Your contributions to Rein Lang so far have been anything but constructive. You should refrain from disruptive editing in the future, lest the Mighty Hammer of Wikipedian Justice fall upon you with all its political gravity. Digwuren 21:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ uw-delete3}} Digwuren 21:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ agf3}} Also, do not accuse other editors of vandalism. Lysy's reworked whole article as you can see from history, he did not just remove material. And, vandalism accusations are considered personal attacks. Sander Säde 19:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
RJ CG, I do not appreciate the unfriendly message that you've left on my talk page as much as I do not appreciate your POV pushing. I'm putting Cyberattacks on Estonia 2007 back on my watchlist now to make sure that your POV pushing edits do not pass unnoticed. -- Lysy talk 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I apologize for calling your edits POV pushing. -- Lysy talk 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
All's good that ends good. Peace. -- Lysy talk 20:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ 3RR}} Sander Säde 14:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ uw-vandalism4}} Digwuren 16:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ uw-vandalism3}} Find a valid source - or even any source. Otherwise your claim does not belong to Wikipedia. Sander Säde 15:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ uw-biog4}} Digwuren 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
-- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
RJ CG ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I would like to see justification of the block, that is, if you don't count lies by members of Korps! Estonia as justification. Most of warnings of Korps!' members are not just in bad faith, they are plain lies.
Decline reason:
With a quick glance, I see you've reverted a HUGE number of reverts at that article, easily hitting or passing WP:3RR at least twice in the past week. Please take a moment to think of this as a wake-up call -- edit warring is very much frowned upon, we would much prefer that you build a consensus by the use of talk pages. Feel free to make use of Wikipedia's robust dispute resolution process; troublesome editors can be dealt with via the admin noticeboards and arbitration committee, if needed. – Luna Santin ( talk) 17:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
RJ CG 16:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think FayssalF means tendentious editing (aka WP:TE), not tedious editing. Digwuren 17:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh, aren't most of those cited things rationales from the deletion guideline and not from the blocking policy? I mean, blocking for 3RR is fine and all, but OR? NPOV? Those are reasons for deleting an article, not blocking a user. Weird.
Utgard Loki 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello FayssalF. Could you please comment on this? Thank you in advance, RJ CG 16:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Please provide an e-mail address or contact me by e-mail. I need to talk in private about the character assassination you are the target of. -- Petri Krohn 00:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Please read the article. The guideline says that the one who made a bold edit which got reverted starts the discussion explaining why he thinks his edit is better. The discussion is kept when a new consensus is achieved. Your edit was definitely bold one. Suva 13:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that this talk page has been used by some of this user's content opponents abusively. I made a first clean up and I intend to keep it on my watchlist from now on.
The most blatant violation was posting by Digwuren on the top of this page. Anything that contradicts the spirit of {{ Pinfo}} will be removed and posters will be reported.
It has also come to my attention that some used this page to post warning templates abusively. WP:DTTR sums it up nicely why this is a bad practice. When I see these templates posted again with the sole intention to harass the user, this templates will be removed on sight. For now, I removed various warning images. I intend to remove messages later, unless the owner of this page objects.
However fiercely one may disagree with the content of this editor's edits, vandalism and test templates are not the right way of settling content conflicts as they clearly do not apply. Such templates are nothing but harassment and those who abuse them will be reported.
Finally, I would like to state that I have never interacted with this user and I have no intention to "protect" him from being punished for any wrongdoing he might have done or will do. I see the block above given during the last Digwuren/Petri mess being sorted out and I thoroughly endorse all three blocks. Please do not waste time spreading the content bias accusations. I do not care for the content of this user's edit but he is obviously being harassed. This matter will be raised at the workshop of Digwuren's case, once the page is created.
Your cooperation is appreciated, -- Irpen 19:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me giving you one. I notice that you never received the proper welcome at this project. Instead of the guidance template, you were welcomed by Digwuren's trollish entry. It is kind of late for {{ Ruswelcome}} to be placed at your talk but judging from your Babel message, you might want to check some links at its bottom.
