User talk:Art Dominique

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Users Fred-Chess and mikka (t) are participating in improper behavior in Wikipedia the following ways

It appears that I keep being unfairly blocked from editing anything in the Wikipedia with my registered user name, Art Dominique, due to ill-fated actions taken by mikka (t), in reference to the Wikipedia's Kven article. The talk pages reveal that the user mikka (t) has been engouraged to his actions by the user Fred-Chess, apparently for the following reasons:

The user Splashtalk unsprotected the Kven article in question - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kven - with a history notation "22:32, 22 March 2006 Splash (unsprot: weird reason to protect and it's been long enough anywa)", after the article had been sprotected by user Fred-Chess, whose reasoning for his action indeed was very, very strange.

Despite of many pleas for him to do so, the above mentioned user with "weird reasoning" - Fred-Chess - has not provided sources for his claims in the Wikipedia's Kven text or on its discussion page. His claims presented are not - to our knowledge - supported by known historians and/or other scientists. Instead, the views presented are contradicting those of known historians and other specialists on the related fields, as has been proven on the Kven discussion page.

On the other hand, the users opposing the views of Fred-Chess have provided their own distinguished sources on another Kven text page version and the Kven discussion page as well. However, without presenting sources of their own and without discussing their claims, Fred-Chess and mikka (t) keep reverting the Kven text into a text version by Fred-Chess, which includes his unfounded claims, not supported by science. Furthermore, the sources offered on the bottom of that text version do not agree with the views/claims presented. The given sources have been carried on from the contributes of other editors. Thus, this is a clear case of misrepresentation.

Below are just a couple of examples of the serious shortcomings of the Kven text version by Fred chessplayer, which the user mikka (t) appears to have blocked several other users from correcting, or from reverting to a version with valid credited sources and accurate matching information, approved by historians. The following exact quotes are from the currently standing Fred chessplayer's Kven text. The quotes of Fred chessplayer's claims are followed by correct information (the sources offered in Fred chessplayer's own text version agree with this correct information, but not with the claims of Fred-Chess):


1. "Kvens (alternate spellings: Cwen, Kven, Kvæn, Kveeni, Quen) were a historical group of people that lived in the coastal areas around the Gulf of Bothnia, part of today's Finland."

There is a wide consensus among historians, that large areas of today's Northern Sweden, particularly the areas around the Gulf of Bothnia, were also part of the historic Kvenland.
Thus, the historic Kvenland areas are not only a "part of today's Finland", but also a part of today's Sweden, and - according to some historians - also a part of today's Norway, and even a part of today's extreme Northwestern Russia.


2. "Possibly, Kvens referred to all Finnish people. (Suomen historia (History of Finland), page 27, Jouko Vahtola, Professor of Finnish and Scandinavian history. )."

On the above mentioned page, Professor Vahtola does not claim such a thing. He only says that in 870 AD the "Kven" reference made by the Norwegian explorer "Othar" was - perhaps - meant to refer to Finns in general. On this page, he is not discussing any of the other historic references to Kvens, and their nature and/or meaning.
Professor Vahtola himself indeed has - in his books - made it clear that Kvens are a separate group within the Finnish/Finnic people, and that the term "Kven" - used for instance in various historic texts - has usually not referred to the Finnish people in general, but rather to a special historic group/tribe of people. There is a wide consensus about this matter among historians.


3."In literature, the first known occurrence of the Kven in the Account of the Viking Othere, a chronicle in the time of King Alfred the Great in the 9th century AD."

According to the distinguished Kven expert, the Professor Emeritus Kyösti Julku, the first known reference to the Kven people in literature was made by the Roman historian Tacitus, Gaius Cornelius in Germania in 98 AD.


4."Before the 8th century there are scarcely any remains of the Kvens."

On the contrary: The archaeological evidence of agricultural settlement on the Finnish side of the Gulf of Bothnia is strong before the 9th century, and it gets weaker as the Viking Age advances"


Some of the less important peaces of information in the currently standing Kven text version is correct, thanks to the contributions by users other than Fred-Chess or mikka (t). Much of the current text, however, is not correctly reflecting the opinions of the utmost experts of the Scandinavian and Finnish history, nor does the currently presented information match the views of the sources and references offered on the current Kven page.

