User talk:Digwuren/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Digwuren, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Regarding reversions[1] made on May 1 2007 to Bronze Soldier of Tallinn

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Alex Bakharev 14:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no more reverts. I counted six straight reverts in the last few hours, one after my warning Alex Bakharev 15:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More than a day has passed since. During the time, I have explained the reversal in questions on the discussion page, and received no comments. I believe I'm now justified in reflecting the documented consensus on the main page. Digwuren 17:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting my articles! (by Redstar1987)

Instead of fueling lies, you should have watched the movie and see what it shows. I have watched it and it can clearly be seen that the police car is breaking through demonstrants in a relatively high speed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redstar1987 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Anonymous edits from 194.182.142.5

Form your edits it seem likely that you are the same person who contributed from IP 194.182.142.5. Can you please confirm or deny?

Yes, I made them. The address belongs to some sort of public ISP operating out of the Copenhagen International Airport, and I was anonymous because my laptop didn't have my Wikipedia account's password, and I didn't have a way to retrieve it from my desktop.

I would have added the confirmation under the statement to that effect on the discussion page, but my statement has already been archived. Digwuren 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, what is Challenge 24? -- Petri Krohn 10:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2], of course. Digwuren 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bronze Soldier of Tallinn

I reverted your edit including a YouTube link, per WP:LINKS. If you believe this wasn't right, please contact me on my talk page. Jmlk17 06:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a perfectly good explanation to me. As I said in my entry on your talk page, if you were unsure of my reversal, but now I know I was in error. Thank you for the explanation, and happy editing! Jmlk17 06:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Denialism"

That's my first delete vote in a long time. There's an important line between an article where the author's POV is evident, but could still be cleaned up within the framework of the existing article, and an article so thoroughly POV, and about such a sensitive subject, that it actually frightens me to think that people may read it and be influenced by it. Some buildings are in bad shape, but you can fix them up with a little work; others are in ruins and if a person tried to fix them up they could be killed by a structural collapse. Sometimes you have to bring in a bulldozer and start over from scratch. Wikipedia should cover the viewpoints of people who hold positive and negative views about the Soviet role. What it absolutely should not do is present it in some form that compares one side to Holocaust denial (which is appallingly ironic, considering the circumstances). An article that approached the topic from the right perspective would be fine, but that particular article will never be anything more than a propaganda piece. Everyking 11:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. Here are the reverts in question. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Digwuren (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reverts listed in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Digwuren reported by User:Petri Krohn (Result: 48 hours) revert vandalism of the abuse of tags type, as defined on Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism. Specifically, they revert Petri Krohn's repeated additions of the {{totallydisputed}} tag into the article Jüri Uluots without any mention of what the dispute would be on the talk page. (See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Petri Krohn reported by User:DLX (Result: Blocked 24h) for a list of the reversals.) As explained in WP:3RR#Exceptions, such obvious vandalism is not covered by the three-revert rule.

       * Furthermore, the stalking accusation is baseless. It should be pointed out that Petri Krohn has in the past already attempted such an accusation without being able to back it up; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive236#User:Digwuren.

Decline reason:

Abuse of tags vandalism refers to "Bad-faith placing of {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}", etc. as is clearly stated in the policy you cited above. Whether an article should be tagged {{totallydisputed}} is a content dispute, one that in this case you edit warred over. -— Selket ^Talk 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The block has been shortened 24 hours now, since there is no conclusive evidence that you were wiki-stalking. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you my sockpuppet?

Good morning - as I just found out, you are "likely" my sockpuppet - see [3] and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLX. I am willing to have my IP history to be shown there, as I have nothing to hide - would be nice, if you'd to the same. I presume your ISP is Elion as well? DLX 05:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beef!

:) I know, i dont remember the link but ill place it tommorrow or in the morning.

---

I don't know Illythr personally, but have known him on WP for the last several months. I guess (which is simply my impression from different discussions, I have not been told) that someone older in his family was an officer in the Red Army, and came to Moldova when transfered to civilian life (suppositions) He protested when I once introduced edits about the "guests", but was absolutely fine with them when I explained the cathegory in more detail. He also seemed to me very interested in the Continuation War (Finland; 1941-44), esp. in one part of it - who won and who lost. I don't know about some party membership, but I'd doubt it. I might be mistaken, who knows. I tend to believe that his reasons for opposing the article are personal.

[the above is not meant to be secret from him, and it's stuff anyone interacting with him knows/believes, I just feel it is inapropriate in the deletion discussion page]

I don't remember that song's melogy, but I think it's notable. And since we are at it, I'd suggest also "Uvezu tebia ia v tundru". There is an old edit that is at the core of Illythr's "obsetions" with "personal attacks". I have an mp3 of this one.:Dc76 23:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of Soviet crimes

As I predicted, it depended on whim of the closing admin. Someone more historically knowledgeable (and perhaps less prejudiced - see his edit history) would have probably renamed the article (note that closing admin had issues with the name of the article, while unable to show how the article was POV - so far none of the deniers have managed that). In any case, I have article (as of 08:13, 23 May 2007) in my user space - User:DLX/Denial of Soviet crimes. I propose we invite others, who were active in editing, there it as well - such as Staberinde, Vecrumba, Marting and others who are capable of staying NPOV - and re-write the article to fit current name. Every claim referenced - preferably double-referenced, no neologisms, no disputable claims... rock solid article. And when we are satisfied with the article, then we can move it to mainspace - I am quite sure it will be slapped with speedy delete, AfD, POV and TotallyDisputed within hours, but hopefully this time closing admin will actually be able to see the arguments from both sides... or lack of them from one side, as it was now. DLX 15:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of your copy. I still hope to get the latest version undeleted into my userspace, as I (hopefully) have applied on Wikipedia:Deletion review, though.