Generally, it is a good idea to alternate editing of controversial topics with something less contentious. Maybe you can create a new article or expand some? The Russia Portal, particularly its "Things you can do" window, and the Portal:Russia/New article announcements may be worthy to check out for some articles or suggestions were work is needed. Regards, -- Irpen 23:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed the warning signs earlier and said I will remove the rest of that crap too. Doing it now. Yes, Petri, don't use templates communicating with established editors. Even with the most disruptive ones like Digwurem. Take a look at WP:DTTR. -- Irpen 17:50, 17 August 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 09:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
ProhibitOnions (T) 09:38, 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 00:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
RJ, I strongly urge you to heed to my earlier advise and devote a meaningful fraction of your editing time to less controversial articles. -- Irpen 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have added my comment here [5]-- Ilya1166 05:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello RJ CG, a topic recently posted on ANI included links to some rather incivil edit summaries. Comments like the "fragile state of your brain" more than borderlines WP:NPA. Please express your criticisms of editor's actions in a more civil manner seeing as this a collaborative project and not a place to put down your fellow editor. Thank you. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating the three-revert rule on Rein Lang. Your block will expire in 96 hours. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Deskana (apples) 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC) |
Just letting you know I am now using the account Miyokan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya1166 ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
News of that sort are not a matter of copyright protection so you don't really have to weasel things up to avoid any violations. :) Suva 18:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
RJ CG ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
1.Edit warring takes two to war. Is punishment against one side impartial?
2. I did not resort to reverts of content added by other users (something that continuosly used by the side I "edit-war" with, according to blocking admin)
3. All reverts of relevant and sourced content I added were with an explanation "vandalism" (accusation that nomally need to be supported) or simply "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". I challenged the editor who reverted me to provide an explanation, and he just fled from editing the "Rein Lang" article (although he contributed to other articles in the same time).
4. Even Baltic editors see content I added to the Bronze Soldier as relevant.
RJ CG 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are clearly continuing to edit war. A revert is any action that in whole or in part undoes the actions of another editor. If you add information and it is removed by another editor and then you readd it, that is a revert. — Yamla 15:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I am sorry if I assume not-so-good faith. But your constructive edits were clearly there for only one reason: To obfuscate the process of adding more hatespeech. The latest diff which I lead your attention to is a clear example of this. You added the obviously hateful "digging of war graves" and marking the edit as "Avoiding copyvio".
Do baltic editors agree with your edits? No, we are trying to be civil, waiting you to get tired of this childish editing and go away. We also don't want to editwar with you, or editmessage-chat with you to find the consensus. Suva 14:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"Blocked for having the gall to annoy Baltic editors", who are untouchable with all their poisonous political accusations. Thank you for spelling it out loud. I'll also keep in mind that massive removals with comment "identified as vandalism" is an acceptable tool. RJ CG 16:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I just heard that RJ CG eats babies. Is that true? Nah, just kidding. If you really want to get somewhere then follow the lead of other editors who don't get blocks. At the start, please edit some other articles you know about. Get yourself some respect instead of plunging into editwars after your block expires. You can then edit estonian articles to the direction of "Estonians being nazis" much easyer! :)
Or maybe... If you have more experience as good wikipedia editor, you won't actually do that anymore, but try to edit articles towards NPOV instead! And sometimes when you see something stated in some newspaper and your edit gets reverted right away, you check other sources aswell, to see if you made a mistake? Oh well, I hope you learn that dry editwarring is not going to help you. Suva 21:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I urge you to keep #wikipedia open at all times, because it's the place where your blocks have been engineered by your "friends". It is a first-rate vehicle for block shopping, which does not allow the accused to say anything in his defence, and they know and appreciate that. There are IRC clients that will notify you once your name (or some other key word) is mentioned. I am told the option is pretty useful for detecting a witch-hunt when it's going on behind the scenes. Take care, Ghirla -трёп- 13:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi again,
I must say that I am disapointed that you seem to continue considering edit warring a valid path in solving the content disputes. Disruptive editors are usually characterized by three things: sterile edit warring, completely non-apologetic stance, and grievously offensive tone of discussions. If you employ just one of these three items of the list, you are likely to be perceived no different from your opponents who employ all three. I urge you to cut down on edit warring and concern yourself with the broader scope of articles including some noncontroversial content. If your edits get revert warred stop first and state your objections at talk. Mother Russia won't collapse because a couple of Wikipedia articles will stay in the version you fiercely disagree with for some time until the compromise is achieved.
