![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Hi, could you please set an e-mail (Special:Preferences), so that you could be contacted. Thanks.
As for Occupation of Latvia: considering the fact that the third opinions [1], Request(s) for comment [2] have not calmed down the Soviet POV promoters, I think Arbitration must be started. But I can join only on next week. And I do think that adding a neutrality dispute tag is considered vandalism, in case no sources are given on the talk page Constanz - Talk 11:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As you see, this is a hopeless case - I mean to argue with such users. The whole talk page is full of proof why Latvia was occupied, and proof that the side which says L. wasn't occupied ... has no sources. I'll try Arbitration. Constanz - Talk 07:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I hereby notify you, that I started the arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Occupation_of_Latvia_1940-1945. Constanz - Talk 10:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
As I wrote, I would welcome the acceptance of the case by the ArbCom although I suspect if the ArbCom will restrict the case to the user conduct the only party that may be punished will be Constanz himself for the fierce revert warring and incivility. But as for me personally, I have a very thick skin and much higher tolerance than many, so this is not my concern.
I came here merely to give you an advise in connection to your comparison of myself with the hypothetical Holocaust deniers in the Holocaust article. The Holocaust article achieved the current stage through the participation of the multitude of editors. If the denier is faced with the multitude of users convinced in the lunatism of the denier's stance, his position will be indefensible and he will have to either desist or be blocked for revert warring.
The problem with this article can be solved by attracting the outside observers. Such observer brought in by the article's RfC also suggested the same thing I was suggesting all along, to rename the article into the History... " title as the first step. [3] You flatly refused the proposal from an unbiased observer though. You should attract more people to gauge the consensus, preferably from different regions of the world. You may want to wait for more visitors generated for RfC or you may want to contact editors who have interest in historic articles directly.
That you instead rant and compare your opponents to the Holocaust deniers is counterproductive and will not help you achieve your goal. Happy edits, -- Irpen 20:59, January 27,
Hi, thanks again for your contributions. However, I recommend caution, while talking with arbitrators (about voting). The line between just a notice and canvassing may sometimes be thin - and I'm sure our opponents would take advantage of absolutely every chance they'd find! Esp. as the tide has turned, so to say. Regards, Constanz - Talk 09:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The parties identified in the decision as having acted poorly in the dispute regarding Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 are admonished to avoid such behavior in the future. That article is placed on probation, and any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, inciviilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and the right to review the situation in one year, if appropriate. The parties are strongly encouraged to enter into a mediation arrangement regarding any article-content issues that may still be outstanding. If the article is not substantially improved by continued editing, the Arbitration Committee may impose editing restrictions on users whose editing is counterproductive or disruptive. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, yes your comments is about V-Day, Soviet Union and Baltic States. But it is not direcly related to the Broze Soldier events. Beatles Fab Four 10:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You might be interested in a recently created article Soviet occupation denialism and ongoing debate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet occupation denialism. DLX 06:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Please participate in Talk:Estland#Do we want to keep the article together or make it a disambig? Alex Bakharev 00:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, although releasing the relevant information would at minimum require User:3 Löwi's consent as well. It is apparent to me that I could be wrong about this. I will ask for someone more knowledgeable about CheckUser to take a look at the issue. ·· coel acan 14:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggested the defenders of the article to start working on a reasonable artice, in this place: User:Biophys/Nashism. No one botherd to do this. I wrote several times that I do not deny the validity of the topic. However unlike many voters-keepers here, I usually put my words where my mouth is and yesterday I started from verifiable historical events at the origin of the term. Let me repeat again: I started collecting facts, not speculations of some home-brewed politologists. And in my honest opinion, other than in reference to the three mentioned political organizations, the term must be discussed only as a cute Russian neologism for a wide range of already well-known tribalism phenomena ranging from nationalism to racism, rather than a special political movement or a new kind of "ideology". `' юзырь:mikka 15:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, when you added your comments, it overwrote other people's comments. I reverted your addition to bring them back. Feel free to re-add your own comments. -- Kesh 02:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much!!! I really appreciate it. -- Jac roe 17:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Somehow Digwurren forgot to note you... You might be interested to know that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn has been filed.-- Alexia Death 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Has "Poisonous Mushroom" actually been published in multiple languages? The site seems to say that he's trying to get more translations but hasn't yet (for want of translators, I imagine), but that other works are available in multiple languages. That said, I might've just been clicking on the wrong links. It's not exactly the kind of site I want to spend too long at :) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, it seems that you are also one of the Tartu (!) sock puppets, at least in the poor minds possessed by demons of ultranationalism. See [5] and [6]. E.J. 07:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_18#Estophilia there has been pretty much green light given for recreation of the article with more content. Digwuren has put his sources on his talk. I was hoping you could take it up and do it, perhaps first in your userspace and then when shown to admins in the right place. I try to help but I need to keep my head down a bit in the light of recent events.-- Alexia Death 17:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
First off, I want to say how much fascinating stuff I have learned about Estonia in the last week or two! It has really been educational for me. I consider myself somewhat of a news junkie, and yet I haven't seen a single mention of the controversy going on in that part of the world in Western media. It's been very interesting if nothing else!
With that in mind, it looks like I may have indeed goofed on this one. I was thrown off by Digwuren's timing... he created the Estophilia article just as the AfD for Estophobia was getting really intense, and I though he was trying to make a point of some kind. It appears I was mistaken about that, and in fact based on the sources provided by yourself and Digwuren, as well as the historical context, it looks like this one may have a better chance of surviving AfD than Estophobia did. Sorry for my failure to assume good faith, and best of luck! -- Jaysweet 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The concept was an WP:POINT invention by User:Petri Krohn, to construct an aura of moral equivalence over the Soviet occupation and the deeds of the Western allies by synthesising Allied occupation of Germany and Soviet occupation. References regarding Soviet occupation fit better into their appropriate articles -- such as Soviet occupation of Baltic states -- than here. In fact, I would suggest removing the artificial structure from this article, and WP:AFDing what remains under WP:POVFORK and WP:NOR; unfortunately, if it would be presented to WP:AFD with the artificial structure intact, too many people would suspect There Might Actually Be Something To It -- especially now that Wikipedia's mirrors have upped the Google result count from two digits to over 4000. :-( Digwuren 05:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding a lead to History of Estonia! Reinis talk 12:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
While on RC patrol, I noticed that the Estland article (that you'd previously redirected per talk discussion) was reverted. Instead of engaging in an edit war with a subject I was unfamiliar with, I thought I'd drop you a note to let you know, and perhaps you could take care of it properly? Thanks! Ariel♥ Gold 12:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I would appreciate it, if you could give me your thoughts on this essay: Accusations of collaboration: 3RR hurts Wikipedia -- Alexia Death the Grey 09:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked the second user ( User:RJ CG)who repeatedly added dubious sources and POV phrasing to the Bronze Soldier article, and is a possible sockpuppet of the first; both appear to be single-purpose accounts adding the same tendentious material to the same articles in the same voice. However, the most important thing is to avoid an edit war. Please see what you can do to avoid this ( WP:NOFEEDING), such as by asking the other user to suggest controversial changes on the talk page first. ProhibitOnions (T) 09:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ArbComBot 00:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Martin you ask me a question which i have already answered it. What if you discover an intrusion attempt from let's say Colombia exactly at the time you'd have blocked someone from Colombia? And then you hear about an issue related to a certain group of editors from Colombia being accused of "TartuColombia". Obviously you'd think about the blocked user if not than someone from his group. The important is that the ArbCom verify it and see who is the owner of the IP and why that happened and what action should be taken. He can be innocent as he can be guilty. We'll see. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You might be interested to read through User talk:ProhibitOnions#Accusations of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR where, basically, Irpen harasses ProhibitOnions over blocking RJ CG. Ironically, ProhibitOnions' rationale for that is exactly the same that FayssalF's rationale for blocking RJ CG was, yet there's no evidence of a similar "discussion" between Irpen and FayssalF. Digwuren 11:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Some time ago I taged a sentence "Lithuania was the first of the Baltic States where the movement now known as the Singing Revolution appeared." in Singing Revolution article with {{when}} now I see that you have replaced this by a reference. Good, however this is not what was needed - please clerify what date exactly it was, if it is given in your source. You see the article states that in Latvia and Estonia it started in 1987, for example, first open protest in Latvia took place on 14 June, 1987, but first Lithuania-related year mentioned there is 1988 -- Xil/ talk 17:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering why...-- Alexia Death the Grey 10:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Old version was better. The dark star fit well with the COA. :) Suva Чего? 21:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Very sad but true picture. Few notes: Halibutt's message about leaving the project: [10]. A useful illustration column to add would be graphs with edits in time for all users, showing how they dropped or stopped contributing: [11].-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
This move is brilliant! And not only does it adapt the article's topic to Wikipedia; it also fixes a strategic blunder I made. Διγυρεν Εμπροσ! 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
I think you can withdraw the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soviet_Republic_of_Naissaar nomination. The problem has sorted itself out. Sander has merged anything worthy int Naissaar article and made that one a redirect. -- Alexia Death the Grey 20:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry that I haven't made you the list of articles needing cleanup, I've been incredibly busy lately (I was sick for 2 weeks in October and still did more then 130h of work) - however, see Rulers of Estonia as one. Also, discussion here and articles created by User:Mister X... -- Sander Säde 20:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
good move! Have you been reading my thoughts?:-) Anyway, I've been working on one, planning to make one with all the major strongholds, also including Latin names and notes in English etc. But now since one is up there, I can take my time with this. Just that, hope you don't mind once I'm done with much more detailed and hirez map if I replace the one you've made? Of course I'd show it "for your approval" before replacing anything. Or have you planned on making one that is more detailed by yourself? just checking to avoid double work. Thanks!-- Termer 05:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Marting, please be aware that the "salted redirect trick" (an article move artificially made irreversible by giving the resulted redirect some history) is considered disruptive and may be a reason of block. It usually also gets reverted on the spot. Finally there is no need for move if a WP:RM process is ongoing. The whole point of the WP:RM is to avoid move-warring. Please do not do it again.
