Thanks for uploading Image:Ant4_1.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the sockpuppet notice should be moved as a notice to the talk page. There was just one sockpuppet, and he is no longer using them and he (the main account) was not indef-blocked. 72.139.119.165 20:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has clear procedures on moving pages. Other than in exceptional circumstances all pages should be moved by following the instructions on the Requested Moves page. Unilateral moves can trigger edit wars, break links and cause a lot of problems. Please stop unilaterally moving pages, as you did with Kim Jong-il, and follow the correct procedure. I gather English may not be your native language; article names should match common usage in English, and not (for instance) a transliteration of the Russian version. -- Reuben 21:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Since you were one of the few regular users supporting me in the RfC, just wanted to say thanks. You have any advice on the best way to go about a next step? It seems so unfair that this little click can distort the borders of Europe-- Caligvla 03:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted nationalist anti-Soviet propaganda, mass deletion and removing the mention of Nazi collaborationist war crimes in Participants in World War II about once a day. I have been blocked in circumvent of the rules by a POV admin. The article should be restored to the pre-edit war status
Nixer, you reverted that article four times. I have blocked you for only 24 hours, although your repeated 3RR violations would usually warrant more, as would your "POV admin" remark above. ProhibitOnions (T) 09:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Since I was first to have commented here I will add extra two cents. If ProhibitOnions per his judgement concludes the Nixer was running a sterile revert war, the block may be justified. Lack of technical 3RR is not a foolproof defence. Even though 3RR is a policy for a reason and should be applied in most cases, some revert warriors permanently stay 1 step under 3RR and do nothing but reverting. This should not be allowed. If PO thinks that this is the case here (sterile revert warring technically under 3RR) he should NOT have said that the block is for 3RR but he should make it clear that this is a judgement block imposed by his own decision based on the evidence that Nixer was involved in a sterile revert war despite staying under 3RR. At the same time Nixer claims that he was not running a revert war but attempted a discussion at talk which was ingored by his opponents. Whoever studies this (or PO himself) needs to take a good look on all details.
However, Nixer is indeed known as generally a hot-headed guy, even though I commend his committment to add content to Wikipedia. He may be right or wrong but in any case he gets excited too much. Nixer, an advise. Do not revert any article more than twice in any 24 hours even if your opponents are "wrong" and otherwise "bad". I almost guarantee that by adopting this you will not be blocked for revert warring. Now, please seize attempts getting yourself unblocked. It is only 24 hours. Take a break and come back tomorrow chilled out.
Regards, -- Irpen 15:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, firstly, could you make one single post after the last post not 5 different posts in the middle of older text? It just messes up things and makes hard to read. About sources what Whiskey demanded he probably meant sources for those false claims that I simply called "factual mistakes".
Now you say that your edits do not contain much of the article. That is true but that is representing one certain POV and only relatively small amount of Estonian's participated in holocaust. So if you want to mention participation in holocaust then then there are a lot more things that are connected to Estonia and affected seriously bigger amount of estonians, so logically if participation in holocaust is mentioned then those things also need to be mentioned. Short overview of things that should be mentioned if holocaust is mentioned: (Estonians who were forcefully mobilised to red army, estonians who volunteered to finnish army, estonians who volunteered to german army, estonians who were forcefully mobilised to german army, tens thousands estonians who escaped the country before second USSR occupation, deportation to siberia by USSR, elimination of political economical and military elite by USSR, anti-soviet resistance movements during both first and second USSR occupation, atempt to restore estonian independece after end of german occupation, active elimination of political opponents during both german and soviet occupation, bombings of main estonian towns by USSR airforce). Can you now understand, that it would make article too long? So only logical choice for balanceing is to delete not to keep adding up things.(
Staberinde
16:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC))
Oh, didn't notice that part earlier(main reason why you should not put new edits in the middle of old ones) :
""The Estonian SS units participated not only in Estonia, you see? And Estonians murdered all 100% Estonian Jews. Do you think it is not worth enough to be mentioned? Holocaust victims were murdered, not just "deported".--
Nixer
13:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)""
Firstly, Estonians did not kill 100% of Estonian jews, that is stalinistic propaganda. Before war there were about 3000 jews in Estonia(btw they had cultural autonomy which was quite unique at that time), of them majority left the country before german occupation, remaining 1000 jews were killed by Germans, with help of some local collaborators. There were no serious crimes aganist jews on estonians own initiave. Also about Estonians SS units, main Estonian SS unit was 20th Waffen-SS division which was formed in 1944 at Estonia and did not actively participate in any serious war crimes(its main battles were on Estonian territory). There were some smaller estonian units that were formed earlier of volunteers but those units were small and only some of them actively participated in warcrimes. So as conclusion, number of Estonians who participated in German war crimes is relatively small.(
Staberinde
20:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC))
Let's talk. Please explain what dont you agree. I did not remove the pact. Or show where did I so.-- Nixer 16:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Nixer,
Like you I think the democracy article is missing a section on the socialist/marxist view of democracy. I had my section pulled, so I started a discussion on the discussion pages. I was going to leave your insertion, but there were too many edits and I'd rather put in a stub section and discuss it rather than getting the whole section pulled.