As an aside, Suva has expressed readiness to help, but he is strangely passive recently.

My theory on the WP:POVFORK issue that got raised is pretty much what I outlined earlier: Soviet crimes can be discussed in separate articles, but their orchestrated denial is best treated in a single narrative. I believe this issue needs to be worked upon, and a fully developed solution be offered for future.

I have been relatively busy off-Wikipedia for the last few days, and I believe there are no major contributions by me that are missing from your copy from Wednesday. I think the only two changes I have made since were a copy of the Holodomor issues from the relevant page, as a preparation for working upon it, and addition of Putin's own quote, as reported in [4]. I do not know about other possible contributions, though. Digwuren 15:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now remember Alexia Death fixed a problem regarding the MRP earlier today.

Furthermore, I took a look at the arguments and the policy, and I suspect getting the deletion reversed may actually be viable. Another question is whether we want to -- for example, with a new article, Irpen's threat regarding move won't apply because there won't be a move per se. Digwuren 16:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_{edit conflict}I'd like to keep conversations in one place - so I moved your reply back here, I hope you don't mind.

Deletion review is a good idea, but I am unsure it will help. You didn't apply for a full deletion review, though, just temporary restore?

In any case, we must get non-Estonian/non-Baltic editors to the article as well - so that our favorite Estonian-hater couldn't come up with his silly conspiracy theories again (have you seen this? It is funny, how he never has any sources but calls ours "dubious", "biased" and so on. He likes fancy words). DLX 16:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so. I'm not entirely sure for the procedure, but my understanding is that temporary undeletes to userspace are done through "deletion review". Digwuren 17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it. Somebody with that many delusions and borderline paranoia (remember this? Well, I've gotten two further stalking accusations from him, both just as misguided and baseless.) will complain *anyway*.

Instead, I'd just make sure formal warnings and, when appropriate, reports get issued as appropriate, for in a few weesk, the Wikipedia bureaucrats will likely be glad if they're nicely official and documented. (Have you seen [5] yet?)

Another interesting issue is that of the category of 'Soviet crimes' which I created earlier today, in response to somebody's suggestion of creating such an article. Of course, there's [6] already. I think I'll vote keep on it for now, but then create 'Crimes of Soviet regime' to replace it and address the somewhat valid criterion ambiguity issues.

Finally, should we bother about the Russian edition of Bronze Soldier? I checked it today, and it contained a number of inaccuracies, from a reference to the Law of Forbidden Structures as it would be valid, up to what I suspect is a reference to the statue having been unwelded at ankles (but I might be a victim of mistranslation on that one). Digwuren 17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Russian is rather rusty - and I doubt we could actually change anything before we get called "Estonian fascists" and banned. Go ahead if you think could make a difference... but consider that we get "best and brightest" to English WP - and they still include BFF and M.V.E.i.

As for Petri - yes, I have seen those. He has some personal petty hatred against Estonia, but I doubt we can do anything about it, just counter his (occasionally childish) claims with citing good sources. DLX 17:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am sorry if I intrude in a discussion that is not of my business. I just want to tell that unsuspecting you'd get it restored to user sandbox, I also asked Moreschi to restore it to mine. I would like to participate in the editing of the new version, as well, if possible. I propose to work it here: User:DLX/Denial of Soviet crimes, also because it has a good title, and to keep the one in my sandbox unchanged for reference, so anyone can compare the new and old versions. I agree with DLX about "rock solid article".

I realized after the deletion that I bear some share of guilt for not stopping re-replying, and thus inflating the talk. In that volume it was hard to discern the solid arguments from the non-sense talk, it gave the impression "controversy", "editors get personal and accuse each other". It would be nice if when the new article would be proposed for deletion (it will be), "keep" and "delete" be listed in separate sections. Maybe we can ask everyone to keep the comments on topic, and never to reply to anyone under the other side's section, but if there is an issue that merits a sentense of two, add it under your own initial comment.

To avoid accusations of vagueness in the future, is it possible to decide an approximate table of content from the begining? (That if I'm welcome to editing.) Anyway, thank you for saving it, and have a nice day.:Dc76 22:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to move my restored copy over to DLX's userspace, where currently the old copy is. Currently, there are multiple copies around, and this is bound to cause confusion.

I think it's useful to keep the history of the previous article, too, but not paramount.

My original intent was that the "list of typical claims by deniers" would be a rough TOC. I'm not sure how to implement it, yet.

Your suggestion for keeping the votes separate has some merit, but it is not feasible without heavy policing on the page, as the deniers *will* raise long threads about "You nazi!". I'm not sure what the policy on such policing is, but I would propose declaring in the beginning of the DfA an intent to separate the votes located in wrong section, and that any unrelated discussion will be moved over to the initiator's talk page. It might even be a good idea to propose this to become the general policy, if it works out. Digwuren 08:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, we should keep working in one single place, while having somewhere a copy/history of the previous article. Unless told otherwise, I'll assume User:DLX/Denial of Soviet crimes is the working page, and that you (Digwuren) keep somewhere a history of the previous article for reference (occasionally someone might want to consult it to see what specific issues atract more controversy).

"List of typical claims of the deniers" is a good starting point for the TOC, but can be slightly improved, IMO. Look how this is done at Holocaust denial. Also, a good think to check is Denial of the Armenian Genocide, Srebrenica genocide#Alternative view, and I am sure there are more.