On the other hand, the text version of "16:20, 18 April 2006 Ppt" provides valid information with matching distinguished sources and references, including a couple of exact quotes of the wordings by known Kven experts, etc.

Administrators, please review the actions and behavior of mikka (t) (his Kven and Varangian text reverts are not explained, sources are not provided, clean Varangian discussion comments are deleted by him, etc.). Please, also review the behavior of Fred-Chess (he forces false info to Wikipedia's Kven page, providing no sources and no responses to complaints). Please remove blocks orchestrated by these two users against the under-signer. The blocks are placed under the name of mikka (t).

The under-signer is not an "anonymous" user, and must not be mixed up with any other users, regardless of what computers they might have used. As mikka (t) has been unable to provide any evidence of any wrong doing by me, I kindly ask for someone to please unblock me immediately !

I hereby also request for mikka (t) and Fred-Chess to be revoked their rights to block Wikipedia users' editing privileges, based on the evidence and reasons shown on this page and for instance on the two pages provided below. The user mikka (t) must not be allowed to continue blocking innocent registered Wikipedia users. Both users must be stopped of reverting to false infromation, as they decline requests for sources, reasoning and answers to complaints:


1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kven - The Kven discussion page --> neither of the two provides sources, nor discusses their reverts, nor answers to complaints about their actions.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Varangians - The Varangian discussion page --> mikka (t)' delets discussion texts of other users / does not explain his reverts.


Art Dominique talk, May 2, 2006 - 05:16 (Ps.: In order to be able to sign in safely and to post this message, I have had to register a new user name, Digi Wiki, because computers used to enter Wikipedia by Art Dominique talk have become automatically blocked (including discussion pages), due to the wrongful actions taken by mikka (t).)

[edit] User Ghirlandajo is deleting important comments of valid concerns from this page

On this administrators' page's history at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=history we can see that user Ghirlandajo deleted an important comment of valid concerns ("08:02, 4 May 2006 Ghirlandajo") immediately after it had been posted for the administrators to review by Digi Wiki ("07:58, 4 May 2006 Digi Wiki").

That article reveals serious wrong doings by two Wikipedia users, similar to the wrong doings which user Ghirlandajo himself has been caught of participating in at Wikipedia's Varangian page.

For instance, at the Varangian article history page at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Varangians&limit=100&action=history we can see that with the foot note "18:03, 3 March 2006 Ghirlandajo (rm the latest attack by Kvenites)" the user Ghirlandajo deleted referenced contributons made by another user to Wikipedia only moments before. The user Ghirlandajo did not provide reasons for his action.

The user Ghirlandajo has continued these type of radical actions, without reasoning or any conversation. Today he did it on this administrators' page. Thus, can someone now put an end to his ilfated tactics and behavior which do not belong to Wikipedia. While conducting his own delete/revert strategies, the user Ghirlandajo is not providing sources or reasons for his actions, nor does he engage in any conversation regarding his deletes of the referenced and sourced information provided by others.

Another example: At the Varangian article's talk page's history at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Varangians&limit=250&action=history the user Ghirlandajo deleted a discussion comment on March 15, 2006, with the following history page marking: "15:13, 15 March 2006 Ghirlandajo (Wikipedia is not a dump for copyrighted material)".

That can only be considered vandalism by Ghirlandajo, because althoug quotes were used in the discussion comment of the other Wikipedia user Drow Ssap, no copyrighted material was used without permission. On the top of Drow Ssap's comment which the user Ghirlandajo deleted, it was clearly stated that a permission had been granted for use of the quoted text. To confirm please check the page in question at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Varangians&diff=43900059&oldid=43889395.

Administrators, based on the information provided above, please proceed to place the proper sanctions against the user Ghirlandajo !


Art Dominique talk, May 4, 14:22, 2006

Ps. 1: In order to be able to sign in safely and to post this message, I have had to register a new user name, Digi Wiki, because computers used to enter Wikipedia by Art Dominique talk have become automatically blocked (including discussion pages), due to the wrongful actions taken by mikka (t).)