My original positiong was in the varieties of democracy.
I hope you don't mind!
-- Mike 10:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
As to your edit to Stalin. "The property and of the deported was mostly shipped to the new place of living with other property bought by the state. Each deported family was given a loan of about 9000 roubles for several years to startup in the new place". The problem is that if we speak about Lithuanian case, the fact is that people were deported with train normally used to transport cows and pigs, and their property mostly was not shipped into Siberia. And if by "new place of living" you mean baraks near Artic circle, and by the "a loan of about 9000 roubles" you mean labour in Gulag for free, you are absolutelly right. What is the point of white-washing stalinist crimes? Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Deportations are not so unknown subject that you could take some unknown document and start completely rewriting history. Btw, do you realize that many people actualy died during deportations? ( Staberinde 21:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC))
Nixer, I read that English source you provided, it says how deportation officially should be done BUT there is no proof that actual deportation was done that way. In reality it seems that actual deportation was completely different http://www.iccrimea.org/reports/tatardep2.html .( Staberinde 21:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC))
Thank you that you were honest and admitted that its not NPOV source. Now decree itselfly does not prove how deportations were carried out in reality. There are completely different claims(im not saying that those claims are 100% true) about that how deportations were carried out http://www.iccrimea.org/reports/tatardep2.html . So unless there is really neutral source that proves that Stalin's decree was followed your's edit (which is already removed by someone else anyway) can't stay in article as it gives impression like Stalin's decree would had been strictly followed then in reality there are controversial claims about it. Finally(last but not least) deportations from crimea were only small part of all deportations in USSR so no point in describing them in detail. "I think it is improper to blame Stalin personally for those who (may be) did not completed fully his order" Writing nice and correct order doesnt mean that Stalin wanted to get it fully carried out. You seem to forget that nobody could simply disobey Stalin's orders during that time(people were executed for a lot smaller crimes then that), so logically those who disobeyed official order had Stalin's unofficial permission to carry out deportations differently then in official order.( Staberinde 21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC))
Article is in my opinion meant to be a short overview of Stalin not detailed description of that how one certain ethnic group was deported(especially then that description is disputed). There are no special details about other deported nations, so no reason to treat crimean tatars differently. ( Staberinde 22:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC))
"First, in fact most government orders in the USSR carried out mostly precisely," yes, often under a threat to one's own neck, and without the opportunity to point out whether "carrying them out" was physically possible.
So when factory managers were given an impossible quota of tanks to produce, they might manage to produce them anyway. If the transmissions would break down after 50 km, and not a single replacement transmission was built, the orders had still been fulfilled.
And when minor functionaries were given a quota of kulaks to arrest, in a raion where everyone who was rich enough to be a kulak was long gone, they just found some more "kulaks" anyway. When they were ordered to be shipped off to Siberia, they were shipped—counting the survivors of the journey was a minor consideration.