BTW, I agree that Estonian vikings is a better name than Estonian pirates and voted accordingly. Alex Bakharev 00:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Martin, you may deny your trick move all you want since the diffs are available to anyone, especially to admins who can check the original complaint against the deleted versions of the page that they can see [13] [14] [15] , but you can't continue accusing me on making it up and pretending you don't understand what it is about. Now, that you have done so at the Moreschi's talk page for the I don't know which time, [16] I am forced to bring the issue to some conclusion.
I would not have pressed this any further since I am sure you've got the message and everything is absolutely clear here but it is you who just not let it go and even dare to use this incident as an example of me throwing around unsubstantiated accusations. This two-days-old issue would have been in the past but since you resurrected it today at the Moreschi's talk, [17] accusing me of "routine assumption of bad faith", let's get the picture straight once and for all.
The chronology of the events was the following:
Here is the exact versions of the Estonian pirates page that are deleted, a snap shot from Nov. 4, 18:57 (all times GMT), right after your move:
You said that you "made a bit of a mess" by "geting confused with capitalization" [18] [19] in one place, you said that "messed up in good faith" in another place. Let's just look at these three lines together and clarify, what exactly the sotry is with those two 18:57 edits. What can "capitalization confusion" can possibly do with blanking and restoring the exact same versions (including the same capitalization)?
Here is the assessment of an editor who, as an admin could see the deleted versions, and is totally uninvolved with any issues with you or me. Qoote:
Of course you can again give an evasive answer, not answer or wait for Termer or Sander Sade to show up trying to deflect the issue away. This all was done and can be done again. However, if no straight answer to the question about 18:57 edits is given by you, I hope I would at least not hear any more accusations that I made something up here.
I would like to say again that I am not at all happy to be banging on that even though you persisted with evasive statements and assertions that you did nothing wrong. But since now you resurrect this again yourself, [20] I would be happy to allow you to clarify this and move on. -- Irpen 05:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Martin, you pointedly do not answer the question which was not about your justification for the move. This is a matter of judgment and it is OK to disagree on that. This is not what I was asking for.
I ask for the umpteenth and last time, what is the story with the move being immediately followed by the redirect's being blanked and restored? -- Irpen 15:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
A barnstar for diligence and staying calm through harassment and provocations. -- Sander Säde 06:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks Sander! And thanks Alexia for you wise words too! Martintg 10:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
copied from WP:AN
Martintg, just formally do a requested move next time this happens and establish official consensus through the Wikipedia process. This move warring has to stop and as I've participated in the dispute once I'm not going to protect it from move. But if you go through proper channels, this won't happen again. Keegan talk 06:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
please take a look at this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Baltic_states_task_force -- Termer 17:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The task force is all set up and ready for sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Baltic_states_military_history_task_force#Participants -- Termer 06:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no doubt about it and I have idef blocked Trainmoney even before you posted me a message. Renata ( talk) 23:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
For tirelessly assessing articles for WikiProject Estonia, I award Martintg the Working Man's Barnstar.-- Termer ( talk) 10:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC) |
I see you have been reverting the edits as well thanks, someone or a group of people have been adding the same thing to multiple pages. Smith03 ( talk) 23:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I took the liberty to nominate Alfred Käärmann ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to WP:DYK here, I hope you don't mind. If you have a better "hook" then what I gave, don't hesitate to add additional hooks to DYK nom. Great work with the article - you should think about DYK on We Lived for Estonia as well, after expanding it a bit. -- Sander Säde 06:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
If you suggest that Vaps was not fascist organization, then I suggest to delete this redirect altogether, because neonazism is not the same as fascism and better not propagate confusion. `' Míkka >t 23:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Aksi_great ( talk) 19:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Royalbroil 04:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
For the wise comment at the ArbEnf page. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Definitely not. These pictures were only here for cosmetic purposes. Using a logo on the club's page is something, using it as an icon when you mention it is definitely unacceptable :). -- lucasbfr talk 00:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, it has been suggested that User:Roobit is also connected with this Bloomberg troll, that is, that's another sock puppet. Note however that Roobit is apparently from st. Petersurg and is living in the US; Kidsunited i.e bloomberg seems to speak Estonian well: [31]. 88.196.153.98 ( talk) 09:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
During the World War I the German State helped to create or created on the former territory of Russia next client, puppet, or satellite, but nominally independent states:
Merry Christmas!
-- Kidsunited ( talk) 00:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the attack against my user page, and Happy Holidays!-- Termer ( talk) 05:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Done, I semi-protected both of those articles.
jj137
♠
01:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
You suggest Bishonen's use of the Bishzilla ( talk · contribs) account was somehow in violation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. Could you please clarify how you came to this conclusion? Picaroon (t) 17:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"In what way inflammatory you may ask? People like us Kirill, who were brought up in comfortable USA or Australia where images of Che may be considered mere t-shirt art, need to be sensitive to the fact that many people suffered under communist rule in Eastern Europe..."
Given my background, I would hope that I am not entirely ignorant of those sensibilities, all things considered. ;-) Kirill 00:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome and thanks for joining. We are undergoing a reorganization after a substantial period of inactivity and a loss of membership followed by renewed interest and the organization of Wikipedia:WikiProject History. We have recently merged the even less active Polish History Project into Wikipedia:WikiProject European history/Polish history task force, please consider joining that as well or maybe it should be expanded out to a broader "Northern Europe" or "Baltic" history task force - just thoughts. Please discuss any ideas you have at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European history (nobody will be looking if you post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European history/Polish history task force).-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 12:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there; I suggested archiving the page, but did not do so. I am therefore in a poor position to answer your question. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I had previously removed this as the "battle" refers to the rather small action by a single Estonian battalion at a very small village, and not the entire Narva bridgehead operation.-- mrg3105 mrg3105 07:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If its just units, then it would belong in the OOB, which is in a different category. If you don;t mind listing them in talk for now with full source, and someone else who is editing this article will incorporate it in the future content, ok?-- mrg3105 mrg3105 11:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to
Estonian Air, you will be
blocked from editing.