Ps. 2: As the history page shows, this important comment was just deleted from here moments ago, with the following history record: "23:43, 4 May 2006 Mikkalai"


[edit] Account blocked

This and several other accounts have been blocked for engaging in revert wars using extensive sockpuppetry (see User:Mikkalai/arkven) and refusal following wikipedia guidelines. If you want to edit, please choose a single account and start discussing issues one by one in article talk pages. Please reach agreeements point by point, rather than by writing long essays. `'mikka (t) 23:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Where is the evidence for you accusations,`'mikka (t) ?? + You contradict yourself again !

The Kven article as well as its talk page at Talk:Kven clearly show the contrary about the providing of details, sources and discussion, lack of which you were complaining about: You yourself do not appear to have a single source or reference brought to the Kven text. If you disagree, we hereby suggest for you to show evidence of you having provided a single source for the Kven article, please. The users opposing the views sponsored by you are totally different in this respect. Their multiple sources can be found from the Kven article and its talk page.
The talk pages reveal, that prior to you taking the ill-fated blocking action now under review, you discussed the matter with User:Fred chessplayer. With him we have continued having exactly the same above problem. Despite of numerous pleas for him to provide sources for his claims, he has declined to do that. A quick look at Talk:Kven clearly shows that. This is the reason why we have come to dispute your actions. There really is no reason or bases for you to take such action ! The valid and correct information - backed by credited sources - ought to be left standing - naturally, do you not agree ? That is the most important matter here.
You said the following: "The multiuser in Kven article did not violate wikipolicies that warrant blocking. Sockpuppetry is strongly frowned upon, but not totally forbidden, see wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Of course, Checkuser request is a good idea, just in case, but blocking is not warranted so far. mikka (t) 20:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)".
Art Dominique talk, May 5, 2006 - 4:34

[edit] Kven

Please be assured that I am not trying to take sides in your dispute on the Kven article. I am simply trying to separate a relatively uncontroversial topic (today's Kvens) from what is apparently a very controversial topic (the history of Kvens that preceded today's Kvens). I don't want to get into the historical Kvens controversy, which seems a little specious to me anyway, but I do feel strongly that today's Kven minority in Norway deserve a complete (but obviously cross-referenced) article on their distinct history, culture, and life. --Leifern 12:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have been reported to the incident board

I am posting this as a courtesy. You have been reported to the admin courtesy board here[1]. I would encourage you to engage in a constructive discussion on the Kven article. --Leifern 22:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User Leifern admits to having "no knowledge of it." Nevertheless, he pushes radical theory (July 6, 2006)

THIS USER - Leifern - IS A PROVEN VANDAL IN WIKIPEDIA. UNTIL HE STOPS HIS ILL-FATED TACTICS - WHICH CLEARLY FIGHT AGAINST WIKIPEDIA'S GUIDELINES - HIS METHODS SHALL BE USED AGAINST HIMSELF, UNLESS THE ADMINISTRATORS INTERVENE.
AMONG HIS MOST RECENT FOUL PLAY, THE USER LEIFERN HAS PROVABLY PARTICIPATED IN PUSHING FALSE INFORMATION AND IMPROPER TACTICS IN RELATION TO THE WIKIPEDIA'S KVEN ARTICLE, INCLUDING PUSHING A SPLITTING OF THAT ARTICLE, WHICH ATTEMPT HAS NOW LED TO A NEW INFORMATIONAL WAR IN THE KVEN RELATED ARTICLES - UNNECESSARILY, AS RECENTLY A MUCH WELCOMED CONSENSUS HAD ALREADY BEEN REACHED.
ADVOCATING A MINDLESS BLOCKING OF AN INNOCENT CONTRIBUTOR FOR THE KVEN ARTICLE IS ALSO GOING TO BACKFIRE AGAINST MR. LEIFERN, UNLESS HE MAKES A CLEAR EFFORT TO CORRECT THINGS, OR UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE COMES FOR HIS RESCUE NOW.
ADMINISTRATORS, - PLEASE - DO THE RIGHT THING NOW: UNBLOCK THE USER Art Dominique IMMEDIATELY ! THAT BLOCKING HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN ANY VALID REASON, ONLY A FALSE ACCUSATION OF SOCKPUPPETRY. REMEMBER, NOT GUILTY, UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY !
On behalf of the entire Wikipedia community - Stopping your vandalism 15:00, 06 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Block

If the account wishes to state their case during the arbitration mentioned above, it will be unblocked. `'mikka (t) 00:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/User_talk%7EArt_Dominique_5bcb.html"