It's nice to quote precise orders. Saying that the orders prove how things would be accomplished in the future seems naïve. Ignoring the other realities of Soviet deportations is something else altogether. — Michael Z. 2006-10-27 22:53 Z
Nixer, if you hope that I'll not report your 3RR violation this time, you are wrong. Please stop this immediately. -- Lysy talk 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, you've done it again. I've blocked you for 48 hours for multiple 3RR on Joseph Stalin. I've also blocked Encyclopaedia Editing Dude, though he's a first offender. ProhibitOnions (T) 22:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, I just saw your name all over my watchlist popping up at talk pages of several users. May I suggest you follow on my advise instead? So something non-controversial. -- Irpen 20:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey there, just wanted to let you know a new revised statement is up for vote on talk armenia, It is not perfect but much better than the one that was there before. hope you have time to check it out -- Caligvla 16:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Nixer ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I reverted users, who deleted my comments from Talk:Armenia
Decline reason:
There was some degree of consensus to archive the talk page following the closure of the RfC. This is not an excuse for a 3RR violation. -- -- Consumed Crustacean ( talk) 20:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
They not only archived discussion, but also deleted my comments. And please do not call "consensus" 2:1 situation.-- Nixer 21:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Nixer ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I promise not to continue revert-warring over the Armenia talk page, reverting archiving. Really it is possible to provide a link to the archived discussion
Decline reason:
Considering you've been blocked over a dozen times for 3RR, it's not as if you are not aware of the consequences of violating the WP:3RR and that it applies to all articles regardless of the content in dispute. I'm upholding this block because no further leeway can be granted in your favour due to your long history. -- Netsnipe ► 14:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Nixer ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This block imposes double standards: my opponents not blocked or blocked for 1 hour while I blocked for a week.
Decline reason:
I imagine that has something to do with your extensive block log, which includes a number of prior 3RR blocks. Sooner or later, I'm hoping this lesson sinks in. -- Luna Santin 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You fail to understand that on Wikipedia, no one should be your opponent. -- Netsnipe ► 01:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The duration of the block is 7*24 hours.
You're only just back from a 48h block and you start edir warring again. If you don't want to spend most of your wiki time banned, will you please learn to behave
William M. Connolley 20:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Please somebody, correct ther article. User:Fisenko continuously reverts my edits, placing misinformation in the article. Namely he places phrase that RNU is now "mainstream" and "conservative" which is not true. He rejects any discussions.-- Nixer 07:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, don't be mad at me, but maybe while you are blocked, you might give it some thought: why is it that you are blocked so often, while other editors are not ? Do you think it is a coincidence ? -- Lysy talk 14:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
All right. I wanted to help you out, but it's your choice of course. -- Lysy talk 16:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
He was very unfairly blocked-- Caligvla 07:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Not true, there was an Admin who disagreed with the block, he was trying to continue a conversation that was not part of the RfC, his remarks were unfairly deleted-- Caligvla 19:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It became clear that you were evading your original block under the IP 203.187.235.106 ( talk · contribs), so I've had to reset it. In the future, please sit the block out, or it will only be extended further. Khoi khoi 08:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you prove that was him? -- Caligvla 19:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
No, but as he posted above he asked for help changing that certain article, so maybe someone helped. I have often noticed a pattern here that people get blamed for things they didn't do, there should be a way to check with certainity.-- Caligvla 19:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I was often accused of using socks and I never have once in my time here, there were only a couple of times where I forgot to log in, but I wasn't trying to hide anything... So when I see another poor user getting punished for socks, it makes me wonder if anyone really checks to make sure. Anyway this is not my battle, I just feel sorry for the injustice of it all.-- Caligvla 19:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
NO PERSONAL ATTACKS PLEASE OR I WILL REPORT YOU. I don't even know what an open proxy is...-- Caligvla 19:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any personal attacks. Please stop falsely accusing users. Two admins have said you have used socks, are you calling them liars?-- Eupator 19:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Two admins suspected I was using socks after you made countless edits claiming I used socks. I have never once used a sock other than to cover my foot.-- Caligvla 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-- Tekleni 19:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Is that a peace offering? If so I accept...-- Caligvla 19:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
