User talk:Anti-Nationalist

Posted about him here: [1].

You said that this is possibly also a sockpuppet of the

I'm much more positive that Pohja's done a sock's job at present. (The guy only edits articles where team members are active, and 90% of the time when they need help against their opponents – when he ain't asleep [2].)

(On a side note, also very interesting to see just now is the case of this strange IP: [3].) Andora1's editing has been so poor and tendentious that he can probably be blocked without SPI, but he's far less of a disruption to the normal process than Pohja and his loaded

ad hominems at Lihula, for instance. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, I don't think the IP is Jacurek (I think Jacurek has a different location?) I agree about Konn and Andora1.

Offliner (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, the IP is 99.9% Jacurek, though he denied it (I should have been more clear on this page, but this was the thing I meant here.)

Seems that SPI is the ticket. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am pained that you accuse me of Holocaust denial [4]. You refer to this edit of mine [5] (when I was editing before getting a login). As should be clear from my post, what I found absurd was the suggestions that only 40 Poles were responsible in the massacre. This absurd lowering of the number of participants is one of the lines pushed by certain Polish nationalists and this is what I objected to. Clearly I believe that the massacre was perpetrated by Poles, as is clear by this diff which you conveniently managed to ignore [6].

Given that Holocaust denial is one of the most grave accusations that can be issued against anybody, I expect you do to 2 things.

• 1. Apologize to me and retract your accusations.

• 2. Find every single Wikipedia discussion page where I have been accused of Holocaust denial and issue a retraction. Sourcelat0r (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I deeply appreciate your prompt apology. On my part, I will try to write with more clarity in the future so that my sentences taken out of context do not cause confusion, as was the case here. Some of my comments on the Jedwabne pogrom article were somewhat emotional, I admit, but this is a deeply painful matter and can easily generate hasty and ill formulated comments which one regrets later. Sourcelat0r (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a notice: For a few users I have relocated your EEML evidence to a sub-page.

The reasons for this are because your sections are now so long it was becoming impossible to navigate and decipher who wrote what, particularly towards the end of sections. This effectively rendered your evidence as unusable, which was not a good thing.

Rather than reduce the size of your evidence (which I deemed as unfair) I have removed them to private subpages. These are yours and yours alone to edit. They certain make interpreting your evidence MUCH easier.

The downside is that when you update your evidence it does not go into the history log of the principal evidence page. Hence I suggest you add a brief "Updated evidence on ..." note beneath your evidence heading on the main evidence page. This will alert people to changes on your subpage. An extra bit of hassle I know, but it a small price for having evidence which can be understood.

Also feel free to create a single sentence description of your main headings and insert it on the main page below the link I have added. See for an example from a previous case.

I hope none of you are upset by this - I assure you my only objective was to increase the usability of your evidence.

Sincerely, Manning (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent posting at the EEML case, I have stated my talk page is open to anyone wishing to discuss any edit. Next time, please try that first before engaging in histrionic protests at inappropriate venues. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 19:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is very much related to the EEML case. If I didn't, I wouldn't have brought it up, and bring it up I did. I thought that ArbCom was actually examining the conduct of the participants as part of looking into the case. I am still hoping that this is true. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rather thought and hoped the same. I suspect, though, that the end results we have in mind are at odds. The talk page invitation still stands. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 20:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I can't assume you're watching my EEML evidence page I'm notifying you of this. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 17:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My question about Lia was an earnest inquiry, but since you're expecting a tit-for-tat, I guess I'll properly indulge this crap by doing my best as far as mentioning the obsessive smears against

Liz Holtzman on pages that have naught to do with her, which you've engaged in. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If you mean Holtzman stating Latvians are Nazis, I have no apology. I was there when she said it. Were your inquiry earnest, it would have been stated in an earnest fashion expressing concern, not wondering about coverups and the Australian public being unaware of said coverup. And had it been stated in an earnest fashion, it would have been responded to in kind. In the future, please avoid couching earnest requests in terms which can only be taken as innuendo (if not outright accusation) and there will be no need for these unpleasantries. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 18:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously didn't comprehend what I just wrote there (my wondering about Looveer and why her career in Nazi Germany was publicized), and I ask that you stay off my page if you're going to come with accusations of bad faith from now on. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected my remark on talk about her son "having no need to hide" Looveer's Nazi affiliation, thank you for pointing out my oversight. (It didn't materially change my response.) That said, I think we can agree that constructive dialog between us is not possible at this time. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 18:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anti-Nationalist. You have new messages at Paul Siebert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The external link was added because the general unreliability of China's official sources of information might lead people to believe he is not a reliable source. Would you object if I re-inserted it?

