "History of Russia. XX Century" (A History of 20th-Century Russia, Warts and All):

”Eminent historians in the United States and Poland who often take a critical view of Russia’s passionate, partisan discussion of history lauded its balance.”

You may read there also the opinion of Richard Pipes:

“Nothing like it has ever been published in Russia,” - Richard Pipes, the Harvard University Sovietologist, wrote in an e-mail message, noting that he was trying to raise money for a translation and publication in English. “It is a remarkable work: remarkable not only for Russia but also for Western readers. For one, it has gotten away from the nationalism so common in Russian history books, according to which the Russians were always the victims of aggression, never aggressors.”

So, we have now four RS (four - with M.Paleologus's book). Once again, on Talk:World War I I ask opponents to change their position and bring it into conformity with the rules of Wikipedia. Борис Романов (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov[reply]

You are free to undo the "collapsetop" at anytime. I can't give nor can anyone else permission for inclusion of anything. AS per Wikipedia:Consensus not one person seems to think inclusion was worthy at. Now if you are looking for more opinions on this inclusion matter you may want to see .....

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
  • The Dispute resolution noticeboard is designed to help diffuse small content and conduct issues, and assist in pointing larger issues to the best forum for resolution. It's also helpful when the nature of the dispute is unclear and in need of clarification. It can also assist if the dispute needs raising at another venue. This noticeboard is not designed to retake existing disputes; the need to discuss issues in a calm and civilised manner is important.


Wikipedia:Editor assistance

For best results when posting here:

Third opinion

Be sure to discuss the dispute on the talk page, and list here if only two editors are involved. Instructions:

  1. Only two editors involved
  2. Concise and neutral description of the disagreement
  3. Include a wikilink to the article's talk page with a "#section" link for the specific article talk page section in which the dispute is occurring.
  4. Sign with five tildes (~~~~~) to add the date without your name. This is important to maintain neutrality.
  5. Start your entry with a number sign/hash (#) directly below the previous entry.

Requests for comment
  1. This tool will only work if you are registered and you have a confirmed e-mail address registered via your Special:Preferences!
  2. Add just your username: Do not prefix it with "User:"
  3. List the page you're requesting for RFC discussion: Do not forget "Talk:" if you are posting to a talk page. (Only write the page title, not the full URL.)
  4. Choose an RFC category from a menu list: (11 selections, from Biographies to Wikipedia:Policies)
  5. Name of RFC: This is the name of the new discussion section that will be created
  6. Description: Keep it short and to the point. One paragraph only; you can elaborate once the RFC is posted.
Main page dispute resolutions.Moxy (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed explanation. I think I'm desirable to continue the discussion on the page Talk:World War I (because so far none of the six opponents are not spoken about my new RS). If they'll keep silent, or do not recognize these RS as RS - in this case I'll take your recommendations. Regards. Борис Романов (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov[reply]

Oh, Boris[edit]

Boris, you were chased from Amazon posting under K&W book. Now you are here, I see, and all I ask is you be BRIEF and CLEAR with the information you are putting toward Anna Anderson. Your writing and your English are frankly very bad. And I am watching the Anna article. I built up that article and devoted a year to it. I won't see you wreck all that!75.21.96.66 (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited The Willy-Nicky Correspondence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hague tribunal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Nicholas II of Russia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hague tribunal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding material despite clear consensus not to[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Causes of World War I. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing.

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Information icon Hello, Борис Романов. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Judas Iscariot, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 16:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Борис_Романов&oldid=759592285"