correct me if I am wrong but it looks like that was an older matter. it doesnt look like it was confirmed he was 203.187.235.106 -- Caligvla 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Nixer ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was falsefully accused in avoiding block using this addres:203.187.235.106. As these were not my edits I hereby insist to be unblocked and a denouncification record to be added to my block list to prevent other admins use it as precedent. Please use checkuser for proof if necessary
Decline reason:
Denied for now. You are still under the terms of the original 3RR block for now, whether this IP is linked to you or not. -- Robdurbar 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
<<unblock|I was falsefully accused in avoiding block using this addres:203.187.235.106. As these were not my edits I hereby insist to be unblocked and a denouncification record to be added to my block list to prevent other admins use it as precedent. Please use checkuser for proof if necessary>>
I have moved your userspace version back into namespace per the AfD discussion. So User:Nixer/Space trade is now a redirect to Space trade where the article is now located.-- Konst.able Talk 12:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Given the complete deadlock on this issue, and the failure of the strawpoll, I think the time has come to take the dispute-resolution process to the next level by opening a request for comment. This will open the debate up to the whole Wikipedia community, and hopefully generate, if not consensus, then at least a majority view. I will invite all users involved in this issue to contribute to the RfC, which can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. I realise that you may now be a bit bored with having to explain your views again and again on different pages, but as an advocate I think this is the only way to finally end this dispute. Walton monarchist89 09:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[ [9]] [ [10]] [ [11]] [ [12]] help out and make sure the borders are not abused.
NB This poll has now closed, it being Friday 10th November and about 10.30am where I live. The numbers are as follows:
As such, no mandate has appeared for making the requested changes to the article. As previously advertised, Caligvla and I are taking a break from this dispute for a week. After this, the case may be taken to the mediation cabal, although I hope to avoid this eventuality. Walton monarchist89 10:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Is Russian "stranno" really not related to "strange" (cf. Latin "extraneus")?
Please see my talk page, regards, Grant65 | Talk 18:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Check it out: this link. Thanks! - Husnock 17:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ant4_1.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the sockpuppet notice should be moved as a notice to the talk page. There was just one sockpuppet, and he is no longer using them and he (the main account) was not indef-blocked. 72.139.119.165 20:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has clear procedures on moving pages. Other than in exceptional circumstances all pages should be moved by following the instructions on the Requested Moves page. Unilateral moves can trigger edit wars, break links and cause a lot of problems. Please stop unilaterally moving pages, as you did with Kim Jong-il, and follow the correct procedure. I gather English may not be your native language; article names should match common usage in English, and not (for instance) a transliteration of the Russian version. -- Reuben 21:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Since you were one of the few regular users supporting me in the RfC, just wanted to say thanks. You have any advice on the best way to go about a next step? It seems so unfair that this little click can distort the borders of Europe-- Caligvla 03:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted nationalist anti-Soviet propaganda, mass deletion and removing the mention of Nazi collaborationist war crimes in Participants in World War II about once a day. I have been blocked in circumvent of the rules by a POV admin. The article should be restored to the pre-edit war status
Nixer, you reverted that article four times. I have blocked you for only 24 hours, although your repeated 3RR violations would usually warrant more, as would your "POV admin" remark above. ProhibitOnions (T) 09:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Since I was first to have commented here I will add extra two cents. If ProhibitOnions per his judgement concludes the Nixer was running a sterile revert war, the block may be justified. Lack of technical 3RR is not a foolproof defence. Even though 3RR is a policy for a reason and should be applied in most cases, some revert warriors permanently stay 1 step under 3RR and do nothing but reverting. This should not be allowed. If PO thinks that this is the case here (sterile revert warring technically under 3RR) he should NOT have said that the block is for 3RR but he should make it clear that this is a judgement block imposed by his own decision based on the evidence that Nixer was involved in a sterile revert war despite staying under 3RR. At the same time Nixer claims that he was not running a revert war but attempted a discussion at talk which was ingored by his opponents. Whoever studies this (or PO himself) needs to take a good look on all details.