For example 1) to not respond at all under deniers' votes; 2) if x responds under my vote, I'd nicely move his/her respons under x's own vote with "(response/reaction to Dc76 arguments)" added in italic; 3) if I feel impossible to resist replying to x, add add under my own vote "(response/reaction to x's arguments)". If a group of 5-6 users use consistently such a policy, it would most certainly become "contageous" for that AfD. A slightly easier version of such a general policy exists when people vote for admins (RfA), so we are not inventing the wheel here. I'd support the idea to propose this to become a general policy if a group of users involved in the particular discussion prefer it.:Dc76 18:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think article should stay in Digwuren's user space for editing. Not only did he start the article, he was also most active in developing and defending it. DLX 07:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm fine with any place, as long as we'll all work on a single article rather than each doing a fork. I have a slight preference for this particular *instance*, because this has the history, but I wouldn't mind moving it where the consensus suggests. Digwuren 19:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I'll join you here: User:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet crimes. I will also keep the copy restored to my userspace by the user who deleted the article -- in case if someone tries to say we have no right to keep coppies of deleted articles in userspace and nomnate the usespace for deletion (I've been witness to one such case, and although it sounds totally crazy, it happens).:Dc76 18:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backupping userspace into another userspace won't work. If this craziness would happen, there's nothing to restrain the censworshippers from also deleting your copy.

We should be taking offline copies every now and then. Digwuren 19:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working in Digwuren's page is absolutely fine with me, I simply got confused by so many others. And that one indeed is the best by all standards. (I'll want to read around for a few days before contributing, though, in order to make myself an idea of what I can do; also I'm a little busy off-WP) Taking offline coppies is obviously a good idea. (I'll also do it from time to time.) But I'll keep the one restored in my userspace for a completely different reason - it has the signature of the person who deleted the article, so noone can accuse us of working (editting) stuff "decided to be deleted". You are absolutely right, WP is not a friendly environment, but rather than throughing away a stick that comes to my hand, I'd prefer simply putting it in the bag. :-) User talk:Moreschi also has evdence that we are not trying to push a POV, since he himself says there we are welcome to continue working on the material and come up with a better article. Anyway, thanks for saving the page and for starting the article.:Dc76 19:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the kind of confusion to be avoided. :)

The official place for continued work on this article shall be User:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet crimes.

Better, hopefully.

Take all the time you need. We were in a kind of hurry during the AfD, to get the article into a persistable condition within the five days allotted for discussion. This rush is now over, and everybody can pay more attention to quality and less to getting-this-thing-out-of-door-soon.

I believe that the primary reason User:Moreschi closed the discussion the way he did was that he believed the content of the article did not fit the topic, and he may have felt the definition of topic was poorly sourced. The content issues were an artefact of my hesitating in renaming the article during the AfD, but User:Moreschi has now confirmed it should not have been an issue, and I checked the appropriate policy, too. The poor sourcing of the intro shouldn't really have been an issue, but as it was, it, too, was an artefact to constrain the article into a scope that wasn't appropriate. Both of these issues can be remedied.

What can't be remedied is that no matter how good this article will be, a number of editors *will* decry it. This needs to be considered; special care should be taken to avoid any appearance of POVishness. When we're at the place where every reasonable reader of the article will consider it obviously neutral, this alone will discredit the die-hard "You nazi!" screamers.

Oh, and one more thing. As it turned out, the AfD got canvassed on the Russian Wikipedia noticeboard, with a direct call towards voting for deletion. In interests of avoiding any reasonable-sounding claims of coverup, or stealth, in reintroducing this article, I suspect that when we do, we should deliberately announce this reintroduction on the same forum. It is unlikely that it will influence the AfD unless we really screw up, but it'll hopefully give the article a better and more open footing. Digwuren 21:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. :Dc76 17:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet occupation denialism article

Userfied here: User:Digwuren/Soviet occupation denialism Herostratus 23:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a rather good idea to not waste the good work and to use much of the text and references from this (previous) standalone article in other articles about the 1940 Soviet invasion of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and about the subsequent 1940-1991 Soviet occupation of these three nations. Cheers, --3 Löwi 17:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page you also asked for has been userfied at User:Digwuren/Talk:Soviet occupation denialism. Let me know when you're done with it. AKRadecki 05:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnocracy

Minor footnote: To "hold citizenship" certainly sounds better, however, to "possess citizenship" is not completely incorrect either. For a "legal precedent" (well, in fact, just the quickest Google result I came across) see, e.g., http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/02D0352P.pdf Compliments, --Klamber 21:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. Digwuren 06:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Duplicate RfDs

No problem. You're welcome. -- JLaTondre 18:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you...

... get my email? Renata 22:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. I considered putting the whole thing onto a temporary page, but it might constitute copyvio, so I decided against it. I hope to be able to summarise the articles into raw article material soon.

Thank you for the effort. Digwuren 22:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I just ran a quick search on Factiva. Precisely because of copyvio factor I emailed you those articles instead of putting them somewhere on WP. BTW, there was a big fuss around May 5, 2005 (60th anniversary of the Victory Day) and commemoration ceremonies in Russia (destroying Nazis vs. glorifying Stalin). You might want to look deeper into that. Renata 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annexation

Why did you revert edits to the Annexation page without addressing the issues on the article's talk page --Philip Baird Shearer 09:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was obvious: I was readding a large block of well-sourced text deleted for dubious reasons. But since I appear to have been wrong about the obviousness, I have now added a brief note to the talk page. Digwuren 10:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Please participate in Talk:Estland#Do we want to keep the article together or make it a disambig? Alex Bakharev 01:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jüri Uluots

You wrote on my talk page:

June 2007

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jüri Uluots. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Digwuren 07:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have motivated my edits at the talk page Talk:Jüri_Uluots where the discussion should take place. Please respond there Otto 08:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me, but as of 8:24 UTC, the discussion does not appear to be there yet. I guess I'll wait a bit longer. Digwuren 08:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spectra-Morphic