RJ CG (
talk)
20:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Martintg, rather than wage an edit war on the battle outcome at Narva, I suggest this matter be discussed on the article's talk page. While I understand the German defense enjoyed a large amount of success, the events of July 26, 1944, were rather conclusive in terms of who controlled Narva. However, a discussion on the talk page would probably shed more light on events. Cheers-- W. B. Wilson ( talk) 20:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
+Contents (here)
Thank you-- mrg3105 mrg3105 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have made a suggestion at Patriarch Alexius II#Propose Protecting this Article that I think is workable. It changes the rules a little and should significantly reduce conflict. I would like to invite you to review the proposal and participate in the creation of a great article. It will stop edit warring by restricting work to the talk page in part because reverting another editors comments on the talk page is counter to WP:TALK. Jeepday ( talk) 04:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this and this. Oth ( talk) 10:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
As of late I have been categorizing biographies by historical state and/or province (primarily at Category:People from former German states). It seems misleading to have pre-1918 biographies categorized as "People from Latvia", for instance, since that state did not exist before that time. So, I created Category:People from Livonia and Category:People from Courland. I raised the issue of how to deal with Estonia at Wikipedia talk:Baltic States notice board#Categorization last week, since modern southern Estonia was historically part of Livonia. Unfortunately, there was no response to my proposal. I chose "Estland" since it was a historical term which has been used in English and Category:People from Estonia would too easily be confused with Category:Estonian people, IMO. Alternative suggestions would be appreciated at WP:BALTIC. Olessi ( talk) 08:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Many of the links are not suitable for an encyclopaedia such as photo websites. See the Links normally to be avoided section. including "Links to blogs and personal web pages". Those links which I deleted do not satisfy "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material". Michellecrisp ( talk) 02:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 07:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
-- Daniel Case ( talk) 19:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Victuallers ( talk) 19:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading this article. However, in the introduction, you mentioned the high death rate of the deportees, but no figures are given in the "Aftermath" section. Also, it would be interesting to know how many of the deportees were repatriated to the Baltic states in the post-Stalin era. Cheers, Caknuck ( talk) 20:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Still, I am somewhat interested how would you characterise this particular response to a concerned party. Especially compared to something like this. -- Illythr ( talk) 22:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you check your email, please? Relata refero ( talk) 13:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Really "Russification only occured in the late 19th Century" and how you call then the 50 years of communism? Russification has been here with waves - during the period Estonia has been annexed or occupied by Russia, USSR, and some areas by the Russian Federation still are. The Name Estonia in the Russian Empire should be changed - as this title shows the voluntary belonging into the empire. Karabinier ( Karabinier) 10:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Holocaust with a capital H can refer only to the German stuff, so there can be no such thing as "Soviet Holocaust". Most of the google book/scholar hits that have "Soviet Holocaust" are hits line "The book of Soviet Holocaust memorials remains to be written", "Soviet Holocaust historiography" i.e. sentences with the Holocaust as a adjective being qualified by "Soviet" (e.g. Holocaust memorials from the Soviet Union, Soviet historiography about the Holocaust), and the rest can't make up their mind about which series of killings they wish to style "Holocaust" (c/f "British Holocaust", etc). The redirect serves to purposes other than to push a a highly OR and probably in practice Russophobic POV. The only acceptable purpose such a link could ever have would be to describe how a hand-full of people have used such a term to refer to various mass-killings perpetrated by the Soviet Union, but it cannot be masqueraded as if it were a generally accepted term. Anyways, my decision was good, took into account the extreme policy violations it perpetrated, so you'll need to go to deletion review if you wish to push such a term. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 17:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we make this page simple redirect to Operation Priboi? It is the same event, after all... And I'm sick and tired of editing Estglish and illiterate repetitons out of March Deportations. RJ CG ( talk) 15:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You have been here longer than me, do these seem familiar: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Estonia#Resurrected_articles? Oth ( talk) 19:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Template:Polish Foreign Ministry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 04:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking interest in this discussion, do note my reply. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Martin. I would consider protection except that I both lack the appropriate button and think that the protection of Bronze Night has already demonstrated a poor result from this. If it keeps going I may ask for the page to be protected; but for now I wait with amused anticipation - Peripitus (Talk) 21:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you know that Digwuren case is debated again by Arbcomm [33]? Biophys ( talk) 03:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Martin, the problem is that there are afew (if not quite afew) notable examples where the units included in this category are quite controversial topics where different views are expressed, eg some were not (ostensibly) subscribers to the Nazi ideology, some through anti-bolshevism, some through nationalistic ideologies. I felt the clarification is more to the fact that the participation was not to the Nazi ideology. I agree that other categories exist (eg, Category:Foreign volunteer units of the Wehrmacht etc) and frankly I am not happy myself. But inclusion of a particular category will be seen by many as assigning or confirming a particular view, hence I felt it might be more appropriate to leave the clarification, as each individual category may stand in isolation. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 06:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
As no consensus - which you point out- has been reached, I suppose this rule go for yourself as well. Or are you above the masses? User:Maracana
Do you approve the full scale restructuring of the article - where sections are removed and added with a headlines which have a wide specter - a la overview of the sectors? I believe the current chapters and chapter section give a good or close to good overview of the country without asking question um what does this section mean etc. Also I have gained the "last warning" which I find unjustified and literally "wtf" A warning about... which must be thanks to Turkuun great lobby work he has been doing. I have been explaining my position with the following text. Yesterday I started to overview the hole article in order to find and remove such copyviolated text parts - to make them not copyviol. I managed to o some of these edits but currently I am unable to continue. I hope you bother to respond to this very unadult problem which is going on in the Estonia article. Karabinier ( talk 10:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Good job for getting the green light for those passages, thanks! JdeJ ( talk) 15:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
In case you might have missed this: there is an arbitrator activity in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FDigwuren.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
FYI:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_recusal_in_Request_to_amend_prior_case:Digwuren
Martintg ( talk) 11:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking your time to clear up the things Martintg! Ban Ray 12:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I am investigating a copyright matter listed at the copyright problems board on June 27th in connection to the article Estonia. I have requested follow-up information at the article's talk page so that I can determine if the ticket should be closed. Since you have expressed an interest in potential copyright issues at that article, I am notifying you of this request in case you are able to or wish to provide further information there. Thanks. :) Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Martintg , would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force and see if it's just me who thinks it's a strange approach naming task forces after 20 years of the Soviet collapse so like it is done over there. Perhaps it's just me who thinks it's weird? Just checking. thanks! -- Termer ( talk) 02:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Revert_Wars_on_List_X-Americans and Wikipedia:ANI#Threat-- Termer ( talk) 05:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Since Bulldog123 has dared to suggest that Martintg is an alternate account of Termer, I've initiated Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Termer-- Termer ( talk) 06:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, in case you consider the check user case compromising your privacy like suggested at the talk page, please let everybody know so that I could withdraw my request. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 18:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
My experience is that once a threat is getting long and/or has been hijacked by critical editors/tag teams/etc., the outcome will most likely be archival w/out any decision. Further discussion is just a waste of time and results in additional stress. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Martintg will be much more useful (as arbcom evidence is much more difficult to disrupt, unlike AE evidence). Perhaps AE would work better if it was structured more like regular arbcom, and less like a free-for-all noticeboard. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I saw somewhere that you were discussing about the possible comeback of mr Krohn once his block ends. Unfortunately, what we see when checking the recent edits he has been doing in the meantime in the Finnish Wikipedia, no change in the editing pattern of the poor soul is likely to occur. He has been preparing his fringe theories there and is likely to continue furthering his extremist POV once he is let to return here. just to be prepared ;-) 80.235.111.150 ( talk) 18:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
You did some work on Soviet political repression which bares a striking simularity to a version of Human rights in the Soviet Union. Are these two articles really the same topic? Bobanni ( talk) 08:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
[34].-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
If he is a signifigant figure in Estonian music, why can't I find anything about him in Estonian Google? We need something besides primary sources, and a book about him is a primary source. Finally, I am certainly *not* an administrator. If you think he's significant, please feel free to recreate the article, making very sure you include multiple sources. After all, I appear in two books and a comic strip, but I'm certainly not important enough to have an article. -- ₪ Amused Repose Converse! 21:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I've created Soviet repressions. Currently, it is just a stub, but it's an important and well-documented topic, so it should have no trouble at all.