However, Nixer is indeed known as generally a hot-headed guy, even though I commend his committment to add content to Wikipedia. He may be right or wrong but in any case he gets excited too much. Nixer, an advise. Do not revert any article more than twice in any 24 hours even if your opponents are "wrong" and otherwise "bad". I almost guarantee that by adopting this you will not be blocked for revert warring. Now, please seize attempts getting yourself unblocked. It is only 24 hours. Take a break and come back tomorrow chilled out.
Regards, -- Irpen 15:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, firstly, could you make one single post after the last post not 5 different posts in the middle of older text? It just messes up things and makes hard to read. About sources what Whiskey demanded he probably meant sources for those false claims that I simply called "factual mistakes".
Now you say that your edits do not contain much of the article. That is true but that is representing one certain POV and only relatively small amount of Estonian's participated in holocaust. So if you want to mention participation in holocaust then then there are a lot more things that are connected to Estonia and affected seriously bigger amount of estonians, so logically if participation in holocaust is mentioned then those things also need to be mentioned. Short overview of things that should be mentioned if holocaust is mentioned: (Estonians who were forcefully mobilised to red army, estonians who volunteered to finnish army, estonians who volunteered to german army, estonians who were forcefully mobilised to german army, tens thousands estonians who escaped the country before second USSR occupation, deportation to siberia by USSR, elimination of political economical and military elite by USSR, anti-soviet resistance movements during both first and second USSR occupation, atempt to restore estonian independece after end of german occupation, active elimination of political opponents during both german and soviet occupation, bombings of main estonian towns by USSR airforce). Can you now understand, that it would make article too long? So only logical choice for balanceing is to delete not to keep adding up things.(
Staberinde
16:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC))
Oh, didn't notice that part earlier(main reason why you should not put new edits in the middle of old ones) :
""The Estonian SS units participated not only in Estonia, you see? And Estonians murdered all 100% Estonian Jews. Do you think it is not worth enough to be mentioned? Holocaust victims were murdered, not just "deported".--
Nixer
13:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)""
Firstly, Estonians did not kill 100% of Estonian jews, that is stalinistic propaganda. Before war there were about 3000 jews in Estonia(btw they had cultural autonomy which was quite unique at that time), of them majority left the country before german occupation, remaining 1000 jews were killed by Germans, with help of some local collaborators. There were no serious crimes aganist jews on estonians own initiave. Also about Estonians SS units, main Estonian SS unit was 20th Waffen-SS division which was formed in 1944 at Estonia and did not actively participate in any serious war crimes(its main battles were on Estonian territory). There were some smaller estonian units that were formed earlier of volunteers but those units were small and only some of them actively participated in warcrimes. So as conclusion, number of Estonians who participated in German war crimes is relatively small.(
Staberinde
20:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC))
Let's talk. Please explain what dont you agree. I did not remove the pact. Or show where did I so.-- Nixer 16:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Nixer,
Like you I think the democracy article is missing a section on the socialist/marxist view of democracy. I had my section pulled, so I started a discussion on the discussion pages. I was going to leave your insertion, but there were too many edits and I'd rather put in a stub section and discuss it rather than getting the whole section pulled.
My original positiong was in the varieties of democracy.
I hope you don't mind!