It's not patent nonsense, though given the external links I removed I suspect it is an attempt at some hidden linkspam. Regardless this isn't a speedy, please PROD or AFD (and given the creator's penchant for tag removal I'd suggest AFD).--Isotope23 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Konstantin Päts; Johannes Käbin; Saare County; Estonian Football Association; Estonian National Council; Kunda; Forest Guerrillas (Finland); Sillamäe; Lääne County; Suur-Pakri; Livonian Confederation; Satellite state; Estonian Independence Party; Forest Brothers; Lääne-Viru County; Stimson Doctrine; Võru County; Jõgeva County; Swedish Estonia

Cleanup: Otto Strandman; Reichskommissariat Ostland; Reichskommissariat Kaukasus
Merge: Baltic Republics; Crime in Estonia; History of Latvia
Add Sources: Jüri Uluots; Vana Tallinn; Jaan Tõnisson
Wikify: University of Barcelona; Rafael Leónidas Trujillo; Helmut Baierl
Expand: Post-Soviet states; Menelik I; Transition economy

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stop!

stop vandalising the article about the Soviet occupation of bessarabia. the fact that you don't agree with what has happened 60 years ago doesn't give you the right to delete referenced informationAnonimu 16:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian

If you don't mind me asking, do you know of any good web-based resources for learning Estonian (or, at a pinch, any good coursebooks for it)? My girlfriend is Estonian, and I'm trying to surprise her by learning her language, rather than just sprinkling our conversations with badly-pronounced words in it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hours for edit warring, if not an outright 3rr violation, on Monument of Lihula. Obviously you weren't warned, but I take the fact that you've been blocked before as evidence that you were aware of the rule generally, and that you gave warnings here as evidence that you were aware of the revert-war occuring. Since this is the second block, it is for 48 hours instead of the customary 24. Please work constructively with other editors on talk pages. Otherwise you may find the article protected or yourself blocked for a third time.--Chaser - T 16:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Digwuren, it is true (as you imply in your unblock request) that you only reverted three times in 24 hours (this was yesterday) but the rule is also quite clear that it doesn't serve as an entitlement to revert up to three times per day. Rather, it is a flexible guide against edit-warring, and the numbers can vary based upon the circumstances.--Chaser - T 17:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point, and the basis of the unblock request, is that it is unreasonable to construe my actions as an edit war. Digwuren 17:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we've clarified things. Good enough for me.--Chaser - T 17:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, it seems that conversely sometimes even 4th revert by a well-known edit warrior does not earn a block, see [7]. But, Digwuren, even commenting on this particular block I can only remind you what I once told. It is simply a pity to see people like you trapped by an unabashed polemicist. Unfortunately there is no way out unless we start using Wikipedia tools like this or this when there is a need. E.J. 05:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.The evidence section of mr. Krohn's disruptive behaviour accelerates every day. Here we have (for umpteenth) time vicious accusations of Holocaust denial. Doesn't it really in Chaser's opinion merit a block? I strongly urge all admins who happen to glance at this page to consider unblocking Digwuren, because it is obvious, what the real root of problem is.E.J. 06:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Digwuren and the 206.186.8.130 for edit warring on Monument of Lihula when I noticed a report on the 3rr noticeboard. There was no notice there of any edit-warring by Petri Krohn. If you want a sysop to look into that, you are welcome to make a report to WP:AN/3RR.--Chaser - T 07:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you blocked 206.186.8.130 for only 24hr for breaching 3RR, yet block Digwuren for 48hr, even though he did not breach 3RR. Why the difference? Did Petri Krohn's attack on Digwuren with accusations of Holocaust denial on the 3rr noticeboard lead you to give Digwuren a harsher block? Martintg 07:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations" Block log showing first block for 3rr.--Chaser - T 13:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself admit that no WP:3RR violation happened. How then can there have been a *repeated* WP:3RR violation? Digwuren 14:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said. I differentiated between the traditional, "more than three reverts in 24 hours" and disruptive edit-warring, which is also prohibited by 3RR.--Chaser - T 14:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't such differentiation automatically preclude the qualifier 'repeated'? Digwuren 14:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Read the second-to-last full paragraph of the lead (first full section). The rule permits a lot of discretion, more than most people are aware.--Chaser - T 14:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When "a lot of discretion" is being used, the user -- in this case, you -- should explain the discretion fully. Using administrator discretion in a non-explainable manner would constitute abuse of administrative powers. Digwuren 15:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) I don't think that I used a lot of discretion. I do think a lot of discretion is permitted by the rule. If you're looking for more explanation of why I thought this was disruptive editing when there were less than four reverts, here it is: you and 206.186.8.130 were engaged in a clear edit war during which you used tools to revert and called edits vandalism, which they weren't. There had been prior communication on the talk page, but during the edit war there was none. The only effort came in the form of post-war warnings posted to the IPs talk page, and a comment from the IP on the article talk page. To be fair, I'm not sure you would have seen those comments before I blocked you; I just point it out as the only other effort at communication. In any case, instead of making the fourth revert in 24 hours, reported the IP for 3rr and unhelpfully warned him/her afterwards. When someone is already aware of the rule, I think it's very unhelpful to lead an unknowing editor over the cliff of a 3rr violation and then report them and warn them at basically the same time. It strongly appears to be an attempt to get one editor in the edit war blocked for 3RR and avoid the same block. That's gaming the system.