You've been working on related topics before — perhaps you'd like to help? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 17:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
a spam link to www.anontalk.com was recently removed from your page, you might be inclined to check it out - do not, it is a trojan site that will attempt to hijack your browser. Regards -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 11:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Please indicate the source for all the statistical table in the article. Thanks, Renata ( talk) 18:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies that have been adopted are as follows;
Please see the above link to read the full case.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a request, would you mind not WP:STALKing me and my edits. Is your life that boring that you have to interfere with articles I am working on in my namespace. -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Enabled.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I must say that the lack of WP:AGF in regards to my edits is not a good thing. At the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Biophys, you will see information which has been placed by myself on edits and/or merges performed by myself, which have been undone by yourself. Read the entire lot please, and especially take note of the very last part. I will let what I have written speak for me; the rest is up to you. Cheers, -- Russavia Dialogue 03:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Just a note to point out that unregistered editors are welcome to comment at AFDs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD). It's only really RFA and suchlike where registration is required. CIreland ( talk) 06:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
As a member of
WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the
project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's
coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
04:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately the page does not fall under G10: its subject as defined by its title is this pejorative term, and hence its content cannot be "disparaging their subject". Please keep in mind that there are plenty of articles in wikipedia about pejoratives. But I agree that the article must be nominated for deletion, since it appears (google) a nonnotable occasional protologism. - 7-bubёn >t 01:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Putinland, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinland. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Russavia Dialogue 20:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
You have reverted sourced information from the List of most common surnames information which is sourced to RIA Novosti. Apart from the fact that your stalking of my edits is really starting to piss me off, your total lack of good faith with my edits here on WP is also starting to do the same. RIA Novosti more than fulfills the requirements for a reliable source, it is widely quoted and it has a reputation of fact checking. The article in question does not state a matter of opinion, such as PersonA is a nutcase, but it is stating a statistic. If you believe that RIA Novosti is not a reliable source, then instead of removing sourced information from an article on the premise you don't think it is reliable, which is quite tendentious in nature one must admit, then take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and ask the question there. We as editors are not reliable sources, and what you or I think on a subject means absolutely nothing. And if you even bothered to read the article, one will clearly see that it quotes Eesti Ekspress, which is of course an Estonian source. I have the Estonian source right here in front of me, and it is confirmed. For example, Kisseljov is the 287th most popular surnamed with 440 people; Semenov is 17th with 1,909; Kuznetsov is 11th with 2,339, etc. It lists 500 names. Will you now admit that not only have you stalked my edits and you are not assuming good faith with my edits?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia ( talk • contribs)
Hi,
I recently developed Hannes Vanaküla, based mostly on recent months' media coverage of the man. Unfortunately, as so often happens with cult circles, a follower of his has shown up, and is making disturbing assertions on the topic of WP:BLP. Unfortunately, I'm not really familiar with BLP issues on Wikipedia.
Could you take a look, and make suggestions on making sure that any legitimate concerns that might arise are covered? I know there is no point in dealing with the irrational concerns, but this kind of people are sometimes rather active in getting admins involved.
Thanks in advance. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 15:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You were mentioned and thanked by Greg in his final remark (I just found about it today by accident). Read his post here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Anon restored it as an article. While I don't support his POV, I do think it should be an article (we already have Holocaust in Lithuania, Holocaust in Latvia, Holocaust in Russia, and so on).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by ttturbo ( talk • contribs)
The
February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi I have removed your last dit from the article as the links are already there in the info box and the body oof the article -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 19:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
19:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
You might appreciate [35]. It's got quite a number of pigs on right now. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 22:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Another wildlife camera is in the news: Foto: nugis viis kakukaamera pesast muna minema. A marten has been caught on camera stealing one of the owl's eggs. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 15:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please
vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
01:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
If a user asks you to stay away from their talk page, you should consider that an absolute request. If you experience problems with that user requiring discussion, go to WP:WQA or WP:ANI and ask uninvolved editors for help. Further cornering of editors on their own talk pages may result in sanctions, especially if the dispute involves Eastern Europe or any other area under Wikipedia:General sanctions. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 15:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding this PROD removal: [36]. That link does not establish notability. Per WP:N, " If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The link you provided ( [37]) is not an independent secondary source, so it does establish notability. The topic of Estonia-Chile relation may yet turn out to be notable, but we need better sources. Yilloslime T C 04:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
you might have seen the discussion at [38]. Apparently, this sort of thing is surprisingly common on Wikipedia -- advocates of all sorts of weird ideas like to brand people who dare to counter them as being of "that other ethnicity". This kind of dog-whistle classification of sources into "good sources of unspecified ethnicity" and "evil sources of that other ethnicity" runs counter to the spirit of WP:NPOV and, since it requires the editors to research the source's ethnicity, also WP:NOR -- but it seems Wikipedia doesn't have a policy that would explicitly prohibit it. We should have such a policy, perhaps named WP:NEEP for 'No Ethnic EPithets'.
Do you think you could draw up a proposal? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 07:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Our flying pig reported you for 3RR on JB and Safka. This is a mistake, I believe, but you may wish to revert yourself for the time being. Colchicum ( talk) 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
{{
unblock|This block appears to be punitive. I self-reverted my last edit at 15:06, 1 April 2009 and haven't edited the article in over 24 hours since.
Martintg (
talk)
21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)}}
Your first revert re-introduces and the prospective Finnish Islamic Party represented by. This seems clear enough. Why am I interested in Russavia's opin ion of this matter? William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Considering user's good standing and the promise to be careful in the future, I support lifting the block - no need to stain a good reputation (block log) in this case. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Martin has a previously clean block log and is usually careful. He obviously stopped editing the article and reverted himself once he realised there was a problem. I recommend shortening the block to "time served", as blocks should be preventative rather than punitive. - Biruitorul Talk 04:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Can't say I'm entirely happy with M's response; but unblocked anyway. Do please be more careful in the future, as you have promised William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Iran and the Holocaust are a bit different, because Iran wasn't directly involved in the Holocaust. And I'm not trying to side with the Hiberniantears. However, if necessary, God help me, I do have a copy of the Soviet Encyclopedia around here, which I can use to verify if the claims are made there, and I think they are. Also, Hiberniantears seems to be indicating that he sees some of the sources provided by Dojarca as reliable. Certainly, the link to the Kononov vs. Latvia case he just added seems a good one. ArbCom like I said is now getting a wee bit more active in resolving intractable disputes, partially because, I think, that's the only way some ever will be resolved. Certainly the Macedonia case I'm peripherally involved in now seems to be going toward a similar ending to the Ireland place names case. As an outsider in all these conversations, I don't really mind seeing that happen, but I doubt I'd think that way if I were more directly involved. John Carter ( talk) 00:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Hi, could you please set an e-mail (Special:Preferences), so that you could be contacted. Thanks.