I will cite the page re. the Chinese govt's fears about immediately repressing the demos. This was a statement by an interviewee in the study, but the context of its inclusion was such I felt justified in phrasing it as I have done. The ref was already in a few lines down the pgf -- I didn't want to clutter the pgf with duplicate references. Dduff442 (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using the talk page for a blind search of "nazi collaborators" on wikipedia. I hope you'd realize the inappropriateness of such actions on wikipedia in general. Also, please consider changing your username to something more appropriate for editing wikipedia that would not be a dubious political statement. FYI in a week or so the username "Anti-Nationalist" is going to be listed at

I think that's rather unseemly and tendentious, Termer. Please go to the appropriate noticeboard if you feel that my question about Looveer's life doesn't belong in the discussion. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this has created some controversy and 2 people have blanked the section as they feel it disparages the subject. Do you have any more to add regarding Nazi collaboration? I intend to blank that section but if you have more to say I will hold off. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anti-Nationalist. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GedUK  11:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anti-Nationalist. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GedUK  08:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your charges of anti-Semitism here.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  00:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anti-Nationalist. You have new messages at Paul Siebert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You may want to consider changing to another username. Others may consider your current moniker to be offensive, which is in violation of

• I don't think my username is offensive to anybody: whom might it offend, Radeksz? I'll consider asking the admins about recovering the account after the ArbCom, since I'm already involved under this username and it's not particularly smooth to keep changing that back and forth. By the way, if I want to be called Anti-Fascist because you're bothered by Anti-Nationalist, is that OK? Will you or someone close to you be offended and find it a hateful user name? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that given that you get into lots of arguments and fighting with all sorts of people, you are using the username to imply something about your content opponents - you're using the username to make an implicit personal attack that if you made explicitly you could get in potential trouble for.

Note also that the name can be misinterpreted; "Anti-Nationalist" as in you're very "Anti" a particular "Nationality". This is particularly true given your edit history and some of your more infamous edits. In that case, that would also be offensive.

talk) 21:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Then you probably would like to see User:Neutrality banned as well... After all, his opponents might believe that maybe, maybe it implies... I don't see how "anti-nationalist" might mean that someone is against a particular nationality. I'm not against any particular nationality. I'm very affable towards everybody. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me. It offends me and it is certainly a "hateful" username. Please read some articles such as

British Nationalist Party, and don't change it to Anti-Nazi or IHateNazis or anything even like that, thanks. If you must try something political yet non-offensive try stuff like SaveTheWhales, WarmingSucks or SlaveryBlows... do not try stuff like WeWonTheWar, IWantToBombEasterIsland or DruidsAreAllTerrorists... Nationalists are not only welcome in Wikipedia, they are nessecary, but do not try NazisAreWelcome either... I hope have said the right things here. I have no business on your page. I have not seen your edits anywhere or anything like that. Perhaps you are trying to make the username IDontLikeMyOwnCountry... Best of luck to you ~ R.T.G 22:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Re: "Nationalists are not only welcome in Wikipedia, they are nessecary". Since nationalists, as a rule, tend to push local POVs, I believe their contribution into Wikipedia is more negative than positive.

With regards to the username itself, it applies serious obligations: by choosing this name Anti-Nationalist implicitly took an obligation to oppose all nationalists, not only Central Europeans, and not only anti-Communists. Otherwise the danger exists that the user working under the Anti-Nationalist nick will attack some nationalists from nationalistic positions. To demonstrate my point, let me remind you that some contemporary Russian (or Russian speaking) editors are equally (or, maybe, even more) nationalistic.

My conclusion is that it is a little bit arrogant to choose such a username, however, I see no problem with it, provided that, but only provided that Anti-Nationalist makes every effort to satisfy its strict requirements.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partly agree. The current situation is as if I made an account under "Anti-ReligiousFanaticism" and then proceeded to make a series of provocative and controversial edits to articles on, I dunno,

Methodists

. What you're saying is that it'd be ok, if I also made provocative and controversial edits about Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Sunni Muslims, and various forms of Hinduism.