I accept that you may disagree with my interpretation of the 3rr policy. Other than saying what I've already said, I can only tell you that it is not merely the letter, but also the spirit of the rule that matters. And it's not just me saying it: "a user who acts against the spirit of our written policies may be reprimanded, even if technically no rule has been violated." --Chaser - T 15:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, you're still misconstruing my actions. As I already explained, I considered the spurious Nazi reference additions part of the ordinary background vandalism this article (and other related articles) get from time and time. I was quite surprised myself when I realised that on this day, the reversal density had made quite a jump, and I was not aware of 206.186.8.130 having violated 3RR before I took a review of his reversals in order to prepare the administrator's noticeboard report. Originally, the report was intended for AN/I; I went for 3RR instead when I noticed the criteria were satisfied, this being a less fuzzy and thus, clearer to explain violation than a nebulous 'incident'. Similarly, I issued the warning for future reference only when I knew there was basis for it; this particular user does not appear to have made high-volume reversions before, thus, there just wasn't a need -- nor basis -- for it before.

There was no need for further discussion. The non-factuality of the rumours that the bronze bas-relief got symbols removed from it had already been well established on the discussion page. Despite that, the anonymous user mentioned above kept adding the non-factual assertions into the article, without bothering to even try to refute the discussion of non-factuality.

Your assigning to me malicious intent that never was there is a clear-cut violation of WP:AGF. Your attempt to declare a non-3RR violation "a repeated violation of 3RR" defies elementary logic. Your attempts to defend your actions on the basis of the policy allows sanctions (which is incorrect, considering the facts) rather than explaining why the policy requires sanctions is indication of an authoritarian mindset, on par with Cardassian justice system, leading to breach of fundamental justice. I'm considering a request that another administrator review your handling of the situation. Digwuren 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I'm sorry that no one has at least evaluated your unblock request. I've been frequently handling requests in Category:Requests for unblock in the last few days, as have other sysops. I don't know why no one has responded yet.--Chaser - T 13:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the unblock request:

I have not violated 3RR. In fact, I played this by the book: I requested administrator assistance as soon as I noticed an unusually high volume of reverts going on in the article. (This article has seen cases of sparse spurious Nazi reference additions before; see [8], [9], [10] for a few examples.) The spuriousness of these particular references is:

obvious to anybody familiar with the subject matter, or having read or seen Estonian press during the time of the controversy;
obvious to anybody even passingly familiar with bronze-casting technology;
discussed on the article's talk page, along with references.

(Actually, I would consider this kind of Nazi-pushing vandalism, comparable to claiming that Charlie Chaplin was a racist because his moustache and cane were similar to those of Adolf Hitler -- a claim obviously ridiculous to anybody even passingly familiar with the facts. Unfortunately, finding a source actually saying that Hitler didn't walk with a cane is rather nontrivial. However, having seen from earlier discussion with administrators on the topic that whether this counts as vandalism, and thus not subject to WP:3RR, is at best debatable, I stayed within limits of 3RR, so this is only tangentially relevant in this block review context.)

Furthermore, the important matter of displaying community consensus on this matter by having the wrong claims removed by multiple distinct users has been satisfied; see [11] and [12] by DLX earlier and [13] by Dc76 later (includes a more thorough rewrite, but removes the false claims in question). The article's history older than a few months provides other examples, which I have not included mainly because the fashion of spurious Nazi references has changed over the months, and thus, old weird ideas are probably not relevant to this unblock request.

Your email: reply

Thank you for your email, but I decided not to reply to it using the same medium - we have been accused of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry so many times, that I wanted to have all our communication to be in English - and in English Wikipedia.

I do share some of your viewpoints about those things - however, I don't think they are promoting Nazism. They are just filled with petty hatred against Estonia and Estonians. In many cases it is actually getting funny - mostly I must thank Petri for providing the entertainment - "thank" in a highly sarcastic way, of course. I do wonder why he hates Estonia so much, as to claim ridiculous things or provide sources so hopelessly flawed and yet claim they are correct - while himself discarding non-Estonian peer-reviewed scientific magazine as a "highly biased" source.

However, as for your behaviour, I think you should curb yourself a bit. It is not end of the world when Wikipedia has false information on the page for a few hours - or even few days. Try to avoid edit wars, in case of controversial edits, try to discuss on the talk page. If the opponent doesn't reply within reasonable time - well, his tough luck. If the does, then you can point out flaws in his reasoning and try to discuss with them - or take the matter to WP:ANI. In any case, you have tried to resolve the conflict without edit warring. Don't allow yourself to be provoked, that seems to be the tactic of great many such editors.

Now, to a different matter. Perhaps you would like to beta test a small script I wrote, for quick-tagging articles related to Estonia. The script will add additional toolbar tab to article and article talk pages, clicking on it will tag the article with Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia tag - on talk page only, of course. It will not add second tag if it already exists on talk page, both old and new format are recognized. Just add importScript('User:DLX/tagwpe.js'); to your monobook.js - I see that you are using Twinkle, I used its functions quite a lot, so having TW is a requirement. I will write an in-depth description/guide tomorrow or in a few days. Of course, if you have suggestions or bug reports, all those are welcome.