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution offers several paths to resolving content disputes and none include edit warring. The ArbCom case on the host of related issues is ongoing at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. You may be interested to look at the ArbCom's evidence page and its talk since your name was mentioned by both sides. But most importantly, please stop edit warring and widen the scope of the articles you edit to include some less contentious ones. Writing content is no less interesting (even more actually) than fighting for it. -- Irpen 09:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I heavily recommend you to work with some other articles for a while. The horse is dead and you probably get blocked if you try to unbalance the articles which you were blocked about. Please try editing some non controversial topics for a while. I will not report you anywhere if you do decide to ignore my advice, but I am sure that somebody will. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 14:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Haemo 19:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
RJ CG ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I made the edit and then other editors reverted it 3 times without discussion. Why is my change considered "4th revert"? RJ CG 19:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As discussed below, the rule isn't an entitlement to three or fewer reverts in a day. In the future, please take it to the talk page or ask for a third opinion. Thank you. -- chaser - t 23:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Διγυρεν Εμπροσ! 19:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
...to comment here [7] and here [8]-- Dojarca 08:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Among the principles passed was At wit's end which states that necessary measures must be adopted by the Arbitration Committee in cases where repeated attempts to stop disruptive disputes have failed. As a result of the case, both Digwuren and Petri Krohn are banned for one year. There has also been a general restriction to all editors working on topis related to Eastern Europe and a warning to all those who may, in the future, attempt to use Wikipedia as a battleground that they may be banned when the matter is reported to the Committee. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I still don't understand your wish to add tautology to the article? Finland had long been part of the Swedish kingdom when it was conquered by Imperial Russia in 1809... So, Russia captured Finland... ...and turned into an autonomous... OK, so it was autonomous, not independent... ...buffer state... nothing wrong here... ...within the Russian Empire... Hey, but only half a sentence before it was already stated that Russia captured Finland. What is this? ...to protect the Russian capital. -- Whiskey ( talk) 15:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from templating regular editors, since many people construe this as patronising and uncivil. Martintg ( talk) 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Just an hello. Disregarding this can only bring trouble your way. -- Alexia Death the Grey ( talk) 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I took the liberty of boldly changing a few things there. Enjoy (ya ne shuchu)!-- Paul Pieniezny ( talk) 20:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Do not re-change the heading titles. The period 1940-1991 is not uncertain and random. Karabinier ( talk) 20:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The submarine Lembit was not taken over by the invading Nazi troops. Lembit was incorporated into the Soviet Baltic Fleet by the Soviet Union. Therefore in the terms of Lembit we cant talk about two foreign submarine operators - because only USSR operated with Lembit submarine besides Estonia...Therefore the occupation is accurate as the submarine and the Republic of Estonia did not join USSR voluntarily. Karabinier ( talk) 18:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Is Roman Catholicism the only religion the Polish Communist Party allowed?
Or did they allow other religions to exist?
And if they tolerated religious belief, even in there own party,
then why did the Polish Communist Party supress religious belief? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamaoloan ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alexander Litvinenko. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. seicer | talk | contribs 20:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
1 month: the uses to which you put the IPs 192.30.202.21 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 209.161.215.123 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) were most certainly not ethical or in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 20:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
About "the Stalinist government in Poland respecting traditional faiths such as Roman Catholicism and allowing some people in the party to practice Roman Catholicism", if that was the case, then the Soviet Union would have allowed the Russian Orthodox Church to exist but instead they persecuted the church, so if the Soviet Union persecuted the traditional Orthodox Church then what stopped Stalinist Poland from persecuting the Roman Catholic Church, or did they persecute the church?
Thank you.