As for Occupation of Latvia: considering the fact that the third opinions [1], Request(s) for comment [2] have not calmed down the Soviet POV promoters, I think Arbitration must be started. But I can join only on next week. And I do think that adding a neutrality dispute tag is considered vandalism, in case no sources are given on the talk page Constanz - Talk 11:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As you see, this is a hopeless case - I mean to argue with such users. The whole talk page is full of proof why Latvia was occupied, and proof that the side which says L. wasn't occupied ... has no sources. I'll try Arbitration. Constanz - Talk 07:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I hereby notify you, that I started the arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Occupation_of_Latvia_1940-1945. Constanz - Talk 10:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
As I wrote, I would welcome the acceptance of the case by the ArbCom although I suspect if the ArbCom will restrict the case to the user conduct the only party that may be punished will be Constanz himself for the fierce revert warring and incivility. But as for me personally, I have a very thick skin and much higher tolerance than many, so this is not my concern.
I came here merely to give you an advise in connection to your comparison of myself with the hypothetical Holocaust deniers in the Holocaust article. The Holocaust article achieved the current stage through the participation of the multitude of editors. If the denier is faced with the multitude of users convinced in the lunatism of the denier's stance, his position will be indefensible and he will have to either desist or be blocked for revert warring.
The problem with this article can be solved by attracting the outside observers. Such observer brought in by the article's RfC also suggested the same thing I was suggesting all along, to rename the article into the History... " title as the first step. [3] You flatly refused the proposal from an unbiased observer though. You should attract more people to gauge the consensus, preferably from different regions of the world. You may want to wait for more visitors generated for RfC or you may want to contact editors who have interest in historic articles directly.
That you instead rant and compare your opponents to the Holocaust deniers is counterproductive and will not help you achieve your goal. Happy edits, -- Irpen 20:59, January 27,
Hi, thanks again for your contributions. However, I recommend caution, while talking with arbitrators (about voting). The line between just a notice and canvassing may sometimes be thin - and I'm sure our opponents would take advantage of absolutely every chance they'd find! Esp. as the tide has turned, so to say. Regards, Constanz - Talk 09:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The parties identified in the decision as having acted poorly in the dispute regarding Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 are admonished to avoid such behavior in the future. That article is placed on probation, and any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, inciviilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and the right to review the situation in one year, if appropriate. The parties are strongly encouraged to enter into a mediation arrangement regarding any article-content issues that may still be outstanding. If the article is not substantially improved by continued editing, the Arbitration Committee may impose editing restrictions on users whose editing is counterproductive or disruptive. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, yes your comments is about V-Day, Soviet Union and Baltic States. But it is not direcly related to the Broze Soldier events. Beatles Fab Four 10:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You might be interested in a recently created article Soviet occupation denialism and ongoing debate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet occupation denialism. DLX 06:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Please participate in Talk:Estland#Do we want to keep the article together or make it a disambig? Alex Bakharev 00:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, although releasing the relevant information would at minimum require User:3 Löwi's consent as well. It is apparent to me that I could be wrong about this. I will ask for someone more knowledgeable about CheckUser to take a look at the issue. ·· coel acan 14:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggested the defenders of the article to start working on a reasonable artice, in this place: User:Biophys/Nashism. No one botherd to do this. I wrote several times that I do not deny the validity of the topic. However unlike many voters-keepers here, I usually put my words where my mouth is and yesterday I started from verifiable historical events at the origin of the term. Let me repeat again: I started collecting facts, not speculations of some home-brewed politologists. And in my honest opinion, other than in reference to the three mentioned political organizations, the term must be discussed only as a cute Russian neologism for a wide range of already well-known tribalism phenomena ranging from nationalism to racism, rather than a special political movement or a new kind of "ideology". `' юзырь:mikka 15:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, when you added your comments, it overwrote other people's comments. I reverted your addition to bring them back. Feel free to re-add your own comments. -- Kesh 02:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much!!! I really appreciate it. -- Jac roe 17:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Somehow Digwurren forgot to note you... You might be interested to know that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn has been filed.-- Alexia Death 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Has "Poisonous Mushroom" actually been published in multiple languages? The site seems to say that he's trying to get more translations but hasn't yet (for want of translators, I imagine), but that other works are available in multiple languages. That said, I might've just been clicking on the wrong links. It's not exactly the kind of site I want to spend too long at :) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, it seems that you are also one of the Tartu (!) sock puppets, at least in the poor minds possessed by demons of ultranationalism. See [5] and [6]. E.J. 07:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_18#Estophilia there has been pretty much green light given for recreation of the article with more content. Digwuren has put his sources on his talk. I was hoping you could take it up and do it, perhaps first in your userspace and then when shown to admins in the right place. I try to help but I need to keep my head down a bit in the light of recent events.-- Alexia Death 17:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
First off, I want to say how much fascinating stuff I have learned about Estonia in the last week or two! It has really been educational for me. I consider myself somewhat of a news junkie, and yet I haven't seen a single mention of the controversy going on in that part of the world in Western media. It's been very interesting if nothing else!
With that in mind, it looks like I may have indeed goofed on this one. I was thrown off by Digwuren's timing... he created the Estophilia article just as the AfD for Estophobia was getting really intense, and I though he was trying to make a point of some kind. It appears I was mistaken about that, and in fact based on the sources provided by yourself and Digwuren, as well as the historical context, it looks like this one may have a better chance of surviving AfD than Estophobia did. Sorry for my failure to assume good faith, and best of luck! -- Jaysweet 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The concept was an WP:POINT invention by User:Petri Krohn, to construct an aura of moral equivalence over the Soviet occupation and the deeds of the Western allies by synthesising Allied occupation of Germany and Soviet occupation. References regarding Soviet occupation fit better into their appropriate articles -- such as Soviet occupation of Baltic states -- than here. In fact, I would suggest removing the artificial structure from this article, and WP:AFDing what remains under WP:POVFORK and WP:NOR; unfortunately, if it would be presented to WP:AFD with the artificial structure intact, too many people would suspect There Might Actually Be Something To It -- especially now that Wikipedia's mirrors have upped the Google result count from two digits to over 4000. :-( Digwuren 05:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding a lead to History of Estonia! Reinis talk 12:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
While on RC patrol, I noticed that the Estland article (that you'd previously redirected per talk discussion) was reverted. Instead of engaging in an edit war with a subject I was unfamiliar with, I thought I'd drop you a note to let you know, and perhaps you could take care of it properly? Thanks! Ariel♥ Gold 12:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I would appreciate it, if you could give me your thoughts on this essay: Accusations of collaboration: 3RR hurts Wikipedia -- Alexia Death the Grey 09:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked the second user ( User:RJ CG)who repeatedly added dubious sources and POV phrasing to the Bronze Soldier article, and is a possible sockpuppet of the first; both appear to be single-purpose accounts adding the same tendentious material to the same articles in the same voice. However, the most important thing is to avoid an edit war. Please see what you can do to avoid this ( WP:NOFEEDING), such as by asking the other user to suggest controversial changes on the talk page first. ProhibitOnions (T) 09:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ArbComBot 00:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Martin you ask me a question which i have already answered it. What if you discover an intrusion attempt from let's say Colombia exactly at the time you'd have blocked someone from Colombia? And then you hear about an issue related to a certain group of editors from Colombia being accused of "TartuColombia". Obviously you'd think about the blocked user if not than someone from his group. The important is that the ArbCom verify it and see who is the owner of the IP and why that happened and what action should be taken. He can be innocent as he can be guilty. We'll see. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You might be interested to read through User talk:ProhibitOnions#Accusations of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR where, basically, Irpen harasses ProhibitOnions over blocking RJ CG. Ironically, ProhibitOnions' rationale for that is exactly the same that FayssalF's rationale for blocking RJ CG was, yet there's no evidence of a similar "discussion" between Irpen and FayssalF. Digwuren 11:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Some time ago I taged a sentence "Lithuania was the first of the Baltic States where the movement now known as the Singing Revolution appeared." in Singing Revolution article with {{when}} now I see that you have replaced this by a reference. Good, however this is not what was needed - please clerify what date exactly it was, if it is given in your source. You see the article states that in Latvia and Estonia it started in 1987, for example, first open protest in Latvia took place on 14 June, 1987, but first Lithuania-related year mentioned there is 1988 -- Xil/ talk 17:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering why...-- Alexia Death the Grey 10:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Old version was better. The dark star fit well with the COA. :) Suva Чего? 21:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Very sad but true picture. Few notes: Halibutt's message about leaving the project: [10]. A useful illustration column to add would be graphs with edits in time for all users, showing how they dropped or stopped contributing: [11].-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
This move is brilliant! And not only does it adapt the article's topic to Wikipedia; it also fixes a strategic blunder I made. Διγυρεν Εμπροσ! 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
I think you can withdraw the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soviet_Republic_of_Naissaar nomination. The problem has sorted itself out. Sander has merged anything worthy int Naissaar article and made that one a redirect. -- Alexia Death the Grey 20:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry that I haven't made you the list of articles needing cleanup, I've been incredibly busy lately (I was sick for 2 weeks in October and still did more then 130h of work) - however, see Rulers of Estonia as one. Also, discussion here and articles created by User:Mister X... -- Sander Säde 20:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
good move! Have you been reading my thoughts?:-) Anyway, I've been working on one, planning to make one with all the major strongholds, also including Latin names and notes in English etc. But now since one is up there, I can take my time with this. Just that, hope you don't mind once I'm done with much more detailed and hirez map if I replace the one you've made? Of course I'd show it "for your approval" before replacing anything. Or have you planned on making one that is more detailed by yourself? just checking to avoid double work. Thanks!-- Termer 05:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Marting, please be aware that the "salted redirect trick" (an article move artificially made irreversible by giving the resulted redirect some history) is considered disruptive and may be a reason of block. It usually also gets reverted on the spot. Finally there is no need for move if a WP:RM process is ongoing. The whole point of the WP:RM is to avoid move-warring. Please do not do it again.