I agree that nationalism can be a serious problem on Wikipedia. So is vandalism. But just like users used to call each other "vandal" over straight up content disputes until the admins cracked down on such practice (per personal attacks), so now some people go around calling other editors "Nationalist" simply to smear those who disagree with them. The username embodies this sad practice.

talk) 23:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Re: "The current situation is as if I made an account under "Anti-ReligiousFanaticism" and then proceeded to make a series of provocative and controversial edits to articles on, I dunno,

Methodists." Not completely correct. All "provocative and controversial edits" should be avoided because they make your own point weaker. However, even if Anti-ReligiousFanaticist is an absolutely correct and polite editor, but he restrict himself with criticism of anti-Methodists only, he thereby implies (wrongly) that everything is ok with Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Sunni Muslims. Therefore, intellectual honesty requires him to either change his name to Anti-Methodist, or to widen the scope of his criticism. Obviously, the last option is preferable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, provocative and controversial edits should be avoided anyway, but they should be especially avoided by usernames which appear to be provocative and controversial themselves. The obvious best option is to change the username to something neutral and avoid provocative edits.

talk) 00:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

(edit conflict)I agree that by choosing this name Anti-Nationalist a priori dubbed his future opponents "nationalists". However, a more preferable solution would be to decrease a level of opposition rather than to change the name and to continue in the same vein.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me the username "Anti-Nationalist" is a form of a declaration: "This user tries to avoid baseless accusations in nationalism". Frankly, the more users will make such a declaration, the better.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that supposed declaration is exactly the opposite of what the user does.

talk) 00:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course, to make such a declaration and to follow it are two separate things...--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, you are correct. The username "Anti-Nationalist" is indeed a form of a declaration. With regard to RTG's spontanteous comment, I should say that I am already familiar with

British Nationalist Party, all of which I oppose, as I don't see any inherent value in "nations" as such. "Nationality" and "country" are both terrible ideas. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Anti-Nationalist, the only thing I cannot understand is the following: both you and Radek seem to be quite reasonable persons prone to dialog. It seems to me that in your disputes truth lies somewhere in the middle. Why cannot you make a step towards each other?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I searched for where in Wikipedia:Username policy it states that statements in usernames, political or otherwise, are incompatible with any policy, but I could find nothing. Could you please quote that document? Are you, incidentally, aware of any policies that prohibit userboxes? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't even have to scroll down to find "Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible." Your username claims that you are offensive towards nationalists. Do you believe your username is any more offense than say, User:Bob or User:Harry? Do you intend to edit articles with an anti-nationalist agenda? That is against the NPOV guidelines. You shouldn't run yourself down that road even if you expect to be disputing content with nationalists... you shouldn't intend to, should you? ~ R.T.G 02:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more bluntly, you are not allowed to exlude nationalist content or editors from the wiki without exceptional reasons. Is your username going to be harmonious with a nationalist editor? ~ R.T.G 02:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By claiming that he is a nationalist the editor declares that he is biased, and, therefore, his contribution into WP can hardly be positive. In that sense the name "Anti-Nationalist" is no more offensive than "Anti-Vandal". My only criticism stems from the fact that Anti-Nationalist targets mostly EEML's members (although not many of them are pronounced nationalists), whereas other nationalists working in closely related areas seem to be ignored by him.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anti-Nationalist, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Wikipedia has a

Why don't you change it to "Anti-Hitler" or "Anti-Axis" or even "Anti-Nazi"? I would have nothing further to discuss with you then... ~ R.T.G 00:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that is unfair of me you shouldn't change it to things like Anti-Nazi either. The concern is not who we can be neutral with but being neutral simply. A username such as Anti-Nazi provokes confrontation and this site is not a staging ground for confrontation even if considered justified. ~ R.T.G 01:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anti-nationalist, it has been suggested [7] that the matter [8], [9] should be reported to

Hello, Anti-Nationalist. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you..--Termer (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anti-Nationalist. While there had been some discussion

Much thanks for the notice here. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to

