helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills, the sandbox is for you. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
Thanks for your edit there that not everyone received equal treatment per the Constitution, that being reserved for landed white males in keeping with the custom of the day. I did add that the first U.S human rights group was anti-slavery, re-arranged, and indicated the evolution of rights over time to include wider classes of individuals, reflecting the content of the article. Cheers! PētersVTALK 18:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Timoshenko
What goes on in the heads of the people who think "Семён" is best romanized "Semen", I will never understand :) I have moved the article to Semyon Timoshenko, which didn't require admin rights to do. I suspect you were trying to move it to "Semyon Tymoshenko", no?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:22, July 16, 2009 (UTC)
Yefimov
The page was protected indefinitely because a vandal moved it ten months ago. That's no good. I've unprotected the page, moved to it Yefimov (because you are right, that's where it belongs), and watchlisted it, in case the vandal hits it again. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:28, July 25, 2009 (UTC)
. Two editors have already expressed concern over your edits; this means that you need to stop reverting, and do nothing but post messages on the talk page explaining why you think there need to be changes made. Once you convince people at the talk page and there is a consensus to make changes, then you can edit the article; but for now, you need to stop edit warring.
You have already passed
three reverts so you are lucky you haven't been blocked yet. If you do another revert, I will block you. So you would be well-advised to stay at the talk page now. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 01:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I've left a
WP:BLP
, which you misinterpreted and used to incorrectly justify your revert war yesterday); some of the edits you have been trying to make appear to be improvements, but they will never get through if you don't learn how to edit in the right way and to form consensus. Just because I didn't block you this time (mainly because I didn't happen to be at my computer when you reverted) doesn't mean I won't in the future; you know not to edit war, and even one revert is an edit war, so don't make one revert. If you do, you know what the consequences will be.
You can read the message at my talk page for more information. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 22:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.
You have been named as one of the parties to this case. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.
The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.
Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.
For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]