Redsensation ( talk) 09:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
3RR violation on Alexander Dyukov and two other articles, by the IP editor 206.186.8.130 ( talk · contribs), confirmed to be your sock at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RJ CG. The 3RR was reported at WP:AN3. EdJohnston ( talk) 05:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
We are currently discussing this. Perhaps you would like to join us, as you have suggested an interest before. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya ( talk) 19:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/174.89.242.109 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The article Alberta Pure Vodka has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Boleyn (
talk) 16:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Your contributions to Rein Lang so far have been anything but constructive. You should refrain from disruptive editing in the future, lest the Mighty Hammer of Wikipedian Justice fall upon you with all its political gravity. Digwuren 21:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ uw-delete3}} Digwuren 21:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ agf3}} Also, do not accuse other editors of vandalism. Lysy's reworked whole article as you can see from history, he did not just remove material. And, vandalism accusations are considered personal attacks. Sander Säde 19:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
RJ CG, I do not appreciate the unfriendly message that you've left on my talk page as much as I do not appreciate your POV pushing. I'm putting Cyberattacks on Estonia 2007 back on my watchlist now to make sure that your POV pushing edits do not pass unnoticed. -- Lysy talk 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I apologize for calling your edits POV pushing. -- Lysy talk 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
All's good that ends good. Peace. -- Lysy talk 20:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ 3RR}} Sander Säde 14:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ uw-vandalism4}} Digwuren 16:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ uw-vandalism3}} Find a valid source - or even any source. Otherwise your claim does not belong to Wikipedia. Sander Säde 15:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ uw-biog4}} Digwuren 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
-- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
RJ CG ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I would like to see justification of the block, that is, if you don't count lies by members of Korps! Estonia as justification. Most of warnings of Korps!' members are not just in bad faith, they are plain lies.
Decline reason:
With a quick glance, I see you've reverted a HUGE number of reverts at that article, easily hitting or passing WP:3RR at least twice in the past week. Please take a moment to think of this as a wake-up call -- edit warring is very much frowned upon, we would much prefer that you build a consensus by the use of talk pages. Feel free to make use of Wikipedia's robust dispute resolution process; troublesome editors can be dealt with via the admin noticeboards and arbitration committee, if needed. – Luna Santin ( talk) 17:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
RJ CG 16:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think FayssalF means tendentious editing (aka WP:TE), not tedious editing. Digwuren 17:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh, aren't most of those cited things rationales from the deletion guideline and not from the blocking policy? I mean, blocking for 3RR is fine and all, but OR? NPOV? Those are reasons for deleting an article, not blocking a user. Weird.
Utgard Loki 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello FayssalF. Could you please comment on this? Thank you in advance, RJ CG 16:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Please provide an e-mail address or contact me by e-mail. I need to talk in private about the character assassination you are the target of. -- Petri Krohn 00:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Please read the article. The guideline says that the one who made a bold edit which got reverted starts the discussion explaining why he thinks his edit is better. The discussion is kept when a new consensus is achieved. Your edit was definitely bold one. Suva 13:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that this talk page has been used by some of this user's content opponents abusively. I made a first clean up and I intend to keep it on my watchlist from now on.
The most blatant violation was posting by Digwuren on the top of this page. Anything that contradicts the spirit of {{ Pinfo}} will be removed and posters will be reported.
It has also come to my attention that some used this page to post warning templates abusively. WP:DTTR sums it up nicely why this is a bad practice. When I see these templates posted again with the sole intention to harass the user, this templates will be removed on sight. For now, I removed various warning images. I intend to remove messages later, unless the owner of this page objects.
However fiercely one may disagree with the content of this editor's edits, vandalism and test templates are not the right way of settling content conflicts as they clearly do not apply. Such templates are nothing but harassment and those who abuse them will be reported.
Finally, I would like to state that I have never interacted with this user and I have no intention to "protect" him from being punished for any wrongdoing he might have done or will do. I see the block above given during the last Digwuren/Petri mess being sorted out and I thoroughly endorse all three blocks. Please do not waste time spreading the content bias accusations. I do not care for the content of this user's edit but he is obviously being harassed. This matter will be raised at the workshop of Digwuren's case, once the page is created.
Your cooperation is appreciated, -- Irpen 19:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me giving you one. I notice that you never received the proper welcome at this project. Instead of the guidance template, you were welcomed by Digwuren's trollish entry. It is kind of late for {{ Ruswelcome}} to be placed at your talk but judging from your Babel message, you might want to check some links at its bottom.