DLX 18:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can believe such hatred from Petri Krohn, but from 206.186.8.130, everything I have seen recently is Nazi-specific. He consistently tries to portray Nazis as big and powerful, not marginalised or even mainstream, and recently Simon Wiesenthal Center, whose antagonism to everything smelling even slightly Nazi is well known, as deliberately lying. The essence of his position is probably well captured in the "nice undertones" remark. Digwuren 21:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petri Krohn dispute

Krohn left me a message about the message you left him. I'm not getting involved in your dispute other than to clarify that his comment at the 3RR noticeboard had nothing to do with the block above.--Chaser - T 23:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia

Because there is no Siberian language. The ru-sib project is a toy of 2-3 noisy self-promoting aficionados who are barely visible in Siberia, with little respect to core wikipedia values of verifiability, citing sources and NPOV. `'юзырь:mikka 15:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, on the basis of some comments in the discussion you linked – you take for example someone's disapproval of “your grievences about the 1940 deflowering of your virgin nation” – we can conclude that the same threat is out here as well. E.J. 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, in english wikipedia there are numerous people of various nations and various cultural background, who don't let racism and other bigotry go beyond article talk pages. Over there no one really oversees what they write in articles and then link here. `'юзырь:mikka 17:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this a textbook example of xenophobia? "Those others, keeping separate from The Most Righteous Mob of Ours, might be plotting something!"? Digwuren 18:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to pick a fight with me asuming that I have somehow with Russian nationalism, you are very wrong in your assumptions. Don't twist my words. I don't say they are "plotting something". A am not paranoic. "They" are abusing wikipedia and I clearly explained why: they don't respect wikipedia basic rules. When they start providing references for theis texts, then they become reliable links, to be added to English wikipedia. `'юзырь:mikka 18:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Estonia and Ru-sib: in their pseudolanguage the Finns are called Chuhna"/"chuhontsy" (Чухонцы). Please ask your Estonian or Finnish colleagues how they feel like being called "Chuhono-Vugry" ethnic family. `'юзырь:mikka 18:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know its meaning in the regular Russian language. If you suppose otherwise, you're underestimating my linguistic skills. However, words alone do not make intent to insult, and it's rather uncharacteristic among both Finnish and Estonians to react even to an insult by suggesting something as drastic as closing down a Wikipedia section.

You might be interested to know that in the recent Bronze Soldier controversy, when the nashists called for renaming the Ivangorod-Sankt Peterburg highway into Liberator's Highway (not to mention calls for economic boycott, immediate military invasion and worse), the counterproposals were limited to renaming the Tallinn-Ivangorod part of the highway into Occupant's Highway, and renaming Russia into Tiblastan, or even Glorious West-Asian Khanate of Genghis I -- and even all these were in jest. Nobody proposed, say, bombing Moscow over such an insult. Nobody has seriously proposed a raid to Voronezh, where Russian Federation keeps a number of treasures robbed from Estonia during the occupation. Nobody has proposed any sort of revenge for the Russians calling Lake Peipus 'Чудшкое озеро', even though 'chud' is considered rather rude a word.

Why am I making these illustrations? I must have a hidden meaning. It turns out this hidden meaning is a red thread throughout a few whole months of the happenings here in Wikipedia. The hidden meaning is: your implication that the Fennougric people would treat insults the same way as the Slavic people is mistaken, and your sincere belief into the Slavic approach displays that even emigrated, you have retained the Slavic collectivist value system. Which is one of the core aspects of the ideology of nashism -- an article you nominated for deletion. Importantly, this aspect happens to be one that sets nashism apart from many other chauvinist ideologies, as well as the well-known European forms of fascism; even Nazi antisemitism was based on a considerably different set of psychological urges.

In closing, one day, activists might come and want to have a Võro or Seto section of Wikipedia. I do not consider neither a full language separate from the Estonian language, but neither that, nor my knowledge that these sections will have different content from English and Estonian Wikipedias -- perhaps even content that might be considered objectionable by some standards -- will lead me to demand closure of such a section.

In epiloguing, despite all this admonition, I'm not planning to participate in this vote. More than anything discussed above, I consider it a matter to be settled between speakers of the Russian dialects in question, not a question of Universal Right and Wrong. Digwuren 19:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking unto yourself too much judgement over me. The sooner you stop judging fellow wikipedians hidden motives the better your life will be. I know for a fact that "Chukhna" is an ethnic slur in Russian and Estonians know this very well and react insulted, regardless your theories about calm Finns. Also please be very advised that here in America the "collectivis" value system is even stronger than in former Soviet Union, only it is called "team spirit". If you are not "team player", your ass will be kicked, unless you own your own team. And don't teaach me about Uiversal Right or Wrong. Whne judging ru-sib I was specifically addressing right or wrong within context of wikipedia community. As for nashism I repeatedly wrote that I don't have any disagreement about it. The problem was totally wrong article, including your draft, where you started with wrong introduction. Now, if you want to work on the "nashism" article, I have no problem in pooling efforts. I see no ideological disagreements, I only insist on writing a bullet-proof article, because this is aa neologism, not well-established knowledge. This effor will be much more useful for wikipedia rather than teaching each other how to live. `'юзырь:mikka 21:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, you appear to have misunderstood pretty much everything I said. It's probably not fruitful to continue this discussion.

As for the nashism article; my interests in psychosociology are probably too distant from it for me to be a very useful contributor. My only involvement with it was attempting to save it from unnecessary deletion. Digwuren 21:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soovitus