Thank you for alerting me, Russavia. Seems now the case has already closed itself without my participation. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning that vandalism up on my talk page. Although it seems that the vandal was misinformed! [SCΛRECROW]^{CrossCom 2.0} 01:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. Have a good one. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought you should be aware of the very serious accusation made against you here [10]. Triplestop x3 20:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this. KnightLago (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In the future, you may also wish to avoid using "dear". It can be seen as disingenuous in heated discussions. Regarding the rest of your comment, let me think about it and I will get back to you. Thank you for your cooperation. KnightLago (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I believe I have done all that I can regarding the EEML case. My impression is that no side is completely innocent however I can AGF on your part since you seem to actually take responsibility. I don't really have any intention of becoming anyone's puppet on either side of this war, so here is my advice FWIW:

The key thing factor in overcoming this battleground nonsense is integrity. My impression of the EEML users is that every single thing they say or do is to advance their political agenda, and that they don't take any of Wikipedia's policies seriously as long as they can twist them to get what they want. You must always hold true to your

As a person, you must always be beyond reproach and hold yourself to the highest behavioral standards. For example, Russavia's recent trolling on Giano's page got himself a one week ban. You do not want to give them anything at all to use against you. That edit they used against you 30 times is further proof of this. I know this may be hard given the circumstances, however if you can stick to this then you will be able show uninvolved (make sure they are actually neutral) outsiders who the real belligerents are. (For that reason, I recommend getting a new username).

Look that recent attack against myself by Biophys on that AN thread recently. I have not given them any legitimate (ie, not politically motivated) cause for opposing me, and as a result he showed everyone his "true colors".

If you ever need any help (ie, advice) feel free to ask. I have no tolerance towards people who systematically abuse Wikipedia towards their own political agendas like this who then turn around and make absolutely zero indication that they will improve. Triplestop x3 22:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• User:Piotrus resigned the administrator tools during the case proceedings and may only seek to regain adminship by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
• User:Piotrus is banned for three months. At the conclusion of his ban, a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed, shall take effect.
• User:Digwuren is banned for one year. He is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account, and advise the Arbitration Committee of the name of the account that he will use. Should he not advise the committee by the end of the one year ban, he will remain indefinitely banned until a single account is chosen.
• User:Digwuren is placed on a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed. This shall take effect following the expiration of both above mentioned bans.
• The following users are topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year:

• User:Radeksz, User:Vecrumba, User:Tymek

• User:Jacurek is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months.
• User:Tymek is strongly admonished for having shared his account password. He is directed to keep his account for his own exclusive use, and not to allow any other person to use it under any circumstance.
• The editors sanctioned above (
  Radeksz, Dc76, Vecrumba, Biruitorul, Miacek) are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia
  on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.
• All the participants to the mailing list are strongly admonished against coordinating on-wiki behavior off-wiki and directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public. All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Wikipedia itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.

Article Wizard

. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Btilm_{Happy Holidays!} 18:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political repressions

Do you have any thoughts regarding

Offliner (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey there, Offy. Apologies for the longish break – I've been offline for some time, and though I did see your question earlier, I thought I'd spent some time thinking about, and I'm pretty "iffy" on that at this point. For my two cents' worth, I think it's a decent idea, and a quite good one if we are to have a whole scheme for victims of political repression by country, since political repression in fact was a major part of Estonian politics in the 1930s (for instance, I think it's enought to point out that all political parties were banned by the Päts government in 1934). One could also try applying it to the Estonian Communists, who were banned from 1924 (although this claim would be something more challenging to sustain, since the communists were repressed under the pretext of preserving the government from an impending Communist coup in that same year). Unfortunately, the way the category is populated right now looks too controversial for the Wiki public – while I'm pretty sure that at least Johann Backmann can be treated as a victim of political repression, people with an axe to grind will dispute this in any event, and there are no sources at the moment. Therefore, I think the category is simply not ripe at this time to stand as it is right now. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, Anti-Nationalist. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list

Following a motion at

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

:

Remedy 20 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Miacek topic banned") is lifted.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 00:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

"Cat Flushing a Toilet" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cat Flushing a Toilet. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 4#Cat Flushing a Toilet until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Passover!

Happy Passover!

Hello Anti-Nationalist, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this passover. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a happy passover or easter, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy editing, 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Happy Passover}} to other user talk pages.

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"American invasion of Vietnam" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect

American invasion of Vietnam and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 21#American invasion of Vietnam until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union members

A tag has been placed on

section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion

.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union members

A tag has been placed on

section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion

.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]