Generally, it is a good idea to alternate editing of controversial topics with something less contentious. Maybe you can create a new article or expand some? The Russia Portal, particularly its "Things you can do" window, and the Portal:Russia/New article announcements may be worthy to check out for some articles or suggestions were work is needed. Regards, -- Irpen 23:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed the warning signs earlier and said I will remove the rest of that crap too. Doing it now. Yes, Petri, don't use templates communicating with established editors. Even with the most disruptive ones like Digwurem. Take a look at WP:DTTR. -- Irpen 17:50, 17 August 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 09:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
ProhibitOnions (T) 09:38, 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 00:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
RJ, I strongly urge you to heed to my earlier advise and devote a meaningful fraction of your editing time to less controversial articles. -- Irpen 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have added my comment here [5]-- Ilya1166 05:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello RJ CG, a topic recently posted on ANI included links to some rather incivil edit summaries. Comments like the "fragile state of your brain" more than borderlines WP:NPA. Please express your criticisms of editor's actions in a more civil manner seeing as this a collaborative project and not a place to put down your fellow editor. Thank you. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating the three-revert rule on Rein Lang. Your block will expire in 96 hours. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Deskana (apples) 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC) |
Just letting you know I am now using the account Miyokan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya1166 ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
News of that sort are not a matter of copyright protection so you don't really have to weasel things up to avoid any violations. :) Suva 18:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
RJ CG ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
1.Edit warring takes two to war. Is punishment against one side impartial?
2. I did not resort to reverts of content added by other users (something that continuosly used by the side I "edit-war" with, according to blocking admin)
3. All reverts of relevant and sourced content I added were with an explanation "vandalism" (accusation that nomally need to be supported) or simply "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". I challenged the editor who reverted me to provide an explanation, and he just fled from editing the "Rein Lang" article (although he contributed to other articles in the same time).
4. Even Baltic editors see content I added to the Bronze Soldier as relevant.
RJ CG 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are clearly continuing to edit war. A revert is any action that in whole or in part undoes the actions of another editor. If you add information and it is removed by another editor and then you readd it, that is a revert. — Yamla 15:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I am sorry if I assume not-so-good faith. But your constructive edits were clearly there for only one reason: To obfuscate the process of adding more hatespeech. The latest diff which I lead your attention to is a clear example of this. You added the obviously hateful "digging of war graves" and marking the edit as "Avoiding copyvio".
Do baltic editors agree with your edits? No, we are trying to be civil, waiting you to get tired of this childish editing and go away. We also don't want to editwar with you, or editmessage-chat with you to find the consensus. Suva 14:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"Blocked for having the gall to annoy Baltic editors", who are untouchable with all their poisonous political accusations. Thank you for spelling it out loud. I'll also keep in mind that massive removals with comment "identified as vandalism" is an acceptable tool. RJ CG 16:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I just heard that RJ CG eats babies. Is that true? Nah, just kidding. If you really want to get somewhere then follow the lead of other editors who don't get blocks. At the start, please edit some other articles you know about. Get yourself some respect instead of plunging into editwars after your block expires. You can then edit estonian articles to the direction of "Estonians being nazis" much easyer! :)
Or maybe... If you have more experience as good wikipedia editor, you won't actually do that anymore, but try to edit articles towards NPOV instead! And sometimes when you see something stated in some newspaper and your edit gets reverted right away, you check other sources aswell, to see if you made a mistake? Oh well, I hope you learn that dry editwarring is not going to help you. Suva 21:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I urge you to keep #wikipedia open at all times, because it's the place where your blocks have been engineered by your "friends". It is a first-rate vehicle for block shopping, which does not allow the accused to say anything in his defence, and they know and appreciate that. There are IRC clients that will notify you once your name (or some other key word) is mentioned. I am told the option is pretty useful for detecting a witch-hunt when it's going on behind the scenes. Take care, Ghirla -трёп- 13:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi again,
I must say that I am disapointed that you seem to continue considering edit warring a valid path in solving the content disputes. Disruptive editors are usually characterized by three things: sterile edit warring, completely non-apologetic stance, and grievously offensive tone of discussions. If you employ just one of these three items of the list, you are likely to be perceived no different from your opponents who employ all three. I urge you to cut down on edit warring and concern yourself with the broader scope of articles including some noncontroversial content. If your edits get revert warred stop first and state your objections at talk. Mother Russia won't collapse because a couple of Wikipedia articles will stay in the version you fiercely disagree with for some time until the compromise is achieved.