Lihtsalt üks väike soovitus. Meie kõigi ühisel suurel sõbral on küll äärmiselt huvitavad arvamused, ning kahtlemata oleks ta kõrgetasemeline alternatiivajaloolane, kui selline asi oleks tasustatav. Kuid siiski ma arvan et see leheke tema vaadetest on ebavajalik ja isegi natuke kahjulik. Kasu sellest ei tule mittemingisugust kuid teatavat kahju võib küll tulla. Seega soovitaks sul sellest siiski lahti saada. Ma olen ka korduvalt kaalunud tema enda tõendusmaterjali lehe vastu midagi ette võtta, kuid loobusin kuna siis koguks ta seda lihtsalt mujale kust ma seda ei näe. Siinses entsüklopeedias on üks paremaid edu saladusi olla sama emotsionaalne kui jääkuubik, kuna igasugu möödalaskmisi võidakse siin veel aastaid hiljem välja kaevata. Ning nii mõnigi kord on targem kiire sekkumise asemel veidi oodata, ülereageerimise näiteks on üks teine siine kasutaja kes oma teisi rahvusi kirjeldava värvika sõnavara tõttu ei taasühine selle projektiga enne augustit ning sedagi tänu vedamisele kuna peaaegu oleks tähtajatult kinga saanud. Et siis selline väike soovitus, tuleneb isiklikest kogemustest siinsete ühe kurikuulsa grusiini ülistajatega ;) --Staberinde 21:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minu jaoks on selle kirjutise primaarne tulu selles, et ta võimaldab saada ülevaate tolle tegelase ideedest, mis on kummalisel kombel kaunis konsistentsed -- kuigi kõveral kujul. Minu taotlus on igal juhul noid ideid kaardistada neutraalsel viisil -- umbes nii, nagu tavalises väitlusraundis vastuväiteid kaardistatakse. Pealegi kuuluvad veidrad ideed -- sealhulgas alternatiivajaloolised -- minu huvialade hulka :-)

See, et see asi humoorikas välja kukub, on sekundaarne, aga võib kena boonusena toetajatele teoreetiliselt kaasa aidata sellele, et ma noid ideid üksi koguma ei pea. Vähemalt nii ma lootsin. (Tõtt-öelda kaalusin ma alguses paluda, et kõnealune ise asjale pilgu peale viskaks ja parendusi ette paneks. See, et see ei toimi, sai mulle selgeks alles pärast aasta alguses aset leidnud lõunanaabri-saagaga tutvumist.)

Praegu ei ole ma veel veendunud, et selle kirjutise avalikuna hoidmine kahjulik oleks. Samas ei ole ma Su isiklike kogemustega tuttav; niisugune tutvus võib minu silmaringi mõjutada. Soovid Sa täpsemaid vihjeid anda? Mulle kirjutamine ei ole raske; ma kasutan g-tähega otsimootori asjakohast teenust. Muide, huvitavamad kirjutised -- nood, mis toda kuulsat kuju puudutavad -- on siiani veel fikseerimata. Ainest oleks küll ja küll... Digwuren 21:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selle kirjutisega on see jama, et seda saab võtta kui isiklikku rünnakut, muidugi mitte kõik inimesed, kuid kindlasti on isikuid kellele selle otstarve jääb arusaamatuks. Ning sinu ja meie ühise suure sõbra senised kokkupuuted annavad pigem alust vääritimõistmisteks. Muidugi eks sa ise tead, lihtsalt usun et tegu on tarbetu riskiga. Meie suur sõber võib kunagi üritada kogu sellest "tõendusmaterjalist" mis ta kogunud on midagi ehitada, pole mõttet talle lisaainest anda. Mis puutub meie alternatiivajaloolase vaadetesse siis need tunduvad paraku olevat suht identsed meie suure idanaabri vaadetega. Lihtsalt meie alternatiivajaloolane on läinud kaugemale ning laiendanud seda nägemust kogu meie ajaloole, sellal kui idanaaber keskendub peaasjalikult lähiajaloole. Parimaks näiteks on tema arvamus ärkamisajast mille ta suutis mingil müstilisel viisil ühendada mingite territoriaalnõudmistega. Ja millisest lõunanaabri saagast on jutt? Viskaks äkki ise ka pilgu peale.--Staberinde 22:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sind huvitavad [14] ja [15]. Nimetamata nimetatu oli viimase juures algusest peale aktiivselt tegev ja praktiseeris juba siis kummalisi ideid.

Koristamise teemat kavatsen ma kaaluda. Digwuren 04:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tänud, ei olnud eriti üllatav lugemismaterjal. Igatahes kogu seda soovitust rahulikumalt võtta ajendas mulje et sa kipud aeg ajalt, põhiliselt meie ühise suure sõbraga tegeledes, liiga hoogu sattuma ning mõnikord veidi liiga kiirelt reageerima. Mõnikord on muidugi õige koheselt sekkuda ning teha revert, kuid väga sageli on kasulikum asja rahulikult võtta, üldjuhul editwarid mõjuvad sinu mainele negatiivselt, isegi siis kui sul tegelikult õigus on.--Staberinde 20:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mindreading

In writing wikipedia articles people have to discuss actual article text. If you start read minds about political affiliations of editors and base your cooperation on this mindreading, this is the best road to mutual misunderstanding and political warfare, and not to cooperation in writing better articles. Especially if this mindreading is used for political accusations rather than improvement of articles by clarifying what other person wanted to write. If you like political games, suit yourself. I usually try to discuss article content, unless behavior of editors leads to disruption of wikipedia. `'юзырь:mikka 01:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latvia's ORURK

Digwuren, I noticed you asking about a Latvian equivalent to Estonia's ORURK -- that would be SAB TSDC, the Centre for Documenting the Consequences of Totalitarianism. Most of their materials are in Latvian only, located here -- you can find materials in English here, however, though the list includes materials of varying quality. --Pēteris Cedriņš 06:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reference. I'll take a look. Digwuren 06:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monument of Lihula

You are welcome. I contributed out of share curriosity for the subject. :Dc76 16:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anonimu

For your information.:Dc76 18:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TROLL

I did see your WP:TROLLing on my talk page. I did have a peek at the dif, and saw something like a request to respond. No, I did not read the message, and I am not going to feed the trolls by responding. As for the content, I see that you have been introduced to the shortcuts to several Wikipedia guidelines. That is progress. -- Petri Krohn 17:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFC on Petri Krohn: dispute resolution