BTW, I agree that Estonian vikings is a better name than Estonian pirates and voted accordingly. Alex Bakharev 00:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Martin, you may deny your trick move all you want since the diffs are available to anyone, especially to admins who can check the original complaint against the deleted versions of the page that they can see [13] [14] [15] , but you can't continue accusing me on making it up and pretending you don't understand what it is about. Now, that you have done so at the Moreschi's talk page for the I don't know which time, [16] I am forced to bring the issue to some conclusion.
I would not have pressed this any further since I am sure you've got the message and everything is absolutely clear here but it is you who just not let it go and even dare to use this incident as an example of me throwing around unsubstantiated accusations. This two-days-old issue would have been in the past but since you resurrected it today at the Moreschi's talk, [17] accusing me of "routine assumption of bad faith", let's get the picture straight once and for all.
The chronology of the events was the following:
Here is the exact versions of the Estonian pirates page that are deleted, a snap shot from Nov. 4, 18:57 (all times GMT), right after your move:
You said that you "made a bit of a mess" by "geting confused with capitalization" [18] [19] in one place, you said that "messed up in good faith" in another place. Let's just look at these three lines together and clarify, what exactly the sotry is with those two 18:57 edits. What can "capitalization confusion" can possibly do with blanking and restoring the exact same versions (including the same capitalization)?
Here is the assessment of an editor who, as an admin could see the deleted versions, and is totally uninvolved with any issues with you or me. Qoote:
Of course you can again give an evasive answer, not answer or wait for Termer or Sander Sade to show up trying to deflect the issue away. This all was done and can be done again. However, if no straight answer to the question about 18:57 edits is given by you, I hope I would at least not hear any more accusations that I made something up here.
I would like to say again that I am not at all happy to be banging on that even though you persisted with evasive statements and assertions that you did nothing wrong. But since now you resurrect this again yourself, [20] I would be happy to allow you to clarify this and move on. -- Irpen 05:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Martin, you pointedly do not answer the question which was not about your justification for the move. This is a matter of judgment and it is OK to disagree on that. This is not what I was asking for.
I ask for the umpteenth and last time, what is the story with the move being immediately followed by the redirect's being blanked and restored? -- Irpen 15:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
A barnstar for diligence and staying calm through harassment and provocations. -- Sander Säde 06:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks Sander! And thanks Alexia for you wise words too! Martintg 10:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
copied from WP:AN
Martintg, just formally do a requested move next time this happens and establish official consensus through the Wikipedia process. This move warring has to stop and as I've participated in the dispute once I'm not going to protect it from move. But if you go through proper channels, this won't happen again. Keegan talk 06:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
please take a look at this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Baltic_states_task_force -- Termer 17:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The task force is all set up and ready for sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Baltic_states_military_history_task_force#Participants -- Termer 06:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no doubt about it and I have idef blocked Trainmoney even before you posted me a message. Renata ( talk) 23:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
For tirelessly assessing articles for WikiProject Estonia, I award Martintg the Working Man's Barnstar.-- Termer ( talk) 10:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC) |
I see you have been reverting the edits as well thanks, someone or a group of people have been adding the same thing to multiple pages. Smith03 ( talk) 23:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I took the liberty to nominate Alfred Käärmann ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to WP:DYK here, I hope you don't mind. If you have a better "hook" then what I gave, don't hesitate to add additional hooks to DYK nom. Great work with the article - you should think about DYK on We Lived for Estonia as well, after expanding it a bit. -- Sander Säde 06:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
If you suggest that Vaps was not fascist organization, then I suggest to delete this redirect altogether, because neonazism is not the same as fascism and better not propagate confusion. `' Míkka >t 23:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Aksi_great ( talk) 19:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Royalbroil 04:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
For the wise comment at the ArbEnf page. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Definitely not. These pictures were only here for cosmetic purposes. Using a logo on the club's page is something, using it as an icon when you mention it is definitely unacceptable :). -- lucasbfr talk 00:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, it has been suggested that User:Roobit is also connected with this Bloomberg troll, that is, that's another sock puppet. Note however that Roobit is apparently from st. Petersurg and is living in the US; Kidsunited i.e bloomberg seems to speak Estonian well: [31]. 88.196.153.98 ( talk) 09:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
During the World War I the German State helped to create or created on the former territory of Russia next client, puppet, or satellite, but nominally independent states:
Merry Christmas!
-- Kidsunited ( talk) 00:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the attack against my user page, and Happy Holidays!-- Termer ( talk) 05:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Done, I semi-protected both of those articles.
jj137
♠
01:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
You suggest Bishonen's use of the Bishzilla ( talk · contribs) account was somehow in violation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. Could you please clarify how you came to this conclusion? Picaroon (t) 17:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"In what way inflammatory you may ask? People like us Kirill, who were brought up in comfortable USA or Australia where images of Che may be considered mere t-shirt art, need to be sensitive to the fact that many people suffered under communist rule in Eastern Europe..."
Given my background, I would hope that I am not entirely ignorant of those sensibilities, all things considered. ;-) Kirill 00:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome and thanks for joining. We are undergoing a reorganization after a substantial period of inactivity and a loss of membership followed by renewed interest and the organization of Wikipedia:WikiProject History. We have recently merged the even less active Polish History Project into Wikipedia:WikiProject European history/Polish history task force, please consider joining that as well or maybe it should be expanded out to a broader "Northern Europe" or "Baltic" history task force - just thoughts. Please discuss any ideas you have at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European history (nobody will be looking if you post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European history/Polish history task force).-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 12:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there; I suggested archiving the page, but did not do so. I am therefore in a poor position to answer your question. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I had previously removed this as the "battle" refers to the rather small action by a single Estonian battalion at a very small village, and not the entire Narva bridgehead operation.-- mrg3105 mrg3105 07:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If its just units, then it would belong in the OOB, which is in a different category. If you don;t mind listing them in talk for now with full source, and someone else who is editing this article will incorporate it in the future content, ok?-- mrg3105 mrg3105 11:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to
Estonian Air, you will be
blocked from editing.