-- Mike 10:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
As to your edit to Stalin. "The property and of the deported was mostly shipped to the new place of living with other property bought by the state. Each deported family was given a loan of about 9000 roubles for several years to startup in the new place". The problem is that if we speak about Lithuanian case, the fact is that people were deported with train normally used to transport cows and pigs, and their property mostly was not shipped into Siberia. And if by "new place of living" you mean baraks near Artic circle, and by the "a loan of about 9000 roubles" you mean labour in Gulag for free, you are absolutelly right. What is the point of white-washing stalinist crimes? Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Deportations are not so unknown subject that you could take some unknown document and start completely rewriting history. Btw, do you realize that many people actualy died during deportations? ( Staberinde 21:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC))
Nixer, I read that English source you provided, it says how deportation officially should be done BUT there is no proof that actual deportation was done that way. In reality it seems that actual deportation was completely different http://www.iccrimea.org/reports/tatardep2.html .( Staberinde 21:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC))
Thank you that you were honest and admitted that its not NPOV source. Now decree itselfly does not prove how deportations were carried out in reality. There are completely different claims(im not saying that those claims are 100% true) about that how deportations were carried out http://www.iccrimea.org/reports/tatardep2.html . So unless there is really neutral source that proves that Stalin's decree was followed your's edit (which is already removed by someone else anyway) can't stay in article as it gives impression like Stalin's decree would had been strictly followed then in reality there are controversial claims about it. Finally(last but not least) deportations from crimea were only small part of all deportations in USSR so no point in describing them in detail. "I think it is improper to blame Stalin personally for those who (may be) did not completed fully his order" Writing nice and correct order doesnt mean that Stalin wanted to get it fully carried out. You seem to forget that nobody could simply disobey Stalin's orders during that time(people were executed for a lot smaller crimes then that), so logically those who disobeyed official order had Stalin's unofficial permission to carry out deportations differently then in official order.( Staberinde 21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC))
Article is in my opinion meant to be a short overview of Stalin not detailed description of that how one certain ethnic group was deported(especially then that description is disputed). There are no special details about other deported nations, so no reason to treat crimean tatars differently. ( Staberinde 22:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC))
"First, in fact most government orders in the USSR carried out mostly precisely," yes, often under a threat to one's own neck, and without the opportunity to point out whether "carrying them out" was physically possible.
So when factory managers were given an impossible quota of tanks to produce, they might manage to produce them anyway. If the transmissions would break down after 50 km, and not a single replacement transmission was built, the orders had still been fulfilled.
And when minor functionaries were given a quota of kulaks to arrest, in a raion where everyone who was rich enough to be a kulak was long gone, they just found some more "kulaks" anyway. When they were ordered to be shipped off to Siberia, they were shipped—counting the survivors of the journey was a minor consideration.
It's nice to quote precise orders. Saying that the orders prove how things would be accomplished in the future seems naïve. Ignoring the other realities of Soviet deportations is something else altogether. — Michael Z. 2006-10-27 22:53 Z
Nixer, if you hope that I'll not report your 3RR violation this time, you are wrong. Please stop this immediately. -- Lysy talk 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, you've done it again. I've blocked you for 48 hours for multiple 3RR on Joseph Stalin. I've also blocked Encyclopaedia Editing Dude, though he's a first offender. ProhibitOnions (T) 22:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, I just saw your name all over my watchlist popping up at talk pages of several users. May I suggest you follow on my advise instead? So something non-controversial. -- Irpen 20:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey there, just wanted to let you know a new revised statement is up for vote on talk armenia, It is not perfect but much better than the one that was there before. hope you have time to check it out -- Caligvla 16:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Nixer ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I reverted users, who deleted my comments from Talk:Armenia
Decline reason:
There was some degree of consensus to archive the talk page following the closure of the RfC. This is not an excuse for a 3RR violation. -- -- Consumed Crustacean ( talk) 20:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
They not only archived discussion, but also deleted my comments. And please do not call "consensus" 2:1 situation.-- Nixer 21:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Nixer ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I promise not to continue revert-warring over the Armenia talk page, reverting archiving. Really it is possible to provide a link to the archived discussion
Decline reason:
Considering you've been blocked over a dozen times for 3RR, it's not as if you are not aware of the consequences of violating the WP:3RR and that it applies to all articles regardless of the content in dispute. I'm upholding this block because no further leeway can be granted in your favour due to your long history. -- Netsnipe ► 14:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Nixer ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This block imposes double standards: my opponents not blocked or blocked for 1 hour while I blocked for a week.
Decline reason:
I imagine that has something to do with your extensive block log, which includes a number of prior 3RR blocks. Sooner or later, I'm hoping this lesson sinks in. -- Luna Santin 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You fail to understand that on Wikipedia, no one should be your opponent. -- Netsnipe ► 01:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The duration of the block is 7*24 hours.