Posting a flame on Petri Krohn's talkpage, accusing him of inserting weird fantasies, of being a WP:TROLL, etc etc, emphatically does not equate to attempted dispute resolution—it's obviously more likely to escalate than to resolve the dispute. I must ask you to get some serious attempts at dispute resolution, by at least two people, going before 15:00, 21 June, or the page will be de-listed and deleted. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for what can be called a serious attempt. Note especially this passage:
"talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it."
Digwuren, I would strongly advise you to get a neutral intermediary to mediate the conflict, as the situation between you and PK seems to be too inflamed for you to speak to him, even in the name of "dispute resolution," other than in attacks and accusations. (The diffs by Suva and Alexia Death, which consist of referring PK to your post, with some added aggressive remarks, are even weaker as "dispute resolution".) You can apply at WP:MEDCAB, or ask any experienced, truly neutral, user to help out.
Meanwhile, I have moved the RFC from "approved" to "candidate" pages. It certainly is not approved. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digwuren, should be simple enough to get that evidence by getting diffs from Krohn's talk page of all times that you and other's placed warnings of edit warring, etc. Martintg 05:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digwuren

You need to read this article.--Ilya1166 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your tears

Please, don't share your feelings on other user's behavior with me on my talk page, like you did here- it's not a place for resolutions of your personal problems. Cmapm 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop putting back the misplaced comment, please

Please stop restoring Erik Jesse's misplaced comment on the Petri Krohn RFC. EJ is ignoring the rules, and ignoring the fact that an admin (me) removed his comment the first time, and messing up the RFC. He should move the comment himself, if he thinks it worth the trouble—it's rather slight—or create an Outside section of his own. I told him this in my original edit summary and have now again told him on his page. Or you move it, if you like. Avoid telling other people they have to. Surely that RFC isn't a good time for you to demonstrate belligerence? Bishonen | talk 10:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I understand that this is not the proper place for that, but I reject outright removal of it. I considered moving it myself, like Alexia Death did with a comment of Otto ter Haar, but that would require characterising the original context, and I fear I wouldn't be seen as neutral -- no matter what way I did it. Thus, I request that you replace the comment on the talk pae along with an appropriate explanation of context. Digwuren 10:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Gerwazy appears to already have heeded my request. Digwuren 10:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian SSR

Could you please change references to Valge Raamat in this article to references to its English translation? Colchicum 13:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, maybe you can look at this as well.:Dc76 13:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award for best contributors of WP-Estonia

Could you please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Estonia#WP-EE_awards_for_best_contributors... an let me know what you think.--Alexia Death 09:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina

If you have some time, please help preserve info in this article, and protect it from vandalism. :Dc76 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive fact checking

You are welcome to reply to my concern here. (Igny 15:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for updating...

.. the Adolf (drama) page with the correct type of stub. I've been changing so many recently that I'm bound to have made a couple of errors. :) --Midx1004 20:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) --Midx1004 21:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tammsaare

Why the spelling change to Vargamäe? For the novel title in English, I would think this incorrect, because references in English almost universally refer to the W, for the know reasons (traditional/original spelling, German edn.). Clossius 06:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia seems to be pretty much only place that uses Wargamäe, see [16], which is a spelling used only in German. Vargamäe seems to be universal in English, even Google Scholar has it: [17] - so that was a good catch by Digwuren. Sander Säde 07:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of confusion regarding the usage of v/w in late 19th/early 20th century printed Estonian. Generally, Estonian does not make use of 'w'. However, centuries of German control over Estonia subjected the Estonian typographic conventions to the extent that in most material printed before about 1930, the Estonian 'v' is printed as 'w', which in German sounds much more like Estonian 'v' than German 'v' sounds. It is generally accepted that this is a typographic curiosity, not a spelling one, and modern reprintings routinely substitute 'v'. However, this curiosity is widely known among Estonians, and thus exploited for artistic reasons, to convey an idea of oldness; for example, the Estonian translation of the fi:Herra Huu series extensively use 'w' instead of 'v', combined with archaic wording, in the names of and quotations from the main character's grandfather's spell books. Thus, using 'w' instead of 'v' without such an intention could be misleading, not to mention that it could hamper googleability. Digwuren 09:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"centuries of German control over Estonia subjected the Estonian typographic conventions" - okay, that's the Polish place name approach, there's no chance of scholarly discourse then. Keep it as you want. Clossius

RFC on Petri Krohn

Yesterday on AN/I, in a thread that has by now been archived into Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive269#User:Ghirlandajo pushing his political POV in inappropriate places, I requested that you check the deleted article of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn, and assess the level of evidence offered. Have you gotten a chance to do so, and if so, could you share your opinion?

I'm actually interested in a broader spectrum of possible problems with this RFC. Some recent events indicate that it may need to be repeated, and I would like to do it better the next time, should there be a next time. Digwuren 20:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Digwuren. Thanks for reminding me. Yes, i've just finished looking at it. I also had a look at some of the articles' histories to check some edit summaries and diffs in some cases. What is my opinion? Well, if that RfC could have had a chance of survival you could have found yourselves being blocked w/ Petri and some other few from both sides. You could have been the subject of a similar RfC. So what? Do you think that blocking him and leaving you or vice versa would help? It is really one of the most tedious content disputes we got here. Worse than that is that POV pushing went too far. In wiki world incivility and al are just the natural outcome and a consequence of unlimited POV pushing. Can you prove to me that you have never been incivil or that you never pushed hard your POV? So both of you would expect and accept incivility as an ugly reward.

What i can do now is protect some of the main articles you are warring at and ask for a mediation. If that won't help and this behaviour continues i'd really not be hesitant to stop it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]