RJ CG (
talk)
20:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Martintg, rather than wage an edit war on the battle outcome at Narva, I suggest this matter be discussed on the article's talk page. While I understand the German defense enjoyed a large amount of success, the events of July 26, 1944, were rather conclusive in terms of who controlled Narva. However, a discussion on the talk page would probably shed more light on events. Cheers-- W. B. Wilson ( talk) 20:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
+Contents (here)
Thank you-- mrg3105 mrg3105 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have made a suggestion at Patriarch Alexius II#Propose Protecting this Article that I think is workable. It changes the rules a little and should significantly reduce conflict. I would like to invite you to review the proposal and participate in the creation of a great article. It will stop edit warring by restricting work to the talk page in part because reverting another editors comments on the talk page is counter to WP:TALK. Jeepday ( talk) 04:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this and this. Oth ( talk) 10:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
As of late I have been categorizing biographies by historical state and/or province (primarily at Category:People from former German states). It seems misleading to have pre-1918 biographies categorized as "People from Latvia", for instance, since that state did not exist before that time. So, I created Category:People from Livonia and Category:People from Courland. I raised the issue of how to deal with Estonia at Wikipedia talk:Baltic States notice board#Categorization last week, since modern southern Estonia was historically part of Livonia. Unfortunately, there was no response to my proposal. I chose "Estland" since it was a historical term which has been used in English and Category:People from Estonia would too easily be confused with Category:Estonian people, IMO. Alternative suggestions would be appreciated at WP:BALTIC. Olessi ( talk) 08:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Many of the links are not suitable for an encyclopaedia such as photo websites. See the Links normally to be avoided section. including "Links to blogs and personal web pages". Those links which I deleted do not satisfy "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material". Michellecrisp ( talk) 02:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 07:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
-- Daniel Case ( talk) 19:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Victuallers ( talk) 19:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading this article. However, in the introduction, you mentioned the high death rate of the deportees, but no figures are given in the "Aftermath" section. Also, it would be interesting to know how many of the deportees were repatriated to the Baltic states in the post-Stalin era. Cheers, Caknuck ( talk) 20:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Still, I am somewhat interested how would you characterise this particular response to a concerned party. Especially compared to something like this. -- Illythr ( talk) 22:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you check your email, please? Relata refero ( talk) 13:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Really "Russification only occured in the late 19th Century" and how you call then the 50 years of communism? Russification has been here with waves - during the period Estonia has been annexed or occupied by Russia, USSR, and some areas by the Russian Federation still are. The Name Estonia in the Russian Empire should be changed - as this title shows the voluntary belonging into the empire. Karabinier ( Karabinier) 10:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Holocaust with a capital H can refer only to the German stuff, so there can be no such thing as "Soviet Holocaust". Most of the google book/scholar hits that have "Soviet Holocaust" are hits line "The book of Soviet Holocaust memorials remains to be written", "Soviet Holocaust historiography" i.e. sentences with the Holocaust as a adjective being qualified by "Soviet" (e.g. Holocaust memorials from the Soviet Union, Soviet historiography about the Holocaust), and the rest can't make up their mind about which series of killings they wish to style "Holocaust" (c/f "British Holocaust", etc). The redirect serves to purposes other than to push a a highly OR and probably in practice Russophobic POV. The only acceptable purpose such a link could ever have would be to describe how a hand-full of people have used such a term to refer to various mass-killings perpetrated by the Soviet Union, but it cannot be masqueraded as if it were a generally accepted term. Anyways, my decision was good, took into account the extreme policy violations it perpetrated, so you'll need to go to deletion review if you wish to push such a term. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 17:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we make this page simple redirect to Operation Priboi? It is the same event, after all... And I'm sick and tired of editing Estglish and illiterate repetitons out of March Deportations. RJ CG ( talk) 15:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You have been here longer than me, do these seem familiar: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Estonia#Resurrected_articles? Oth ( talk) 19:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Template:Polish Foreign Ministry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 04:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking interest in this discussion, do note my reply. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Martin. I would consider protection except that I both lack the appropriate button and think that the protection of Bronze Night has already demonstrated a poor result from this. If it keeps going I may ask for the page to be protected; but for now I wait with amused anticipation - Peripitus (Talk) 21:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you know that Digwuren case is debated again by Arbcomm [33]? Biophys ( talk) 03:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Martin, the problem is that there are afew (if not quite afew) notable examples where the units included in this category are quite controversial topics where different views are expressed, eg some were not (ostensibly) subscribers to the Nazi ideology, some through anti-bolshevism, some through nationalistic ideologies. I felt the clarification is more to the fact that the participation was not to the Nazi ideology. I agree that other categories exist (eg, Category:Foreign volunteer units of the Wehrmacht etc) and frankly I am not happy myself. But inclusion of a particular category will be seen by many as assigning or confirming a particular view, hence I felt it might be more appropriate to leave the clarification, as each individual category may stand in isolation. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 06:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
As no consensus - which you point out- has been reached, I suppose this rule go for yourself as well. Or are you above the masses? User:Maracana
Do you approve the full scale restructuring of the article - where sections are removed and added with a headlines which have a wide specter - a la overview of the sectors? I believe the current chapters and chapter section give a good or close to good overview of the country without asking question um what does this section mean etc. Also I have gained the "last warning" which I find unjustified and literally "wtf" A warning about... which must be thanks to Turkuun great lobby work he has been doing. I have been explaining my position with the following text. Yesterday I started to overview the hole article in order to find and remove such copyviolated text parts - to make them not copyviol. I managed to o some of these edits but currently I am unable to continue. I hope you bother to respond to this very unadult problem which is going on in the Estonia article. Karabinier ( talk 10:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Good job for getting the green light for those passages, thanks! JdeJ ( talk) 15:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
In case you might have missed this: there is an arbitrator activity in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FDigwuren.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
FYI:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_recusal_in_Request_to_amend_prior_case:Digwuren
Martintg ( talk) 11:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking your time to clear up the things Martintg! Ban Ray 12:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I am investigating a copyright matter listed at the copyright problems board on June 27th in connection to the article Estonia. I have requested follow-up information at the article's talk page so that I can determine if the ticket should be closed. Since you have expressed an interest in potential copyright issues at that article, I am notifying you of this request in case you are able to or wish to provide further information there. Thanks. :) Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Martintg , would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force and see if it's just me who thinks it's a strange approach naming task forces after 20 years of the Soviet collapse so like it is done over there. Perhaps it's just me who thinks it's weird? Just checking. thanks! -- Termer ( talk) 02:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Revert_Wars_on_List_X-Americans and Wikipedia:ANI#Threat-- Termer ( talk) 05:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Since Bulldog123 has dared to suggest that Martintg is an alternate account of Termer, I've initiated Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Termer-- Termer ( talk) 06:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, in case you consider the check user case compromising your privacy like suggested at the talk page, please let everybody know so that I could withdraw my request. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 18:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
My experience is that once a threat is getting long and/or has been hijacked by critical editors/tag teams/etc., the outcome will most likely be archival w/out any decision. Further discussion is just a waste of time and results in additional stress. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Martintg will be much more useful (as arbcom evidence is much more difficult to disrupt, unlike AE evidence). Perhaps AE would work better if it was structured more like regular arbcom, and less like a free-for-all noticeboard. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I saw somewhere that you were discussing about the possible comeback of mr Krohn once his block ends. Unfortunately, what we see when checking the recent edits he has been doing in the meantime in the Finnish Wikipedia, no change in the editing pattern of the poor soul is likely to occur. He has been preparing his fringe theories there and is likely to continue furthering his extremist POV once he is let to return here. just to be prepared ;-) 80.235.111.150 ( talk) 18:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
You did some work on Soviet political repression which bares a striking simularity to a version of Human rights in the Soviet Union. Are these two articles really the same topic? Bobanni ( talk) 08:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
[34].-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
If he is a signifigant figure in Estonian music, why can't I find anything about him in Estonian Google? We need something besides primary sources, and a book about him is a primary source. Finally, I am certainly *not* an administrator. If you think he's significant, please feel free to recreate the article, making very sure you include multiple sources. After all, I appear in two books and a comic strip, but I'm certainly not important enough to have an article. -- ₪ Amused Repose Converse! 21:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I've created Soviet repressions. Currently, it is just a stub, but it's an important and well-documented topic, so it should have no trouble at all.