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution offers several paths to resolving content disputes and none include edit warring. The ArbCom case on the host of related issues is ongoing at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. You may be interested to look at the ArbCom's evidence page and its talk since your name was mentioned by both sides. But most importantly, please stop edit warring and widen the scope of the articles you edit to include some less contentious ones. Writing content is no less interesting (even more actually) than fighting for it. -- Irpen 09:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I heavily recommend you to work with some other articles for a while. The horse is dead and you probably get blocked if you try to unbalance the articles which you were blocked about. Please try editing some non controversial topics for a while. I will not report you anywhere if you do decide to ignore my advice, but I am sure that somebody will. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 14:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Haemo 19:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
RJ CG ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I made the edit and then other editors reverted it 3 times without discussion. Why is my change considered "4th revert"? RJ CG 19:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As discussed below, the rule isn't an entitlement to three or fewer reverts in a day. In the future, please take it to the talk page or ask for a third opinion. Thank you. -- chaser - t 23:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Διγυρεν Εμπροσ! 19:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
...to comment here [7] and here [8]-- Dojarca 08:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Among the principles passed was At wit's end which states that necessary measures must be adopted by the Arbitration Committee in cases where repeated attempts to stop disruptive disputes have failed. As a result of the case, both Digwuren and Petri Krohn are banned for one year. There has also been a general restriction to all editors working on topis related to Eastern Europe and a warning to all those who may, in the future, attempt to use Wikipedia as a battleground that they may be banned when the matter is reported to the Committee. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I still don't understand your wish to add tautology to the article? Finland had long been part of the Swedish kingdom when it was conquered by Imperial Russia in 1809... So, Russia captured Finland... ...and turned into an autonomous... OK, so it was autonomous, not independent... ...buffer state... nothing wrong here... ...within the Russian Empire... Hey, but only half a sentence before it was already stated that Russia captured Finland. What is this? ...to protect the Russian capital. -- Whiskey ( talk) 15:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from templating regular editors, since many people construe this as patronising and uncivil. Martintg ( talk) 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Just an hello. Disregarding this can only bring trouble your way. -- Alexia Death the Grey ( talk) 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I took the liberty of boldly changing a few things there. Enjoy (ya ne shuchu)!-- Paul Pieniezny ( talk) 20:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Do not re-change the heading titles. The period 1940-1991 is not uncertain and random. Karabinier ( talk) 20:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The submarine Lembit was not taken over by the invading Nazi troops. Lembit was incorporated into the Soviet Baltic Fleet by the Soviet Union. Therefore in the terms of Lembit we cant talk about two foreign submarine operators - because only USSR operated with Lembit submarine besides Estonia...Therefore the occupation is accurate as the submarine and the Republic of Estonia did not join USSR voluntarily. Karabinier ( talk) 18:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Is Roman Catholicism the only religion the Polish Communist Party allowed?
Or did they allow other religions to exist?
And if they tolerated religious belief, even in there own party,
then why did the Polish Communist Party supress religious belief? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamaoloan ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alexander Litvinenko. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. seicer | talk | contribs 20:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
1 month: the uses to which you put the IPs 192.30.202.21 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 209.161.215.123 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) were most certainly not ethical or in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 20:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
About "the Stalinist government in Poland respecting traditional faiths such as Roman Catholicism and allowing some people in the party to practice Roman Catholicism", if that was the case, then the Soviet Union would have allowed the Russian Orthodox Church to exist but instead they persecuted the church, so if the Soviet Union persecuted the traditional Orthodox Church then what stopped Stalinist Poland from persecuting the Roman Catholic Church, or did they persecute the church?
Thank you.
Redsensation ( talk) 09:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
3RR violation on Alexander Dyukov and two other articles, by the IP editor 206.186.8.130 ( talk · contribs), confirmed to be your sock at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RJ CG. The 3RR was reported at WP:AN3. EdJohnston ( talk) 05:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
We are currently discussing this. Perhaps you would like to join us, as you have suggested an interest before. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya ( talk) 19:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/174.89.242.109 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The article Alberta Pure Vodka has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Boleyn (
talk) 16:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)