You're only just back from a 48h block and you start edir warring again. If you don't want to spend most of your wiki time banned, will you please learn to behave
William M. Connolley 20:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Please somebody, correct ther article. User:Fisenko continuously reverts my edits, placing misinformation in the article. Namely he places phrase that RNU is now "mainstream" and "conservative" which is not true. He rejects any discussions.-- Nixer 07:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, don't be mad at me, but maybe while you are blocked, you might give it some thought: why is it that you are blocked so often, while other editors are not ? Do you think it is a coincidence ? -- Lysy talk 14:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
All right. I wanted to help you out, but it's your choice of course. -- Lysy talk 16:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
He was very unfairly blocked-- Caligvla 07:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Not true, there was an Admin who disagreed with the block, he was trying to continue a conversation that was not part of the RfC, his remarks were unfairly deleted-- Caligvla 19:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It became clear that you were evading your original block under the IP 203.187.235.106 ( talk · contribs), so I've had to reset it. In the future, please sit the block out, or it will only be extended further. Khoi khoi 08:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you prove that was him? -- Caligvla 19:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
No, but as he posted above he asked for help changing that certain article, so maybe someone helped. I have often noticed a pattern here that people get blamed for things they didn't do, there should be a way to check with certainity.-- Caligvla 19:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I was often accused of using socks and I never have once in my time here, there were only a couple of times where I forgot to log in, but I wasn't trying to hide anything... So when I see another poor user getting punished for socks, it makes me wonder if anyone really checks to make sure. Anyway this is not my battle, I just feel sorry for the injustice of it all.-- Caligvla 19:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
NO PERSONAL ATTACKS PLEASE OR I WILL REPORT YOU. I don't even know what an open proxy is...-- Caligvla 19:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any personal attacks. Please stop falsely accusing users. Two admins have said you have used socks, are you calling them liars?-- Eupator 19:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Two admins suspected I was using socks after you made countless edits claiming I used socks. I have never once used a sock other than to cover my foot.-- Caligvla 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-- Tekleni 19:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Is that a peace offering? If so I accept...-- Caligvla 19:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
correct me if I am wrong but it looks like that was an older matter. it doesnt look like it was confirmed he was 203.187.235.106 -- Caligvla 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Nixer ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was falsefully accused in avoiding block using this addres:203.187.235.106. As these were not my edits I hereby insist to be unblocked and a denouncification record to be added to my block list to prevent other admins use it as precedent. Please use checkuser for proof if necessary
Decline reason:
Denied for now. You are still under the terms of the original 3RR block for now, whether this IP is linked to you or not. -- Robdurbar 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
<<unblock|I was falsefully accused in avoiding block using this addres:203.187.235.106. As these were not my edits I hereby insist to be unblocked and a denouncification record to be added to my block list to prevent other admins use it as precedent. Please use checkuser for proof if necessary>>
I have moved your userspace version back into namespace per the AfD discussion. So User:Nixer/Space trade is now a redirect to Space trade where the article is now located.-- Konst.able Talk 12:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Given the complete deadlock on this issue, and the failure of the strawpoll, I think the time has come to take the dispute-resolution process to the next level by opening a request for comment. This will open the debate up to the whole Wikipedia community, and hopefully generate, if not consensus, then at least a majority view. I will invite all users involved in this issue to contribute to the RfC, which can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. I realise that you may now be a bit bored with having to explain your views again and again on different pages, but as an advocate I think this is the only way to finally end this dispute. Walton monarchist89 09:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[ [9]] [ [10]] [ [11]] [ [12]] help out and make sure the borders are not abused.
NB This poll has now closed, it being Friday 10th November and about 10.30am where I live. The numbers are as follows:
As such, no mandate has appeared for making the requested changes to the article. As previously advertised, Caligvla and I are taking a break from this dispute for a week. After this, the case may be taken to the mediation cabal, although I hope to avoid this eventuality. Walton monarchist89 10:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Is Russian "stranno" really not related to "strange" (cf. Latin "extraneus")?
Please see my talk page, regards, Grant65 | Talk 18:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Check it out: this link. Thanks! - Husnock 17:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)