You've been working on related topics before — perhaps you'd like to help? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 17:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
a spam link to www.anontalk.com was recently removed from your page, you might be inclined to check it out - do not, it is a trojan site that will attempt to hijack your browser. Regards -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 11:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Please indicate the source for all the statistical table in the article. Thanks, Renata ( talk) 18:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies that have been adopted are as follows;
Please see the above link to read the full case.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a request, would you mind not WP:STALKing me and my edits. Is your life that boring that you have to interfere with articles I am working on in my namespace. -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Enabled.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I must say that the lack of WP:AGF in regards to my edits is not a good thing. At the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Biophys, you will see information which has been placed by myself on edits and/or merges performed by myself, which have been undone by yourself. Read the entire lot please, and especially take note of the very last part. I will let what I have written speak for me; the rest is up to you. Cheers, -- Russavia Dialogue 03:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Just a note to point out that unregistered editors are welcome to comment at AFDs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD). It's only really RFA and suchlike where registration is required. CIreland ( talk) 06:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
As a member of
WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the
project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's
coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
04:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately the page does not fall under G10: its subject as defined by its title is this pejorative term, and hence its content cannot be "disparaging their subject". Please keep in mind that there are plenty of articles in wikipedia about pejoratives. But I agree that the article must be nominated for deletion, since it appears (google) a nonnotable occasional protologism. - 7-bubёn >t 01:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Putinland, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinland. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Russavia Dialogue 20:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
You have reverted sourced information from the List of most common surnames information which is sourced to RIA Novosti. Apart from the fact that your stalking of my edits is really starting to piss me off, your total lack of good faith with my edits here on WP is also starting to do the same. RIA Novosti more than fulfills the requirements for a reliable source, it is widely quoted and it has a reputation of fact checking. The article in question does not state a matter of opinion, such as PersonA is a nutcase, but it is stating a statistic. If you believe that RIA Novosti is not a reliable source, then instead of removing sourced information from an article on the premise you don't think it is reliable, which is quite tendentious in nature one must admit, then take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and ask the question there. We as editors are not reliable sources, and what you or I think on a subject means absolutely nothing. And if you even bothered to read the article, one will clearly see that it quotes Eesti Ekspress, which is of course an Estonian source. I have the Estonian source right here in front of me, and it is confirmed. For example, Kisseljov is the 287th most popular surnamed with 440 people; Semenov is 17th with 1,909; Kuznetsov is 11th with 2,339, etc. It lists 500 names. Will you now admit that not only have you stalked my edits and you are not assuming good faith with my edits?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia ( talk • contribs)
Hi,
I recently developed Hannes Vanaküla, based mostly on recent months' media coverage of the man. Unfortunately, as so often happens with cult circles, a follower of his has shown up, and is making disturbing assertions on the topic of WP:BLP. Unfortunately, I'm not really familiar with BLP issues on Wikipedia.
Could you take a look, and make suggestions on making sure that any legitimate concerns that might arise are covered? I know there is no point in dealing with the irrational concerns, but this kind of people are sometimes rather active in getting admins involved.
Thanks in advance. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 15:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You were mentioned and thanked by Greg in his final remark (I just found about it today by accident). Read his post here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Anon restored it as an article. While I don't support his POV, I do think it should be an article (we already have Holocaust in Lithuania, Holocaust in Latvia, Holocaust in Russia, and so on).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by ttturbo ( talk • contribs)
The
February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi I have removed your last dit from the article as the links are already there in the info box and the body oof the article -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 19:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
19:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
You might appreciate [35]. It's got quite a number of pigs on right now. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 22:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Another wildlife camera is in the news: Foto: nugis viis kakukaamera pesast muna minema. A marten has been caught on camera stealing one of the owl's eggs. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 15:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please
vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
01:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
If a user asks you to stay away from their talk page, you should consider that an absolute request. If you experience problems with that user requiring discussion, go to WP:WQA or WP:ANI and ask uninvolved editors for help. Further cornering of editors on their own talk pages may result in sanctions, especially if the dispute involves Eastern Europe or any other area under Wikipedia:General sanctions. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 15:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding this PROD removal: [36]. That link does not establish notability. Per WP:N, " If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The link you provided ( [37]) is not an independent secondary source, so it does establish notability. The topic of Estonia-Chile relation may yet turn out to be notable, but we need better sources. Yilloslime T C 04:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
you might have seen the discussion at [38]. Apparently, this sort of thing is surprisingly common on Wikipedia -- advocates of all sorts of weird ideas like to brand people who dare to counter them as being of "that other ethnicity". This kind of dog-whistle classification of sources into "good sources of unspecified ethnicity" and "evil sources of that other ethnicity" runs counter to the spirit of WP:NPOV and, since it requires the editors to research the source's ethnicity, also WP:NOR -- but it seems Wikipedia doesn't have a policy that would explicitly prohibit it. We should have such a policy, perhaps named WP:NEEP for 'No Ethnic EPithets'.
Do you think you could draw up a proposal? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 07:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Our flying pig reported you for 3RR on JB and Safka. This is a mistake, I believe, but you may wish to revert yourself for the time being. Colchicum ( talk) 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
{{
unblock|This block appears to be punitive. I self-reverted my last edit at 15:06, 1 April 2009 and haven't edited the article in over 24 hours since.
Martintg (
talk)
21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)}}
Your first revert re-introduces and the prospective Finnish Islamic Party represented by. This seems clear enough. Why am I interested in Russavia's opin ion of this matter? William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Considering user's good standing and the promise to be careful in the future, I support lifting the block - no need to stain a good reputation (block log) in this case. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Martin has a previously clean block log and is usually careful. He obviously stopped editing the article and reverted himself once he realised there was a problem. I recommend shortening the block to "time served", as blocks should be preventative rather than punitive. - Biruitorul Talk 04:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Can't say I'm entirely happy with M's response; but unblocked anyway. Do please be more careful in the future, as you have promised William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Iran and the Holocaust are a bit different, because Iran wasn't directly involved in the Holocaust. And I'm not trying to side with the Hiberniantears. However, if necessary, God help me, I do have a copy of the Soviet Encyclopedia around here, which I can use to verify if the claims are made there, and I think they are. Also, Hiberniantears seems to be indicating that he sees some of the sources provided by Dojarca as reliable. Certainly, the link to the Kononov vs. Latvia case he just added seems a good one. ArbCom like I said is now getting a wee bit more active in resolving intractable disputes, partially because, I think, that's the only way some ever will be resolved. Certainly the Macedonia case I'm peripherally involved in now seems to be going toward a similar ending to the Ireland place names case. As an outsider in all these conversations, I don't really mind seeing that happen, but I doubt I'd think that way if I were more directly involved. John Carter ( talk) 00:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)